by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Legislation

Jul 21 2026

Call for letters of support: Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act

[To subscribers: technical problems with WP Engine prevented this from being sent out yesterday, so I’m trying it again]

I received this request from Thomas Eagen, Senior Health Policy Advisor, Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee:

I am reaching out with big news: Senator Sanders bill, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, is scheduled to be marked-up in the HELP Committee next Wednesday July 22! …,. this legislation would require strong front-of-package warning labels on junk food and restricts companies from using child-directed ads for these products. This includes sugar-sweetened beverages, products high in added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and ultra-processed food. The bill includes a statutory definition for ultra-processed foods that excludes products meeting the FDA definition of healthy.

The bill is here at this link.  It is:

(1) To require warning labels on sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, foods and beverages containing high-intensity sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and foods high in nutrients of concern, such as added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, (2) to restrict junk food advertising to children.

Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act: Major Sections

Section 101. Health Warning Labeling of Foods; Restriction on Certain Advertisements Directed at Children.

  • Determines that a food or beverage product is considered misbranded if it is a sugar-sweetened beverage, a product with any high-intensity sweetener, an ultra-processed food, or high-in added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium if the product does not include front-of-package labeling specified in the text. T
  • Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations to apply the labeling requirements to online retailers.
  • Defines the terms high-intensity sweetener, sugar-sweetened beverage, and ultra-processed food.
  • Gives FDA authority to regulate food and beverage marketing or advertising for products required to include front-of-package labeling that is directed at children.

Section 102. National Institutes of Health Research on Nutrition Science.

  • Directs the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate programs to support nutrition science research and research on the health effects of ultra-processed food.
  • Directs the NIH Director to convene a meeting of stakeholders to discuss research efforts aimed at improving nutrition and reducing the incidence of diet-related chronic disease.

Section 103. Nutrition and Physical Activity Public Education Campaign.

  • Directs the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to collaborate with national, State, Tribal, local partners, and nutrition and physical activity organizations to develop a public campaign to educate the public on how to read and understand the new labeling described in Section 2, the health risks associated with obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition, ways to incorporate physical activity into daily living, ways to reduce risk of chronic illness, benefits of good nutrition, and strategies improve eating and drinking habits.

Section 202. Restriction on Advertisements for Junk Food Directed at Children; Required Disclosure of Any Health and Nutrient Warning Label in Advertisements.

  • Makes it unlawful for any person to market, advertise, produce, or distribute advertisement or marketing material for junk food that is child-directed advertising.

Requires the disclosure of any required front-of-package labeling described in Section 101 of this Act.

Section 203. Restoring the Federal Trade Commission’s Ability to Promulgate Rules on Children’s Advertising.

Removes the provision in the Federal Trade Commission Act that prevents the Federal Trade Commission from promulgating rules related to children’s advertising. [YES! And about time, too]

CALL FOR SUPPORT

Eagan writes: We would greatly appreciate if you were able to send a letter of support, post on social media, or express support in any other way. Please feel free to share this information with anyone else in your network who might be able to help as well. We need as much support as possible to combat the likely opposition from the food and beverage industry!

If you would like to lend your support, the easiest way to do it is this:

  • Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your senator’s office.
  • Tell the receptionist your name, that you are a constituent, the specific bill you support, and ask them to relay your support to the HELP Committee.
Tags: , , ,
May 13 2026

Whole milk in schools: Will it make kids healthier?

The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

  • Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
  • Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
  • Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

  • Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
  • Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
  • Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

  • Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
  • More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
  • Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, A that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

A CORRECTION OF SORTS

A reader reminds me that the new school food rules that go into effect by 2025-2026 (at the earliest) call for no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 ounces of flavored milk.  This standard will apply to whole as well as reduced or no fat milks.

Tags: , , ,
Apr 29 2026

Preempting the GRAS loophole: not a good idea

One of the reasons for Monday’s rally at the Supreme Court (see Monday’s post) is the food industry’s efforts to be able to continue to use whatever additives it chooses, without regulatory oversight.

A press release from the Environmental Working Group warns: ‘FRESH’ and Affordable Foods Act is rotten to the core.

This refers to a a draft bill introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) designed to preempt all state food chemical laws.

States have been passing inconvenient laws banning food dyes and chemicals.  The industry want this to stop.

According to the EWG’s analysis, the bill would do things like this (and more):

  • Allow new food chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm to be considered “safe.”
  • Retroactively approve all food chemicals currently considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
  • Allow new chemicals to be added to food if the FDA does not respond to a GRAS notice within 90 days.
  • Allow new chemicals reviewed by industry-funded expert panels – including the flavor industry’s notorious “expert” panel – to be automatically GRAS and used in food immediately.

Under the “GRAS loophole,” which Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has vowed to close (this has not happened yet), chemical companies – not the FDA – decide whether a food chemical is safe. For new chemicals, companies submit a GRAS notice to the FDA, and the FDA responds with a “no questions” letter.

As an EWG analysis found, since 2000, almost all new chemicals – nearly 99% –  have come onto the market through the GRAS loophole.

The system is already inadequate; this act would make it worse (here’s my contribution to this discussion from more than a decade ago).

Helena Bottemiller Evich says in Food Fix: Food industry quietly advances its preemption push in Washington

Right now, preemption is becoming even more critical for industry because MAHA groups and consumer advocates have been having a ton of success in state legislatures. In many cases, the industry is actually getting creamed outside of Washington.

She notes that the New York legislature has just required companies to publicly disclose any additivies they self-determine to be GRAS (it also bans Red 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate in the state).

This kind of action makes the food industry long for federal preemption.

Secretary Kennedy and the MAHA movement have promised to fix all this.  Will they be able to?

Stay tuned.

Tags: , ,
Apr 23 2024

At long last: legislation to reduce childhood obesity and diabetes!

I received an e-mailed press release from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT):  NEWS: Sanders and Booker Take on Food and Beverage Industry with New Legislation to Address Childhood Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics.

Sen. Sanders, along with Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Peter Welch (D-VT), have introduced legislation to

Take on the greed of the food and beverage industry and address the growing diabetes and obesity epidemics negatively impacting millions of American children and families across the country. The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act establishes a first-of-its-kind federal ban on junk food advertising targeted to children in the United States, requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement strong health and nutrient warning labeling, directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to investigate the dangers posed by ultra-processed foods, and develops a national education campaign for children and caregivers through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The press release quotes Sen. Sanders:

“Let’s be clear: The twin crises of type 2 diabetes and obesity in America are being fueled by the food and beverage industry that, for decades, has been making massive profits by enticing children to consume unhealthy products purposely designed to be overeaten…We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and well-being of our children.

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress had the courage to take on the tobacco industry, whose products killed more than 400,000 Americans every year. Now is the time for Congress to act with the same sense of urgency to combat these diabetes and obesity epidemics. That means banning junk food ads targeted to kids and putting strong warning labels on food and beverages with unacceptably high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat.”

Resources:

At long last, congressional representatives are trying to do something to prevent childhood obesity.  Let’s urge our representatives to sign on to this bill.

Tags: ,
Dec 1 2010

Senate passes food safety bill, 73 to 25

In case you missed it (and how could you?), the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act passed the Senate yesterday by a huge majority.  Thanks to Beth Bainbridge for sending me this link to a map of how the votes went—a graphic, interactive illustration of partisan politics in action.

If you would like to know what the bill really says as opposed to the mythology, you can read a short Summary , or take a look at the entire bill.  And here’s FoodSafetyNews on some of those details.

The next steps: (1) reconciliation with the House version passed a year ago July, and (2) submission of the joint version to President Obama for signature.  This has to be done before this session of Congress expires in just a few weeks.

By all reports, reconciliation will not be so easy.  FoodSafetyNews explains all the things that can derail the bill between now and then, and the list is long and weird (who ever heard of “blue-slipping,” for example?).

Some folks are happy about the Senate action, but some most definitely are not.  FoodSafetyNews summarizes the reactions, as does the New York Times account.

Time is short.  The stakes are high.  Keep fingers crossed.

Tags: ,
Nov 29 2010

Never enough about S.510. Today’s the day!

Update 3:30 p.m.  Final Senate vote postponed until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow!

Today, the Senate is supposed to deal—at last—with S.510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.  Here’s what I’m told is likely to happen (it gives me a headache just to think about it):

  • 4:00 pm EST: Senate resumes discussion of S.510.
  • 6:30 pm: Senate proceeds to cloture vote on the substitute amendment to S.510.
  • Cloture is invoked.
  • Post-cloture and upon the use or yielding back of the time allotted in the agreement (1 hour for motions re: 1099 and 4 hours for Coburn motions), the Senate will proceed to vote on the motions in the following order: (1) Johanns (1099 forms–the repeal on a tax burden on small businesses), (2) Baucus (1099 forms), (3) Coburn (earmarks), (4) Coburn (substitute)
  • Once those are disposed of, Senate votes on passage of the bill, as amended.
  • Observers expect all of this to last well into the night.
  • Note: Because all of the amendments are offered as motions to suspend the rules, they require a 2/3rds vote. Final passage requires 51. Cloture requires 60.

And in case your mind is still not made up about how this should go, take a look at today’s commentaries:

Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser have an op-ed in the New York Times: A Stale Food Fight:

In the last week, agricultural trade groups, from the Produce Marketing Association to the United Egg Producers, have come out against the bill, ostensibly on the grounds that the small farms now partially exempted would pose a food safety threat. (Note that these small farms will continue to be regulated under state and local laws.) It is hard to escape the conclusion that these industry groups never much liked the new rules in the first place. They just didn’t dare come out against them publicly, not when 80 percent of Americans support strengthening the F.D.A.’s authority to regulate food.

And FoodSafetyNews, ever on the job, has three pieces on the bill today (I’m referred to in a couple of them):

With a little luck, the Senate will pass the bill tonight, large and small farms will comply with its provisions, and our food supply will be safer as a result.  One can always dream.

Additions: a few more editorial comments, all in favor of passing S.510.

The Sacramento Bee editorial (11-25)

The Minneapolis Star Tribune (11-27)

The Bemidji (MN) Pioneer (11-28)

The Baltimore Sun (11-28 and the 29th in some editions)

New York Times editorial (11-16)

USA Today (11-23)

Las Vegas Sun (11-23)

Lexington (KY) Herald Leader (11-23)

Tags: ,
Nov 24 2010

Facts and rumors: the current status of S. 510

Following the ongoing saga of S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, is like taking a graduate course in political science.   And sociology graduate students everywhere should be writing dissertations on how a bill designed to help protect the public from food hazards like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7  became a flashpoint for debates about the role of government in personal choice.

Let’s start with the rumors.   I’m hearing from sources inside the Beltway that the Senate and House have agreed to pass S. 510 in part because they can use it to get something else they want: repeal of an annoying provision in the health care reform act passed last spring that requires 1099 tax reports for business purchases.

The Senate is said to be dealing with S. 510 late in the afternoon or early evening of Monday, November 29.  It is supposed to work like this:

  • There will be a cloture motion, which will pass with 60 votes.
  • The Senate will agree that all amendments to S. 510 will require 67 votes.
  • Senator Coburn will offer amendments, but they will not get 67 votes.
  • The Senate will add language repealing the 1099 tax provision.
  • The Senate will pass the bill (this needs 51 votes)
  • The House will agree to accept the Senate bill as written with no changes.
  • The bill will get sent to President Obama to sign before Congress adjourns.
  • The President will sign the bill.

Maybe, but this does not sound like a done deal to me.  For one thing, opposition to S. 510 seems to be getting noisier.  Remember the adage “politics makes strange bedfellows?”  Take a look at the groups who now oppose the bill, united in their opposition to giving the FDA or government any additional authority:

  • The health food industry
  • The dietary supplement industry
  • The meat industry: American Meat Institute, Cattlemen’s Association, etc.
  • The Tea Party
  • The raw milk community and its legal arm, the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund
  • Some, but by no means all, small farmers and advocates for them

Missing from this list is Big Agriculture, an absence explained by the fact that the bill does not apply to feed commodities or to seeds.

As for the Tester amendment exempting small farms from certain provisions of the bill: It is opposed by 20 organizations of vegetable growers, and is also is likely to be opposed by companies like Monsanto which do not want the FDA making safety decisions based on size or anything else except risk.

Caroline Scott-Thomas writes in FoodNavigator-USA that all food producers, large and small, should be producing food safely, not least because bacteria do not care how big a farm might be: 

Think about it: If a large-scale cheese maker refused to recall potentially tainted products for financial reasons, as the Estrella Family Creamery is doing, would it inspire dewy-eyed sympathy? I doubt it.

I agree, and also with the comments of Bob Whitaker, the Produce Marketing Association’s Chief Science Officer, who points out that plenty of growers are already using preventive controls like the ones requires by S.510:

There are a lot of very small growers who are already doing this.  I think there is plenty of evidence where growers have already made this a priority and they have been able to do so in a pretty innovative manner. There is a cost to this…But it doesn’t have to be overwhelmingly expensive. A lot of this is common sense.  People need to dive in and understand that this is food and you have to take responsibility for the safety of our food, to the extent that you can… Consumers have to be confident that our products are safe.

I’ve seen this too.  Lots of small food producers do everything they can to reduce microbial risks.  They don’t need a government agency to tell them what to do.

Others, however, won’t take safety steps unless forced to.  That’s why we need this bill to pass.

In the meantime, the debate continues. USA Today, long concerned about food safety, favors the bill. Senator Coburn, however, does not.

Happy Thanksgiving holiday, everyone.

And special thanks to Carol Tucker Foreman of Consumer Federation of America for cluing me in on the latest developments.

Addition: Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP), a food safety advocacy group formed originally by parents of children harmed by eating fast-food hamburgers, strongly favors S. 51o.  Under its auspices, 80 victims of foodborne illness have written a letter to the Senate in the hope that this will help solidify support for passing this bill.

Many of us have traveled to Washington D.C. numerous times to meet with lawmakers, sharing our personal stories as to why stronger food safety laws are necessary; others of us have written opinion pieces, letters, and blog entries urging action on this important legislation. S. 510 would be the first major overhaul of the FDA’s food-safety authorities in decades. It is time to pass this legislation.

Tags: , ,
Nov 20 2010

Another reason to pass S. 510

Today’s New York Times has a story about the travails of the Estrella Family Creamery, makers of artisanal cheeses found repeatedly by the FDA to be contaminated with Listeria.

The FDA asked for a recall.  Estrella refused.

Whether Estrella should be considered heroic for fighting Big Government, as the article suggests, or instead is allowing dangerous products to go into the marketplace depends on point of view.

Mine is that every producer—large and small—who makes food should be producing it safely under a HACCP plan or its equivalent.  If the product carries special risks, as cheeses sometimes do, the producer ought to be testing to make sure it is safe.

I have visited plenty of artisanal makers of raw and Pasteurized cheeses who produce them safely.  These makers worry constantly about how to make sure that their cheeses are—and stay—safe.

If you have a strong immune system and are not pregnant, Listeria is unlikely to make you sick.  If not, however, watch out: Listeria can be fatal, especially to unborn infants.

In a column I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle last March, I responded to a question about Listeria from a reader who lost a baby after eating a Listeria-contaminated Pasteurized cheese (the contamination must have occurred later). See correction below.

Listeria has the terrifying property of flourishing at refrigerator temperatures.  In this particular case, neither Pasteurization nor refrigeration were enough to save her baby.

As I said in my column:

Without federal requirements, you are on your own to keep yourself and your unborn infant safe from food pathogens, especially Listeria…. Listeria preferentially affects pregnant women. If you are pregnant and want to stay pregnant, you must avoid Listeria.  This will not be easy.  Listeria is widely dispersed in foods. Infections from it may be rare, but they are deadly. Listeria kills a shocking 25 percent of those it infects and is particularly lethal to fetuses….With so much at stake, and so many other food choices available, why take chances?

That is why allowing Listeria-contaminated cheeses into the food supply is not a good idea.  It is also why the FDA is so concerned that Listeria-contaminated foods do not get into the food supply.

This cheesemaker’s refusal to recall Listeria-contaminated products is another reason why so many of us who care deeply about food safety want the Senate to get busy and pass S.510.

Correction: the writer of that letter has written to explain that the source of her Listeria infection was never determined.  She had eaten a Pasteurized Stilton cheese, a goat cheese, and a rare steak among other suspected foods but none was proven to be the source.  For the record, the CDC says to prevent Listeria, pregnant women should avoid eating:

  • Hot dogs, luncheon meats, or deli meats (unless reheated to steaming hot).
  • Soft cheeses such as feta, Brie, Camembert, blue-veined cheeses, and Mexican-style cheeses such as “queso blanco fresco.”
  • Refrigerated pâté or meat spreads.
  • Refrigerated smoked seafood unless cooked to steaming hot.  This includes salmon, trout, whitefish, cod, tuna, and mackerel which are most often labeled as “nova-style,” “lox,” “kippered,” “smoked,” or “jerky.”
  • Raw (unpasteurized) milk or foods that contain unpasteurized milk.
Tags: , , ,