Currently browsing posts about: Food-industry

The Institute for Food Technology , which publishes Food Technology, has been exploring

the growing challenge of misinformation and the importance of building public trust in food science. Alongside highlights from IFT FIRST sessions on myth busting and consumer trust, it features Food Technology contributors and thought leaders examining how transparency, empathy, and effective communication can help bridge the gap between scientific evidence and public perception.

Here are some of the articles.

• Fighting Food Misinformation:  To counter science denial, lead with empathy, communication experts advise.
• How Food Companies Can Win Back Trust: Drawing on insights from the IFT FIRST session “How Can Food Companies Earn Trust While Combatting Misinformation?” Linda Eatherton outlines why credibility is the true currency of food innovation and how companies can strengthen reputation through empathy, transparency, and sustained communication. Read more
• A ‘Clear’ Path to Regaining Public Trust in Food and Beverage: Concerns about public trust in the food system have been part of the conversation for years—surfacing even at an IFT FIRST Scientific & Technical Forum in 2023 where experts from Edelman and IFIC discussed how fear and misinformation shape consumer confidence. They emphasized that transparency, speed, and empathy are essential for rebuilding credibility. Read more
• Building Relevance and Trust in the Food Sciences: IFT Immediate Past President Christopher Daubert calls for a balanced, evidence-based approach to debates over ultra-processed foods and reminds food professionals that facts alone are not enough—trust is built through transparency and shared values. Read more
• The Messy, Fine Art of Science Communication: Laura Lindenfeld of Stony Brook University’s Alan Alda Center discusses why empathy, storytelling, and listening are critical tools for scientists seeking to make their work heard and believed in an age of skepticism. She explains how communication grounded in trust and connection—not jargon or defensiveness—can help bridge the gap between scientific expertise and public understanding. Read more
• The Transformative Power of Positivity: Food scientist Kantha Shelke advocates for an “appreciative inquiry” approach to food communication—focusing on what’s strong, not what’s wrong—to shift public perception and reinforce trust in food science. She encourages food professionals to highlight innovation, progress, and the positive impact of scientific advances rather than emphasizing fear or limitation.  Read more
• ‘Ultra-Processed’ Foods and the Question of Consumer Trust:  Food scientist Matt Teegarden questions the Nova food classification system’s broad definition of ultra-processed foods and its influence on how consumers perceive healthfulness and trust in the food system. He calls for more precise, science-based frameworks to guide research, policy, and communication around diet and processing.  Read more

Comment: Here’s some simple advice to food companies worried about why the public doesn’t trust them or their products.  If you want to be trusted, behave in a trustworthy manner.

• Put public health and nutrition first.
• Don’t advertise ridiculous health claims.
• Don’t market ultra-procesed foods to kids.
• Don’t use your ingredient lists to obfuscate what’s in your products (e.g., sugar synonyms).
• If something is wrong, own up to it.
• Don’t condescend to your customers.
• Don’t try to convince them your products are healthy and environmentally sustainable if they are not.

Trusted companies have these rules built into their culture.

Their stockholders respect them for it.

So will their customers.

After 20 years, of being owned by Unilever, Ben & Jerry are unhappy about how that relationship is working out.  They say they are being silenced and their independence is being infringed upon.

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield, part of the duo whose names shaped the popular U.S. ice cream brand over the last half-century, has quit his role as “brand ambassador” after a rift and public feud with parent Unilever (ULVR.L), over the conflict in Gaza.

In an open letter shared by his business partner, Ben Cohen on social media, Greenfield said that the Vermont-based company – well-known for its social activism on progressive issues – had in recent years been “silenced” by Unilever, which is currently spinning off its Magnum ice cream unit that includes the Ben & Jerry’s brand.

That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever; one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity. It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence – the very basis of our sale to Unilever – is gone.

Corporate Climate Resposibility Monitor has published its 2025 report: Food and Agriculture Sector Deep Dive, which looks at measures of protection against climate change.  It doesn’t find much.

It does find:

• Agrifood companies present measures that are unlikely to lead to structural, deep emission reductions in the sector.
• Agrifood companies’ emission reduction targets are currently undermined by the undefined role for land-based carbon removals.
• Standard setters need to anchor the need for deep and structural emission reductions in their voluntary standards and guidelines, guided by key transitions for the sector, and need to call for separate targets for emission reduction and removal.

Overall,

Not much green in this chart.

The report goes into detail for each of the companies it’s tracking.

Not much good news here.  No surprise.  Reducing and cleaning up emissions costs money.

I learned about this report from Ag Funder News: Danone and Nestlé hit back after new report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate greenwashing.’

According to the report, penned by nonprofits NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch, “This focus on CDR [carbon dioxide removal] distracts from their lack of commitments to deep, structural emission reductions, especially regarding methane.

“While the draft GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance recommends setting separate targets for emissions reductions and removals, the current SBTi FLAG guidance appears to allow companies to count removals toward their reduction targets. Danone, Nestlé and PepsiCo seem to be taking this approach.”

It adds: “Companies are exploiting loopholes in voluntary standards like SBTi FLAG and the GHG Protocol, which allow them to blend removals with reductions in a single figure, masking a lack of real mitigation.”

Never mind the effects of anti-obesity drugs on the health and well-being of people taking them.  From the food industry’s standpoint, what counts is what they are doing to sales of food and drink.  Ouch.

Here is my most recent collection of items from industry newsletters.  These make it clear that GLP-1 drugs are a real threat to food industry profits.

• The snackdown: Are GLP-1s really killing snacks or is it just all hype?  Weight-loss drugs are billed as a $150bn threat to bakery and snacks, but so far the impact looks more hype than reality…. Read more
• Food industry scrambles to respond to GLP-1 craze:  The drugs have already been predicted to change the way we eat… Read more
• How food brands can stay ahead of GLP-1 craze:  Don’t underestimate the GLP-1 trend. It’s going to hit, hard… Read more
• Sweet speculation: GLP-1s could already be nibbling at confectionery sales.  As enthusiasm for the confectionary sector declines, could weight-loss drugs have a role to play?… Read more
• How is GLP-1 changing eating habits in Europe?  As GLP-1s begin to make themselves known on the continent, consumers’ habits are starting to change… Read more

As to what food companies are trying to do to respond:

• GLP-1 is changing taste: How can food makers reignite flavour?  When GLP-1 drugs make food taste dull, exciting taste buds will be the aim of the game… Read more
• What makes a GLP-1-friendly yogurt drink? Danone tells all: By formulating a dairy drink that specifically caters for weight loss medication users, Danone has set a new standard with Oikos Fusion… Read more
• 4 natural food ingredients that boost GLP-1:  It’s not only drugs that induce the satiety-causing hormone… Read more
• Food’s answer to Ozempic? New ingredients mimic GLP-1 without the pharma price tag.  Once everyone’s had enough of injections, side effects, and the vast expense of GLP-1 drugs, it could be natural alternatives’ time to shine… Read more
• GLP-1 users are undernourished: why F&B needs to fill the gapNutrient gaps in GLP-1 diets present a challenge and an opportunity for the food industry… Read more

Fascinating, no?  I’m paying close attention to all this.

Michael Jacobson, founder of CSPI and now working on developing a National Food Museum in Washington, DC has issued press release and a graph-filled report analyzing changes in the U.S. diet since 1975.

He calls the report, “Opening the 1975 Food Time Capsule – Diet, Health, & Food Industry.”

From the press release:

And the food industry has gotten a lot more concentrated:

• In 1975, the top 20 grocers sold 40 percent of retail food. Now, just four companies (Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize) control 65 percent of the market.
• The market shares of the top four beef, pork, and poultry processors roughly doubled over the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, food prices (adjusted for inflation) have gone up, down, or sideways. For instance, milk costs half as much as 50 years ago, while ground beef has stayed the same. Overall, consumers are spending just 11 percent of their disposable income on food now compared to 13 percent in 1975.

From the report:

Lots of fun information here!

I particularly like it because I cover these changes and lots of others in my forthcoming book What to Eat Now.  to be published on November 11 this year.

The MAHA Commission released its report last week: The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again.  Assessment.

This is one impressive report, forcefully written and tightly documented (it cites my work, among that of many others).

Overall, it paints a devastating portrait of how our society has failed our children.

It begins by stating that “The health of American children is in crisis” due to:

• Poor diet
• Aggregation of environmental chemicals
• Lack of physical activity and chronic stress
• Overmedicalization

The result: high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, allergies  and mental health problems among kids.

Here are some selected items I particularly appreciated in the report.  The bullet points are direct quotes.

On poor diet

• Most American children’s diets are dominated by ultra – processed foods (UPFs ) high in added sugars , chemical additives , and saturated fats, while lacking sufficient intakes of fruits and vegetables.
• Pesticides , microplastics , and dioxins are commonly found in the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women— some at alarming levels.
• Children are exposed to numerous chemicals , such as heavy metals , PFAS , pesticides , and phthalates, via their diet, textiles, indoor air pollutants, and consumer products.
• To get into schools , many food companies have reformulated their products with minor ingredient adjustments to qualify for the federal Smart Snack program by meeting the school nutrition standards, which children can purchase separate from school meals.

The driving factors for poor diets

• Consolidation of the food system
• Distorted nutrition research and marketing
• Compromised dietary guidelines

On the dietary guidelines  

They maintain problematic reductionist recommendations, such as:

• Advising people to “reduce saturated fat” or “limit sodium” instead of focusing on minimizing ultra-processed foods.
• Treating all calories similarly, rather than distinguishing between nutrient-dense foods and ultra-processed products.
• Remain largely agnostic to how foods are produced or processed: There is little distinction between industrially processed foods and home-cooked or whole foods if their nutrient profiles look similar.
• Added sugars, saturated fats and sodium are treated as proxies for ultra-processed foods. For instance, a cup of whole-grain ready to eat fortified breakfast cereal and a cup of oatmeal with fruit might both count as “whole grain servings,” and the guidelines do not weigh in on differences in processing.

They also,

• Do not explicitly address UPFs.
• Have a history of being unduly influenced by corporate interests .

On food systems

• The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare.
• Traditional Field Crops vs. Specialty Crops : Historically, federal crop insurance programs have primarily covered traditional field crops like wheat , corn , and soybeans, while providing much less support for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery plants.

On Corporate Capture 

• Although the U.S. health system has produced remarkable breakthroughs, we must face the troubling reality that the threats to American childhood have been exacerbated by perverse incentives that have captured the regulatory bodies and federal agencies tasked with overseeing them .
• Limited comparisons between industry-funded research versus non- industry studies have raised concerns over potential biases in industry-funded research…Additionally, some industry leaders have engaged in promoting ghostwriting and sponsored reviews to influence the scientific literature.
• Notably, this ghostwriting strategy mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry to distort scientific consensus is largely propelled by “corporate capture,” in which industry interests dominate and distort scientific literature, legislative actions, academic institutions, regulatory agencies, medical journals, physician organizations, clinical guidelines, and the news media.
• The pharmaceutical industry, with its vast resources and influence, is a primary driver of this capture, though similar dynamics pervade the food and chemical industries.

Research recommendations

• GRAS Oversight Reform: Fund independent studies evaluating the health impact of self-affirmed GRAS food ingredients, prioritizing risks to children and informing transparent FDA rulemaking.
• Nutrition Trials: NIH should fund long-term trials comparing whole-food, reduced-carb, and low-UPF diets in children to assess effects on obesity and insulin resistance.
• Large-scale Lifestyle Interventions: Launch a coordinated national lifestyle-medicine initiative that embeds real-world randomized trials-covering integrated interventions in movement, diet, light exposure, and sleep timing-within existing cohorts and EHR networks.

Comment

The report has been criticized for not getting some of the science right.  The agriculture industry is particularly concerned about the attack on the chemicals it uses.  It is said to be outraged by the report.  The report did throw Big Ag this bone: “Today, American farmers feed the world, American companies lead the world, and American energy powers the world.”

But the report raises one Big Question:  What policies will this administration come up with to deal with these problems?  These, presumably, will be in the next report, due in about 80 days.

This is an extraordinary report, a breath of fresh air in many ways, and I would love to know who wrote it.

But to fix the problems it raises will require taking on not only Big Ag, but also Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Chemical, and other industries affected by these and its other recommendations (the report also says a lot about drugs and mental health).  Big Ag has already weighed in.  Others are sure to follow.

Oh.  And it’s hard to know how policies can be implemented, given the destructive cuts to FDA, CDC, and NIH personnel and budget.

I will be watching this one.  Stay tuned.

Resources

• The press release: MAHA Commission Unveils Landmark Report Exposing Root Causes of Childhood Chronic Disease Crisis
• The Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission
• The Commission report: Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment

Additional resource

• Errol Schweizer sent me his analysis on Medium, well worth reading.

I was sent the press release for an annual report from a long list of food trade associations: Feeding the Economy, “Ninth Annual “Feeding the Economy” Report Demonstrates Immense Impact of the American Food and Agriculture Industry Amidst Economic Challenges.”

The 2025 report confirms the agriculture industry is at the heart of the U.S. economy, generating more than $9.5 trillion in economic value, which amounts to 18.7% of the overall national economy.

The report, online and interactive, isn’t really about agribusiness: The big agribusiness companies—Cargill, Bayer, Corteva, Archer Daniels Midland, etc—are not sponsors.  The first six alphabetically are

• American Bakers Association
• American Beverage Association
• American Farm Bureau Federation
• American Frozen Food Institute
• American Peanut Council
• American Soybean Association

They want you to know what they collectively contribute to the economy.  A lot.

They also want you to know that times are tough.

Direct and indirect industry wages have grown year-over-year but have failed to keep pace with inflation, reflecting nationwide economic stressors and the high cost of labor for employers. Additionally, the number of agricultural manufacturing jobs has fallen year-over-year and is down nearly 30,000 jobs since 2020.

Times are tough for everyone these days.  I wish this report had said more about the plight of small farmers and what could be done to help them.

It turns out, the public doesn’t trust the food industry much.

Food industry trust in the dumps, but things are looking up: Consumer trust in the food industry is at dire levels. But there are modest reasons for positivity. What can the industry do to build on dwindling trust?… Read more

Why not?

This is affecting brand loyalty.  For this, price is also an issue.

Brand loyalty is declining, but the death knell isn’t ringing yet: The fight between branded and private label has never been so intense, yet it appears the former is losing significant ground. So what’s going on?… Read more

And, Americans don’t trust food and nutrition science either, especially if it comes from food industry scientists.

My advice?

If the food industry wants trust from the public, it should behave in a trustworthy manner.

As long as food companies put profits first, they are at high risk of compromising ethics, integrity, and trust.

The investment system would do better on trust if it valued social commitments.

This is an old story, but one worth retelling.  See this, for example.