Currently browsing posts about: Meat

The new MAHA dietary guidelines could mean that changes are coming to school meals.  Or so the USDA says.

While waiting for the USDA to issue new rules, various groups are urging specific improvements.

United We Eat, a coalition of MAHA-supporting groups, urges the USDA Secretary to get busy Aligning School Meal Standards with the MAHA Mandate to Protect Children’s Health.  It is especially concerned about the poor quality of meat served in school meals (something I hear a lot about from school food service directors).

These processed animal products often contain additive heavy formulations, including preservatives
such as nitrites and nitrates, which health authorities have associated with increased colorectal cancer risk in processed meats, as well as other processing agents such as sodium phosphates that raise broader nutritional concerns and kidney damage….Beyond the concerns with processed meat, majority of all animal proteins served in schools are sourced from industrial supply chains that rely on routine antibiotic use, growth-promoting drugs including ractopamine, and feed grown with significant pesticide inputs.

Another coalition, this one of nearly 200 food service professionals, school districts, and other groups, is pressing for plant-based meat alternatives in the protein group.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including those released in January, have long recommended diversifying protein intake across plant and animal sources. Yet in practice, school menus remain heavily dominated by animal-based proteins. A forthcoming analysis of a sample of 45 school district menus from November 2025 found that, excluding nut butter and jelly sandwiches, fewer than one in ten school lunch entrée offerings utilized plant-sourced protein to fulfill the M/MA requirement. More than 90% of school lunch entrees contained animal-sourced proteins…a plant protein subgroup within the Meats/Meat Alternates category would provide a clear, practical framework to diversify protein intake, increase fiber consumption, and improve inclusivity within child nutrition programs.

USDA ought to be issuing new school food rules soon.  I can’t wait to see what they are.  In the meantime, this is a good time to weigh in.

Plant- and cell-based meats are not doing as well as expected, and the new dietary guidelines, pro-meat and anti-highly processed don’t help this cause much.  Here are some items I’ve collected lately on this topic.

• Does plant-based meat still dominate the meat-free sector? Meat alternatives are in trouble, but traditional plant-based and vegetarian foods will not necessarily replace them… Read more
• Cultivated meat’s casualties: who is failing and why?  Makers of cell-based meat are falling, fast. We round up who’s shutting up shop and why… Read more
• Plant-based meat isn’t dead, but it is in a reset: Plant-based meat faces a slowdown as price, foodservice strategy and manufacturing innovation shape the next phase for the sector… Read more
• What will it take to rebuild plant-based and cultivated meat?  As protein demand rises and consumers grow choosier, Good Food Institute Founder Bruce Friedrich outlines how plant-based and cultivated meat can move beyond hype and become investable, scalable industries… Listen now
• Meat alternatives are too niche – plant-based can do so much more: Meat mimicry shows little sign of broad appeal, yet plant-based foods have opportunities beyond it… Read more
• 5 ways to boost plant-based meat sales: Health claims may be an overlooked lever that could reignite plant-based meat demand, according to consumer research by the Good Food Institute… Read more  
• What’s driving the rise of hybrid meat? Industry is showing keen interest in the hybrid trend… Read more  [Hybrid combines plant-based with real meat]
• Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research: FFAR and GFI seek research to improve flavor of plant-based proteins: A new funding call from the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) and the Good Food Institute (GFI) will support precompetitive academic research to reduce off-flavors and improve the sensory quality of plant-based and fermentation-derived protein ingredients.Read More
• Plant-based meat laws aren’t misleading, court rules: Court finds that requiring disclaimers like “does not contain meat” violates free speech, marking another victory for Tofurkey, Plant Based Foods Association and the Animal Legal Defense Fund… Read more

Comment

Alt-meat products comprise their own industry, one hard at work to make these products desirable, accessible, affordable, and acceptable.  Clearly, it has work to do on all counts.

In my post last week, “The government is actively promoting meat and dairy intake,” I said

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

I then noted that this government takes promotion to new levels through its milk mustache ads and pronouncements that we have ended the war on protein (protein has long been understood as a euphemism for meat).

I ended with this comment: “I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.”

Whew.  Did that ever get a response.

Readers raised two issues:

I.  The guidelines and inverted pyramid give equal weight to plant foods.

That’s not how I read them.  I see them as giving lip service to plants but prioritizing meat.  They visually present meat most prominently in the interactive graphic at realfood.gov.  Subsequent statements of the USDA and HHS secretaries also support this view.  And then there are the authors with financial links to beef industry groups who wrote the scientific reports relevent to meat.

II. This is not about meat industry lobbying; it is about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s ideology.  Well, yes.  That too.  “Ideology” refers to belief systems that structure views of the world.  Everybody has them.

I, for example, am ideologically in favor of the dietary guidelines’ advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed food, but ideologically opposed to advice to prioritize animal protein over plant protein.  I would argue that the vast preponderance of research supports that view.

People holding other ideological views disagree, evidently.  They pick different studies to read and come to different conclusions.

Two members of the nine people writing scientific reviews for the guidelines assure me that their reviews are unbiased.  But those reviews invariably reflect the ideology of the people who wrote them.

As I often point out, nutrition research is impossible to control rigorously, unless you lock people up for extended periods of time.  That is why the best controlled studies, those done in monitored metabolic wards, can only be done for a few weeks at most.  Diets are complicated; eaters are complicated; research is complicated.  Complicated research requires interpretation.  Interpretation depends on the interpreter’s particular ideology.

That is why appointing a diverse committee to look at research questions has its benefits; people with differing ideologies have to work out points of agreement.

I will say this for RFK, Jr.  He makes his ideology clear.  It prioritizes personal experience over science.

My ideology: We need science to distinguish anecdote from fact.

Let’s agree that on the meat priority issue, RFK Jr’s ideology fits well with meat industry objectives.

The meat industry has a long history of lobbying around dietary guidelines (see my book, Food Politics).

I have not seen specific reports of meat industry lobbying around the new dietary guidelines.  Apparently, no lobbying was necessary.

A reader, Harish Chintakunta, sent this suggestion for one of my Monday posts on conflicted science.

Subject: UC Davis Methane Summit—A Case Study in Industry-Framed Science?

Dear Dr. Nestle,

…UC Davis hosted a “State of the Science Summit on Reducing Methane from Animal Agriculture” (link). While the summit was billed as scientific, it was organized by institutions with strong financial ties to the livestock industry. Unsurprisingly, the most effective methane reduction strategy—phasing out animal agriculture—was not mentioned.

Instead, the narrative centered on sustaining and expanding animal production, framed as essential for global nutrition which you very well know is not supported by science. The result was less a discussion of science and more a reinforcement of corporate priorities, masquerading as objectivity.

I believe this event is a powerful example of how public institutions can unintentionally (or otherwise) advance industry agendas while sidelining viable alternatives. Your perspective on this would carry tremendous weight.

Methane emissions from cattle are greenhouse gases that strongly contribute to global warming.  The livestock industry would like to reduce methane if it can.  UC Davis, the University of California’s land grant campus, has long provided research to support the state’s industrial producers.  Its scientists recently found that feeding seaweed to cattle can reduce methane emissions.

I looked at the agenda for the 2025 conference.  It appears at first glance to be quite well balanced.  Speakers come from industry, but also from academia and at least one environmental organization.   Several speakers come from the Global Methane Hub, which funds methane-reduction programs; the Hub is sponsored by a variety of industry- and privately funded foundations.

Without having been there, I have no way of knowing whether anyone at this meeting talked about how people and the planet would be healthier eating less meat.  As far as I can tell, no representatives of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which promotes a less-meat Planetary Health Diet, were listed as speakers.

So Mr. Chintakunta is correct: by focusing this meeting on reduction of methane emissions from cattle, rather than on methane emissions in general, it avoids having to deal with the inconvenient truth that eating less meat—which would be bad for the meat business—would be a lot better for planetary health.

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

But the current government takes this new levels.

Here are the Secretaries of HHS and USDA:

More on the milk mustache campaign here, here, here, and here.

And how about RFK Jr’s birthday celebration:

Earlier, in 2025, USDA announced its plan to “fortify the American beef industry.”

• USDA Action: USDA FNS is encouraging schools, sponsors, and institutions participating in any USDA Child Nutrition Programs (CNP) to source and serve locally grown foods, including beef, in program meals.,,,These efforts will improve access to local foods, including high-quality meat, for American students, and will improve child health and nutrition and reinvigorate American livestock producers by better connecting them with USDA’s Child Nutrition Programs.
• USDA Action: Together with HHS, ensure the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) reflect sound science and practical advice for the American family, including encouraging protein as the foundation for every meal.

Comment

I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.  Fruit and vegetable growers (“specialty crops”) do not have this kind of clout.  Will eating more meat and dairy foods Make America Healthy Again?  That seems highly unlikely.  In my reading of the evidence, we—and the planet—would be healthier getting more of our calories from plant foods.I

The Eat Real Food Website says “We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources….” But here’s what comes up first and is clearly the first priority.

And here’s an exultant RFK Jr on X:

Protein is well understood to be a euphemism for meat.  I’ve already written about how most people already eat twice the protein needed so advice to eat more of it is unlikely to do anyone any good.

And the document, Daily Servings by Calorie Level, makes it clear that you have to eat meat if you are going to reach the level of protein intake recommended.  For this, I am indebted to Kevin Klatt, who posted this on X.

What’s wrong with recommending more meat?

• It’s healthier getting protein from plant sources.
• The way we produce meat pollutes the environment with pesticides and herbicides to grow their feed.
• It also presents major food safety hazards (see Eric Schlosser’s update on Fast Food Nation)
• Cattle burp methane and are the single largest food source of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Beef cattle are raised in CAFOs under crowded and dirty conditions.
• The meat industry exploits workers.
• Consolidation in the meat industry keeps prices high (Tyson’s just agreed to an $82.5M settlement in a beef price-fixing lawsuit)
• Producing meat the way we do is not sustainable and adds to inequities.

Of course, sustainability and equity are non-topics for this administration.  But they matter and should very much be on the table for discussion.

We already eat plenty of meat—more than 100 pounds per capita per year of red meat alone (according to USDA).  We don’t need to be eating more.

Correction

In my first post on these dietary guidelines, I said:

Some of the instructions don’t make sense: “Consume meat with no or limited added sugars?”  Who does this?

Several readers wrote to object.  Renata M, for example, said she could think of so many examples, she just had to say something.

• BBQ sauce
• Ketchup
• Teriyaki sauce
• Other popular “Chinese” foods
• Brown sugar-glazed pork chops
• Pasta sauce
• Sloppy Joe’s
• Brines and marinades
• and more, if honey and maple syrup are considered added sugars [they are]

Oops. Sorry about that.  Thanks!

On Mondays, I typically post something about industry-funded research or investigator conflicts of interest.

In the light of Robert F. Kennedy’s complaints about conflicts of interest in previous dietary guidelines advisory committees, it is startling to observe the industry ties reported by members of this administration’s committee.

These conflicted interests are also surprising in light of the high prioritization of meat in these guidelines, which advise eating protein (a commonly understood euphemism for meat) in every meal, and high-fat dairy.

The committee’s membership and disclosures are given on pages ix-xviii of the Scientific Foundation report.

To focus just on ties to meat and dairy groups, members report financial ties to

• Global Dairy Platform
• Nutricia/Danone
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Texas Beef Council
• American Dairy Science Association
• National Dairy Council
• National Pork Board
• California Dairy Innovation Center
• Fonterra Limited
• California Dairy Research Foundation
• Dairy Management Inc

This was reported originally in Stat News (which quotes me elsewhere in the story).

It’s unclear how the Trump administration appointed its group of nutrition scientists and other researchers. A scientific report linked at the bottom of a new federal website, RealFood.gov, says only they were chosen through “a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise.”

The Times quotes Mark Kennedy, the senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines.

Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to cut it..Because if nobody ever had a chance to weigh in, and nobody other than the government behind closed doors had a way to assess it, there’s no way to ensure there’s fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the health secretary.)

Comment

In reading through press accounts, I’m pretty sure I saw one where one of the committee members reporting financial ties tossed it off with some comment about how he was sticking to the science and that’s all that mattered (I’ve searched but can’t find it now).

I heard that a lot after publication of my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In that book, I review research on the “funding effect,” the strong correlations between who pays for food and nutrition research and its outcome.  Industry-funded research tends to produce results favorable to the funder’s interests (otherwise it wouldn’t be funded).  But recipients of funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence.  It is not surprising that this committee—unlike many other scientific committees over the past decades—came to precisely the conclusions decided in advance by Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins.

As I noted last May, I get asked all the time about what they will say, but have no inside information.  But this may be a good time to go over the clues.

The process

• A scientific advisory committee reviews the research and writes a report.  This was released in December.
• Unspecified (to date) people in USDA and HHS write the guidelines.

The promises

• They will come out “hopefully early fall” (this did not happen)
• Now, according to Reuters, the new dietary guidelines will be released some time in December.

What they won’t say

• They will not continue the tradition of “leftist ideology”  [I think this must mean plant foods]
• They will not promote seed oils (RFK Jr prefers beef tallow).
• They will not promote sugar; RFK Jr says sugar is poison.  [But declared a MAHA Win for Coca’ Cola’s replacement of high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar]
• They won’t say anything about sustainability [anything about climate change is forbidden]

What they will be about

[According to Reuters] Kennedy said the new guidelines would change the kind of food served to military service members and children in schools, but gave no details on the new recommendations.

“If we want to solve the chronic disease crisis, we have to tackle obesity,” Kennedy said. “Obesity is the number one driver of chronic disease,” he said, adding that 50% of the adult U.S. population was obese or overweight, driving costs up for diabetes care and cardiac diseases.

What they might say

Beef

• In its Plan to Fortify the Beef Industry, the USDA says the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines will “encourage protein as the foundation for every meal.”
• In an announcement to ranchers, USDA quotes RFK Jr, “we are restoring whole foods as the foundation of the American diet and ending the decades-old stigma against natural saturated fat in beef and dairy products. We will strengthen America’s ranching industry so families can choose nutrient-dense, minimally processed foods.”

Dairy

In a news conference, officials gave some clues.

We are going to be there for the dairy industry…our agencies are about to release more dietary guidelines in the next several months that will elevate those products to where they ought to be…There’s a tremendous amount of emerging science that talks about the need for more protein in our diet, and more fats in our diet, and there’s no industry that does that better than this industry.

Speculation

When RFK Jr first talked about the new guidelines, he said they would ignore the scientific advisory committee report and would be simple, short (5 pages), easy to understand, and out by September.  I’m guessing that the conflict between the science and ideology is proving more difficult to resolve than anticipated.

The science continues to argue for a largely (but not necessarily exclusively) plant-based diet, reduced in meat and ultra-processed foods from current levels.  RFK Jr initially talked about the need to reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, but the second MAHA report merely asked for a definition.

This administration seems obsessed with protein, a nutrient already in excess in US diets.

If it wants to do something about obesity, it needs the guidelines to suggest ways to reduce calories.  Nobody has mentioned that word so far.

As I keep saying, I can’t wait to see what the new guidelines will look like.  Stay tuned.