by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Food-industry

Oct 1 2025

Unilever finally clamps down on Ben & Jerry’s

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.

According to Reuters,
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.
And according to Dairy Reporter, Greenfield is heartbroken over this:  ‘Heartbroken’ Ben & Jerry’s founder steps down over brand’s ‘silencing.’
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.
Comment
To me, the surprise is not that the partnership between Unilever and Ben & Jerry is fraying over contentious political statements; it’s that the partnership didn’t fall apart years ago.
If you sell your business to a large corporation, you should expect that the corporation’s interests to take precedence.
Corporations are not social service agencies; they are businesses with stockholders to please as their first and most predominant priority.
Unilever apparently kept hands off of B&J (at least visibly) for an astonishing 20 years.
Now that it’s selling off B&J, it wants to get the highest possible price for it.
And if that means making B&J shut up about controversial issues, so be it.
Sep 19 2025

Weekend Reading: Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor: Food and Ag

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.”

Sep 5 2025

Weekend reading: The effects of GLP-1 drugs on food industry

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.

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

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

Jul 15 2025

Michael Jacobson’s survey of dietary changes since 1975

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.

May 27 2025

The MAHA Commission report: some thoughts

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

Additional resource

 

Apr 4 2025

Weekend reading: Feeding the Economy

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.

Mar 26 2025

Does the public trust the food industry? Not so much.

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.

Feb 17 2025

Industry influence: PepsiCo counters nutrition misinformation

A member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics forwarded this email sent to academy members.

From: PepsiCo Health & Nutrition Sciences <pepsiconutritionscience@pepsico.com>
Subject: Help combat nutrition misinformation 📢

We’re sure you’ve seen this firsthand with your patients and clients: Nutrition research has become increasingly complex for the general public to understand – and the volume of contradictory headlines and misinformation in the media doesn’t help. As a healthcare professional, you have the power to inspire trust and deepen the general public’s understanding through credible communication of balanced, high-quality, evidence-based nutrition science.

That’s why we hosted our most recent Lab & Learn webinar, Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively, on the topic. Whether you attended live or viewing on demand, we wanted to share an additional resource with you on this topic to enrich your practice even further.

Didn’t get a chance to tune in to the webinar live last week?
Watch on demand here and earn 1.25 free CPEUs!
Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively awards 1.25 CPEUs in accordance with the Commission on Dietetic Registration’s CPEU Prior Approval Program.

Download the handout here.

Comment

Who better than PepsiCo to counter nutrition misinformation?  The handout gives standard information about how to interpret scientific studies, and useful for that purpose.  Perhaps it is an oversight but it omits any mention of biases introduced by funding by food companies.

More important, it implies that science alone will be enough to counter misinformation.  It would be nice if erroneous beliefs about nutrition could be corrected by presenting facts, but beliefs, especially those that are deeply held, are not necessarily fact-dependent.  They often have more to do with faith in what trusted people say.

PepsiCo wants dietitians to trust PepsiCo and avoid advising clients to cut back on sugary beverages or salty snacks.

The dietitian who sent this to me was skeptical, as dietitians should be in situations like these.