Search results: a life in food

I often get asked why I think industry funding biases research in ways that almost always ensure that results favor the sponsor’s interests.

A reader, Professor Michael Tlusty, sent me this excellent example (my emphasis in bold).

BEEF CHECKOFF 2026 HUMAN NUTRITION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOW OPEN

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease.As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a pre-proposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project….

Comment: If you want your project funded, you need to make sure it will demonstrate beef’s role in nourishing and optimizing health.  If your project does not do this, it won’t get funded.

OK.  Here’s your chance.  Pre-proposals are due May 30 at 11:59 pm MT.  Directions: Submit a Pre-Proposal

The President’s proposed budget cuts are worth a close look.

In addition to what I’ve posted this week, I have a few comments about it.

Most of the government’s budget cannot be cut; it is mandatory.

Mandatory expenditures include defense, interest payments, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and, yes, SNAP.   These can only be cut by an act of Congress.

The cuttable discretionary programs are the ones aimed at helping everyone, but especially the poor and vulnerable (they grey parts in this chart). 

The rhetoric—anti-woke, anti-Biden, anti-science—reminds me of the McCarthy era anti-Communist rhetoric.

Anything that Biden did is bad.  Anything aimed to help minorities or women is bad.  Anything that promotes research or tries to mitigate climate change is bad.

Is the Trump Administration engaging in “soft” eugenics, as The Guardian puts it?

By avoiding discussion of education, employment, social support networks, economic status and geographic location – the social determinants that public health experts agree influence health outcomes – Kennedy, in lockstep with top wellness influencers, is practicing soft eugenics…At the heart of all these policies is soft eugenics thinking – the idea that if you take away life-saving healthcare and services from the vulnerable, then you can let nature take its course and only the strong will survive….Maha perfectly mimics Maga’s deregulatory ethos: cut social services for vulnerable populations while parroting populist language that further helps consolidate power for the most well-off.

Food for thought, as we say.

Resource

Civil Eats on the effects of Trump’s first 100 days on the food system

The Trump Administration has issued its proposed budget.

It begins with the rhetoric characteristic of this administration.

The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.

If anything, these proposals are totally contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans, so much so that it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with some selections from the USDA summary on page 31.

• Food Safety Inspection Service: a $15 million increase for meat and poultry inspection
• National Institute of Food and Agriculture: $602 million decrease (“eliminates wasteful, woke programming,”… “protects funding to youth and K-12 programs such as 4-H clubs, tribal colleges, and universities”)
• Agricultural Research Service and USDA Research Statistical Agencies: $159 million decrease.  Note the rhetoric: “…stop climate-politicized additional scopes added by the Biden Administration…”
• Farm Service Agency: $358 million decrease
• State, local, tribal, and NGO conservation programs: $303 million decrease
• Commodity Supplemental Food Program: $425 million decrease .  This program, which mostly helps seniors, is being replaced with “MAHA food boxes.”

On this last one: Oh no.  Not that again.  The boxes are a logistic nightmare , absurdly expensive, and do not help any except the largest farmers.

Note that there is nothing here about SNAP, which comes out of USDA’s budget.  SNAP is an entitlement; only Congress can cut its budget, and would have to do so through the Farm Bill.

Fortunately, these are proposals, which means there is at least a chance that Congress won’t agree to them.

The New York Times did an analysis of US government expenditures that I’m still thinking about.

The annual budget is $7 trillion.  Try and get your head around that number.

Here are the two illustrations I think deserve a close look.

The expenditures in color are fixed; they cannot be cut.  The only more easily cuttable expenses are the ones in grey.  But those are the ones that make life better for all of us.

And take a look at this one.

What this tells us is that if the entire government workforce were fired, it would only reduce federal expenditures by 4.3 percent.

This is why tax cuts for the rich make no sense and are deeply unfair.

For more on this topic

The US government’s guide to federal spending

According to the Constitution’s Preamble, the purpose of the federal government is “…to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” These goals are achieved through government spending.

Michael T Compton, MD, MPH.  Veggie Smarts: A Doctor and Farmer Grows and Savors Eight Families of Vegetables.  Regalo Press, 2025.  

This one was sent to me for a blurb.  Here’s what I said:

This endearingly quirky book describes Compton’s love affair with eight families of vegetables for their growing habits, diversity, nutritional value, flavor, texture, and deliciousness, and he offers science, experience, charm, and recipes to prove it.  His dietary advice?  Eat your veggies!

And here are a couple of excerpts, this one about his thwarted love affair with cabbage.

I figured that we could somehow eat 20 heads of cabbage between the weekends in the Hudson Valley and the work weeks in the city.  They grew beautifully….Then it happened.  It was Friday evening, we had just arrived home from the city, and before even going into the house I was off to the two gardens…They were gone.  All 20 of them, gone.  Just 20 solitary cabbage stems standing, all heads and all leaves gone.  I knew it was a groundhog, and I immediately felt tears welling up in my eyes…Building the groundhog fence took me 20 hours one weekend, as I was determined to outsmart these New York woodchucks by burying wire at least eight inches underground around the entire garden.  They never tasted my cabbage again.

And this about his spinach failure.

This is hard for me to admit publicly, but I’ve never been able to grow spinach.  I’ve tried year after year and it never works.  It’s an embarrassment.  My two green thumbs work for everything else but the spinach is always a flop….I think my failure is driven by: one, my little, diverse farm grows about 90 cultivars across the 60 or so vegetables…two, each cultivar requires its own ongoing attention; three, spinach evidently requires a little more attention than average; and four, I have only been giving it average attention  This is despite the fact that spinach is one of the several vegetables that I’m addicted to…My condition even meets some of the psychiatric diagnostic criteria for addiction, except that it doesn’t impair my life.  Cravings.  Finding that once I start using (eating) it, I end up using (eating) more of it than I had intended to.  Having a strong desire or urge to use (eat) it (even when out of season).  And having withdrawals (necessitating highly disguished grocery store visits) when it is available neither on my farm (always) nor at the farmers markets (in the heat of summer).

The publisher says:

A nerdy farmer—and doctor with expertise in nutrition—explains how the vast majority of our vegetables come from just eight families of plants, which can guide how we eat them (“eight on my plate”), while recounting his journey of trading in city life to build a thriving organic vegetable farm.

The eight veggie families:  Brassicas, Alliums, Legumes, Chenopods, Aster Greens, Umbellifers, Cucurbits, Nightshades (hint: look at the pictures on the cover).

He says: eat some of each of them every day.

He’s a doctor who also runs a farm.

Quirky indeed, but fun and full of interesting facts about these families.

PFAS (highly fluorinated “forever” chemicals) are in  the news practically every day.  PFAS Central, a project of Green Science Policy, tracks this news.

I do too to a lesser extent.  But I sure noticed this one in the New York Times: Their Fertilizer Poisons Farmland. Now, They Want Protection From Lawsuits.

The company, Synagro, sells farmers treated sludge from factories and homes to use as fertilizer. But that fertilizer, also known as biosolids, can contain harmful “forever chemicals” known as PFAS linked to serious health problems including cancer and birth defects.

Farmers are starting to find the chemicals contaminating their land, water, crops and livestock. Just this year, two common types of PFAS were declared hazardous substances by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Superfund law.

Now, Synagro is part of a major effort to lobby Congress to limit the ability of farmers and others to sue to clean up fields polluted by the sludge fertilizer, according to lobbying records and interviews with people familiar with the strategy. The chairman of one of the lobbying groups is Synagro’s chief executive.

Even as PFAS has turned up in wastewater, the government has continued to promote the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.

Also from the New York Times: What We Know (and Don’t Know) About ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Food

exposure can increase the risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers. The chemicals have also been linked to low birth weight, birth defects and developmental delays in children, as well as thyroid disease and high cholesterol.

This year, the Environmental Protection Agency said there’s no safe level of PFAS exposure for humans and imposed limits on some PFAS in drinking water.

Facts

• Nearly all Americans carry PFAS in their bloodstream.
• As many as 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS through tap water.
• Consumer Reports detects PFAS in some milk

The politics: from Civil Eats: Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Laws to Address PFAS? In Maine, Maryland, and beyond, the industry is using a well-worn playbook to slow legislators’ attempts to get forever chemicals out of food and water.

• CropLife America and RISE hire local lobbyists, some of whom also head up farmer organizations and represent local farmers in comments, hearings, and meetings with legislators.
• RISE also deploys a “grassroots network” of individuals who work in and with pesticide companies—e.g., retailers, golf courses, and landscapers—to contact their state lawmakers using tested “key” messages and encourages them to emphasize their personal experiences as citizens.
• Beyond PFAS, when state lawmakers introduce bills to restrict pesticide use in other ways, CropLife America and RISE often utilize a similar playbook to influence legislation.

As for getting rid of PFAS: Groundbreaking study shows unaffordable costs of PFAS cleanup from wastewater

A new report published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) finds that technologies and expenses needed to remove and destroy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from certain wastewater streams across Minnesota would cost between $14 and $28 billion over 20 years.

Comment: We had best get started on that now.  And stop making more PFAS products.  Also, stop exposure:

The main ways people can be exposed to PFAS include:

Things we can’t control, really:

• Drinking contaminated municipal or private well water.
• Eating fish with high levels of PFAS.
• Eating food grown or raised near places that used or made PFAS.

These we can control to some extent:

• Eating food packaged in material made with PFAS.
• Swallowing contaminated soil or dust.
• Using some consumer products, such as ski wax, nonstick cookware, and stain and water repellant sprays for fabrics.

Obviously this is a tough one demanding tough regulations and forcing polluters to pay.

Emily K. Abel.  Gluten Free for Life.  NYU Press, 2025.

I was surprised to be asked to do a blurb for this book, since I don’t have to worry much about gluten and rarely comment on clinical medicine, but after reading it I was glad to do one.  It’s a really good book.  My back cover blurb:

This important book is a rousing call for action—medical, dietary, social, and political–to protect people with celiac disease from the gluten proteins that make them sick. Emily Abel’s analysis of the barriers to avoidance, from unaware doctors to food companies’ lobbying against labeling to widespread ignorance of where gluten lurks in food, should convince us all to insist that gluten be labeled and products monitored to ensure they really are gluten free.

Celiac disease turns out to be a genetically determined autoimmune reaction to digested fragments of gluten proteins. The autoimmune reaction destroys the lining of the intestine, causing serious digestive illness and preventing nutrient absorption.  People with celiac disease display nutrient deficiences and many other symptoms beyond digestive.  These are more difficult to explain and put this disease in a category similar to that of other poorly understood multi-symptom diseases.

Wheat, rye, and barley contain gluten proteins.  Corn and oats do not, but they are easily contaminated with wheat in silos or trucks.

Symptoms of celiac disease ought to disappear when people strictly avoid foods containing sources of gluten.

But this book emphasizes that strict avoidance is practically impossible for most people with this condition.  Why? Gluten proteins seemingly are everywhere in the food supply, not least because food preparers don’t realize what they are.

Abel makes a strong case for celiac disease—and gluten—as deeply misunderstood, maligned, and neglected.

She quotes the voices of many people with this condition, in despair over how long it took them to be diagnosed, how hard it is for friends and relatives to understand what it takes for them to avoid gluten, and how often they are “glutened” in error.

As a result of reading this book, I will join calls for better labeling—-and for rigorous, scrupulous efforts to make gluten-free mean what it says.

I.  Darius Mozaffarian, a nutrition professor at Tufts University, has an editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:“The Dietary Guidelines for Americans—is the evidence bar too low or too high?”

He writes about an analysis of the systematic literature reviews SRs) that form the basis of science-based decisions in the guidelines.  His comments gives an insight into the Dietary Guidelines process worth seeing.

For the 2025–2030 DGAC, I served as a peer reviewer for the SR on UPFs…I felt that the SR’s question, design, and planned methods were appropriate, but that its implementation and conclusions were weakened by important deviations from these standards. For example, contradicting its stated eligibility criteria, the SR included numerous studies that did not appropriately or adequately define or assess UPF. Following inclusion of such heterogeneous studies, the SR concluded that the scientific evidence on UPF was limited due to many studies having serious concerns around exposure misclassification as well as evaluating dietary patterns not directly varying in amounts of UPF. This demonstrated a circular and dismaying reasoning: the SR included studies it should not have that had heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF, and then concluded that heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF limited the strength of the evidence.

He observes:

Most importantly, the DGA and SR requirements make clear that guiding Americans toward a healthier diet is an unfair fight from the start. The food industry can do almost anything it wishes to our food, combining diverse ingredients, additives, and processing methods with virtually no oversight or required evidence for long-term safety  In contrast, the DGAs and other federal agencies can only make recommendations to avoid certain foods or limit certain manufacturing methods when there is extensive, robust, and consistent evidence for harm. In this severely imbalanced playing field, industry wins again and again.

II.  Senator Bernie Sanders posted on Facebook Sanders Statement on How to Make America Healthy Again.  Among other issues, he’s taking on the food industry.

Reform the food industry. Large food corporations should not make record-breaking profits addicting children to the processed foods which make them overweight and prone to diabetes and other diseases. As a start, we must ban junk food ads targeted to kids and put strong warning labels on products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Longer term, we can rebuild rural America with family farms that are producing healthy, nutritious food.

III.  California Governor Gavin Newsom “issues executive order to crack down on ultra-processed foods and further investigate food dyes.”

The food we eat shouldn’t make us sick with disease or lead to lifelong consequences. California has been a leader for years in creating healthy and delicious school meals, and removing harmful ingredients and chemicals from food. We’re going to work with the industry, consumers and experts to crack down on ultra-processed foods, and create a healthier future for every Californian.

Comment

Mozaffarian offers these opinions despite disclosing financial ties to food companies.  Sanders is a welcome addition to the handful of legislators concerned about food issues.  Newsom is making it easier for other states to take similar steps.

Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope for coalition building among advocates for healthier food systems.  Maybe this really is a movement!

How’s that for a cheery thought for 2025.  Happy new year everyone!