by Marion Nestle

Search results: tobacco

Apr 17 2014

Is Big Food the new Tobacco?

Thanks to Maggie Hennessy at FoodNavigator-USA for her report on a meeting I wish I’d been able to attend—the Perrin Conference on “Challenges Facing the Food and Beverage Industries in Complex Consumer Litigations.”

Hennessey quotes from a speech by Steven Parrish, of the Steve Parrish Consulting Group describing parallels between tobacco and food litigation.

From the first lawsuit filed against [tobacco] industry member in 1953 to mid-1990s, the industry never lost or settled a smoking and health product liability suit. In the mid ‘90s the eggs hit the fan because the industry for all those decades had smugly thought it had a legal problem. But over time, it came to realize it had a society problem. Litigation was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

…When it came time to resolve the litigation, we couldn’t just sit in a room and say, ‘how much money do you want?…A lot had nothing to do with money. It had to do with reining the industry in…We spent so much time early on talking to ourselves about greedy trial lawyers, out-of-touch regulators, media-addicted elected officials and public health people who didn’t know how to run a business. At the end of the day, it didn’t matter. We would have been much better off recognizing these people had legitimate agendas.”

… Maybe there are some parallels, but I urge people not to succumb to the temptation to say, ‘cigarettes kill you, cigarettes are addictive. But mac and cheese, coffee, and Oscar Meyers wieners don’t. That may be true, but there are still risks for the industry.

The article also quotes Michael Reese, plaintiff’s attorney for Reese Richman LLP, talking about the increasingly accusatory tone of media coverage of Big Food: 

There’s this idea, which has picked up steam in the media, that large food companies are manipulating ingredients to hook people on food. It hasn’t been manifest in litigation yet, but we’re seeing it with legislative initiatives, like Mayor Bloomberg in New York City saying sugar hooks people and causes diabetes. We’ve seen some with GMOs, though most of that legislation is about consumers’ right to know. But there’s this overarching concept that Big Food is somehow manipulating our food supply and as a result, giving us non-food.

Sounds like the message is getting across loud and clear.

Thoughts?

Tags:
Jul 28 2010

Obesity vs. Tobacco: a zero-sum game?

Anti-tobacco advocates have been worried for years that concerns about obesity would draw funding away from anti-smoking initiatives (see previous posts).  Their fears are justified, as described in today’s New York Times and in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Years of experience have taught anti-smoking advocates that countering the marketing efforts of cigarette companies required constant vigilance.  It also taught them that cigarette companies take immediate advantage of any weakening of resistance to their efforts.

Cigarettes remain the leading cause of preventable deaths among Americans.  Cigarette marketing aimed at children remains a national—and international—public health scandal.

Health should not be a zero-sum game.  Anti-obesity advocates have much to learn from anti-smoking advocates.  How about joining forces to improve the health of Americans?

Tags: ,
Jul 1 2010

Food is not tobacco, but some analogies are worth attention

I’ve just read an enlightening paper in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health (see Note below) about the tobacco industry’s role in and funding of “We Card,” a program ostensibly aimed at discouraging smoking among young people by encouraging retail cigarette sellers to “card” underage buyers.

The paper is an analysis of internal food company discussions about this program in cigarette company documents released as part of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.  These documents are now publicly available on the University of  California San Francisco (UCSF) website.

This analysis demonstrates that the actual purpose of tobacco industry support for the program was to make the industry look good (public relations) and to convince legislators and health officials that regulation would be unnecessary.

The industry effectively recruited astonishing numbers of private business, retail, and trade groups (expected) and state health, legal, and police agencies (which should have known better) as partners in this program.  The paper lists these groups in tables that take up nearly five pages.

As the paper explains:

Economic theory predicts that industry self-regulation will achieve social benefits far smaller than those gained from government regulation, although governments increasingly view self-regulation as a means to achieve public goals without public spending. However, industries and governments may have competing agendas, suggesting that public health advocates should be wary of self-regulation strategies…. This program’s success in reaching tobacco retailers and attracting independent allies has made We Card one of the tobacco industry’s major public relations achievements. However, despite industry claims that the program is effective, internal industry evidence suggests that We Card has not reduced tobacco sales to minors and that it was not designed to do so. Instead, We Card was explicitly structured to improve the industry’s public image and to thwart regulation and law enforcement activity.

The authors’ conclusion: “Policymakers should be cautious about accepting industry self-regulation at face value, both because it redounds to the industry’s benefit and because it is ineffective.”

Proponents of food industry self-regulation and of partnerships and alliances with food companies should read this study carefully.

Note: Only the Abstract is available to non-subscribers.  The reference is Apollonio DE, Malone RE, The “We Card” Program: Tobacco Industry “Youth Smoking Prevention” as Industry Self Preservation.. Am J Public Health 2010;100:1188-1201.

Tags: ,
Mar 21 2009

Is food the new tobacco?

The Rudd Center at Yale is devoted to establishing a firm research basis for obesity interventions.  Its latest contribution is a paper in the Milbank Quarterly from its director, Kelly Brownell, and co-author Kenneth Warner, an equally distinguished anti-smoking researcher from the University of Michigan.  Its provocative title: The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died.  How similar is Big Food?

The paper is getting much attention.  A spokesman for the American Dietetic Association, a group well known for its close ties to food companies, emphasizes that food is not tobacco.  Of course it’s not.  But food companies often behave like tobacco companies, and not always in the public interest.  The Milbank paper provides plenty of documentation to back up the similarity.  Worth a look, no?

April 3 update: Evidently, FoodNavigator.com thinks so.  It is asking readers to file 100 word comments on issues raised by the paper by April 8.   And here are the comments.

Tags: , , ,
Jun 17 2026

SNAP waivers: bad for business?

Here’s what got me started on this one: SNAP waivers could lead to $830M sales loss for soda, candy, energy drinks: By the end of 2026, state-specific restrictions are expected to impact one-third of participants in the government food assistance program, Numerator found.

Redirected or reduced spending by SNAP households could lead to sales losses of $430 million for soda, $300 million for candy, and $100 million for energy drinks across the 19 states that will have waivers in place by the end of the year, according to the firm’s research.

SNAP waivers refer to rules about what SNAP recipients can buy with their electronic benefit cards.  Without waivers, they cannot buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, cannabis edibles and drinks, supplements, hot food, and non-food items.

Waivers add sugar-sweetened beverages and some junk foods to this list.

Up until this administration, the USDA turned down requests by cities (New York) and states (Maine, Nevada) for such waivers.

Now, the USDA has granted waivers to 23 states so far, and is encouraging others to request them.

 

Food retailers are the beneficiaries of SNAP EBT cards.  SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda (as do lots of other people).   In waiver states, they will have to use their own money to buy soda.

Will waivers reduce overall sales?  Retailers think so.

Will waivers reduce consumption of sugary drinks, and improve the health of SNAP recipients?

Let’s hope these states are sponsoring research to find out.

Tags: , ,
Apr 3 2026

Weekend reading: AI’s analysis of soda and alcohol marketing on social media

Vital Strategies has just released two of its Canary platform reports based on use of AI.  Here’s its webinar.

The findings:

  • During the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (June 14-July 13), Coca-Cola branding appeared in 795 social media posts, generating an estimated 6 billion impressions globally.
  • In March 2025 alone, digital alcohol marketing appeared in nearly 4,000 posts generating close to 2 billion impressions.
  •  79% of Coca-Cola-linked posts came from sports broadcasters, with branding visible in match highlights, celebrations and interviews, including those featuring child athletes such as the Powerade Ball Crew.
  • Alcohol brands amplified reach through influencers and major cultural moments like Carnival, partnering with celebrities such as Luísa Sonza and Anitta to reach tens of millions of followers via their social channels.

Why should we care?

Research shows that such marketing influences consumption. Children exposed to high volumes of digital marketing for unhealthy food and sweetened beverages may develop unhealthy habits for life. Alcohol advertising is linked to earlier initiation, binge drinking and increased consumption.

Two examples

  • In the Philippines, Red Horse Beer ads deployed cartoon imagery reminiscent of tobacco’s Joe Camel to appeal to younger audiences—despite carrying small-print “For 18 years old and above only” warnings.   Source: Red Horse Beer on Facebook
  •  San Miguel Flavored Beer—available in sweet flavors like apple and chocolate designed to mask the taste of alcohol—markets itself around music festivals through the language of friendship and self-expression, embedding the brand into youth identity and inviting attendees to make “#Sweeeet memories” with their “beshies.” Source: @sanmiguelbeerph on Instagram  

Bottom line: These reports provide further evidence for the need for marketing regulation and policies such as taxes on unhealthy products.

Tags: ,
Mar 13 2026

Weekend reading: the debate about ultra-processed foods

In a previous post, I wrote about the series of papers on ultra-processed foods published in The Lancet (I am a co-author on papers II and III)

As might be expected, the papers generated a fair amount of discussion and debate.  The Lancet has now published five letters raising issues about the series, along with a letter of response (which I signed).

Here are the letters:

I.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy.  David Ludwig argues that the Nova classification of food procesing is imprecise and ideological.

II.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Dirk Jacobs and Rafael Sampson say the papers look like a campaigning platform to shut down criticism and reject expertise out of hand.

III.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Gunter Kuhnle says the papers give “insufficient attention to the central methodological challenge of this field: the assessment of UPF intake itself,” a concern because “most of the evidence against UPF relies on observational data.”

IV.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy: Tatiana Campos and Aintzane Esturo, representing the International Fruit and Vegetable Juice Association, disagree with the classification of reconstituted fruit juices as ultra-processed; they say the juices should be classified as unprocessed or minimall processed (Nova 1, not Nova 4).

V.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Lilian dos Santos Raha,  Patrícia Chaves Gentil, Gisele Ane Bortolini, Felipe Silva Neves, and Bruna Pitasi Arguelhes point to actions in Brazil that offer “a blueprint for translating these recommendations into binding regulation.”

And here is Ultra-processed foods in research and policy – Authors’ reply   (full text)  Note: I am a co-author.

We thank the authors for their comments and interest in our Series on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and human health.
We acknowledge David S Ludwig’s concern about the limits of any single classification system. The Nova framework does not replace nutrient science, but adds a complementary layer focused on food processing as a determinant of dietary patterns. Foods, nutrients, additives, and food matrices all matter, and the second Series paper explicitly proposed that all regulations should combine criteria on crucial nutrients with markers of food ultra-processing, rather than treating processing as a stand‑alone metric. Importantly, nationally representative surveys from multiple countries show that the dietary contribution of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is the main driver of nutrient-imbalanced diets. For example, in the USA, 92·4% of diets excessive in added sugar, saturated fat, energy density, and insufficient in fibre are attributed to UPF consumption. UPFs, therefore, function not as an ideology but as structural drivers of dietary nutrient imbalance, as well as of other determinants of ill health including overeating, exposure to harmful additives and contaminants, snacking, and other harmful eating patterns. Nova explains dietary patterns in ways that nutrient-centric models alone cannot. Critiques based on isolated UPF products overlook the logic of dietary displacement and the relevant counterfactual: fresh and minimally processed foods and cooked meals. We have recently explained why UPF subgroup analyses suggesting differential health effects are conceptually and methodologically flawed, undermining the credibility of nutrition science and risking policy misinterpretation.
Rafael Sampson and Dirk Jacobs of FoodDrinkEurope characterise the UPF industry and industry-funded scientists as impartial brokers of evidence and argue that proposals to limit corporate influence go too far. FoodDrinkEurope’s membership includes many of the world’s largest UPF manufacturers and lobby groups, and the organisation is within a broader network of corporate interest groups that have actively promoted misinformation about Nova and the evidence on UPFs. Based on decades of evidence from food, tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel research, we question the credibility of industry-funded science when commercial imperatives conflict with public health goals. Transparency alone is insufficient. The empirical literature shows that disclosure does not neutralise bias, nor prevent the strategic use of funding to manufacture doubt, delay regulation, and frame debate in industry-favourable terms. Safeguards against conflicts of interest are pro-science, not anti-science. Editors exclude conflicted reviewers, governments restrict lobbying, and ethics committees limit funding sources for precisely these reasons. Food and nutrition research should be no exception.
We agree with Gunter G C Kuhnle that evidence on the harms of UPFs was generated using dietary instruments not designed to capture Nova groups. However, exposure misclassification is likely non‑differential in regard to outcomes, and therefore bias associations towards the null. As dietary tools for assessing food consumption aligned with Nova are adopted, associations strengthen rather than weaken. Misclassification has a greater effect on UPF subgroup analyses than on UPF-pattern analyses. Aggregating all UPFs partly mitigates food‑level measurement error, whereas attempting to distinguish fine subgroups with imperfect instruments amplifies instability, multiple testing, and false positives.
Tatiana Campos and Aintzane Esturo argue that reconstituted fruit juices should be treated as minimally processed. These products differ in matrix integrity, intrinsic fibre, and typical consumption patterns. Concentration, storage, reconstitution, and flavour restoration involves losses and reformulation that place these products beyond minimal processing. Some UPFs might perform better than others in specific comparisons, and relative harms might be modest in narrow contrasts. Policy, however, cannot be built on marginal cases. The relevant issue is displacement at scale: when reconstituted juices replace fresh fruit or freshly prepared juices, dietary quality deteriorates.
Gisele Ane Bortolini and colleagues illustrate how Nova can be operationalised in real-world policy. Brazil’s National Food Basket shows that processing criteria can coexist with nutrient standards, procurement rules, fiscal instruments, and broader food‑system policies. This directly addresses Ludwig’s concern that Nova is too imprecise for regulation. In practice, it has enabled coherent, multisectoral action adapted to national context rather than a universal, one‑size‑fits‑all template.
The global shift towards ultra-processed dietary patterns is a preventable driver of chronic disease, and effective policy action should prioritise protecting and restoring diets based on fresh and minimally processed foods and cooked meals. We continue to welcome any scientific inquiry related to the Series that might contribute to strengthening food policies for all.

Competing Interests

The Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods and human health was supported by funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies through a contract with Deakin University and subcontracts between Deakin and the University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, and University of São Paulo. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpreta-tion, or writing of the Series. CAM was part of the team that developed the NOVA food classification system. BMP declares funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Aging, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and has consulted for Resolve to Save Lives and the World Bank. PB reports funding from an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship awarded by the Australian Government, and from a Sydney Horizon Fellowship awarded by the University of Sydney. All other authors declare no competing interests.  [Note: I was advised not to include mine, since I do not accept funding from food and beverage companies with interests in this topic.  I do, however, earn honoraria for lectures and royalties from books about the politics of food].
References
1. Scrinis, G ∙ Popkin, BM ∙ Corvalan, C ∙ et al. Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. Lancet. 2025; 406:2685-2702
2. Martinez Steele, E ∙ Marrón Ponce, JA ∙ Cediel, G ∙ et al. Potential reductions in ultra-processed food consumption substantially improve population cardiometabolic-related dietary nutrient profiles in eight countries. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2022; 32:2739-2750
3. Rezende, LFM ∙ Martinez-Steele, E ∙ da Costa Louzada, ML ∙ et al. Misleading narrative of healthy ultraprocessed foods. BMJ. 2026; 392, e087538
4. Baker, P ∙ Slater, S ∙ White, M ∙ et al. Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response Lancet. 2025; 406:2703-2726
5. Nestle, M. Unsavory truth: how food companies skew the science of what we eat. Basic Books, 2018
6. Willett, WC. Nutritional epidemiology. Oxford University Press, 2012
7. Werneck, AO ∙ Steele, EM ∙ Delpino, FM ∙ et al. Adherence to the ultra-processed dietary pattern and risk of depressive outcomes: findings from the NutriNet Brasil cohort study and an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2024; 43:1190-1199
8. Monteiro, CA ∙ Louzada, ML ∙ Steele-Martinez, E ∙ et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence
Lancet. 2025; 406:2667-2668
Tags:
Dec 10 2025

San Francisco’s lawsuit against food companies

San Francisco’s city attorney has sued major food companies for marketing ultra-processed foods (UPF) that make people sick.

The lawsuit: COMPLAINT FOR: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW AND PUBLIC NUISANCE

The arguments

I. UPF are dangerous: “No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products.”

II.  UPF-like tobacco and illegal drugs–are addictive.

  • UPF cause compulsive use in the same ways as other addictive substances
  • UPF are psychoactive substances
  • UPF are reinforcing

III. Defendants designed UPF to be addictive to drive sales and profits.

IV. Defendants have created a public health crisis, especially for children.

V.  Defendants have deliberately targeted kids (harmful dyes, aggressive marketing, disproportionate targeting).

VI.  Defendants actively conceal the dangers of UPF.

VII.  UPF have contributed to a public health crisis in San Francisco.

This one will be fun to watch,

Resources

Tags: ,