Currently browsing posts about: Meat

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.

I’m indebted to Elaine Watson of AgFunder for posting this on X (Twitter): “New report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate #greenwashing.’ @Danone and @Nestle hit back”

This seemed worth a look and I went right to it. “Danone and Nestlé hit back after new report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate greenwashing.’”

The 38-page report comes from the New Climate Institute: “Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025: Food and Agriculture Sector Deep Dive: Assessing the Transparency, Integrity and Progress of Corporate Climate Strategies.”

It compares the climate promises and actions of five companies—Danone, JBS, Mars, Nestlé, and PepsiCo—with respect to deforestation, transition from animal- to plant-based products, emissions from fertilizers, reduced waste, and other measures.

Here’s the summary:

Its conclusions:

• We find that agrifood companies present measures that are unlikely to lead to structural, deep emission reductions in the sector.
• We find that 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.

Danone and Nestlé argue that they are committed to reducing their environmental impact and making good progress.

Comment

It would be nice if they were.  But to point out the obvious: food companies have no market incentive to reduce their environmental impact if it is going to raise their costs.   Of course JBS comes across as Very Poor; it is a meat company and meat production releases much greater emissions than for any other food. It is much to the advantage of Big Food to pass the externalized costs of production onto taxpayers, which is what they now do.   This situation calls for regulation.  At the moment, regulation is an unlikely possibility, but we can always hope—and work toward that goal by holding corporations accountable for their greenwashing promises.

I’m indebted to a reader, Daniel Wiser, for sending me this item about how US Poultry is honoring Tyson Foods and Perdue Foods for “excellence in wastewater management.”

The US Poultry & Egg Association announces the recipients of the 2025 Clean Water Award: Tyson Foods in Danville, Va., and Perdue Foods in Lewiston, N.C. This annual award honors poultry facilities that demonstrate strong performance in wastewater treatment, water reuse and overall sustainability. Winners were selected by a committee of industry engineers and university experts and recognized at USPOULTRY’s annual Environmental Management Seminar.

He also sent links to these stories:

• PBS News: Wastewater from Tyson meat processing plants is polluting U.S. waterways, report says
• Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Investors Refile Water Pollution Resolution with Tyson Foods
• Environment America: Report: Tyson #1 water polluter among agribusinesses
• Investigate Midwest: Oklahoma’s loophole: How Tyson’s water use goes unchecked
• Department of Justice: Tyson Poultry Fined $2 Million for Violating the Clean Water Act

You can’t make these things up!

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

• Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
• All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
• All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
• Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

• Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

My inbox was flooded last week with messages alerting me to this study.  Thanks to Matthew Kadey, Matthew Stasiewicz, Christopher Gardner, and others who preferred anonymity.

The study: Askow, Andrew T.; Barnes, Takeshi M.; Zupancic, Zan; Deutz, Max T.; Paulussen, Kevin J.M.; McKenna, Colleen F.; Salvador, Amadeo F.; Ulanov, Alexander V.; Paluska, Scott A.; Willard, Jared W.; Petruzzello, Steven J.; Burd, Nicholas A. Impact of Vegan Diets on Resistance Exercise-Mediated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Healthy Young Males and Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ():10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725, April 4, 2025. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725

Conclusions: “Our results demonstrated that the anabolic action of animal vs. vegan dietary patterns are similar. Moreover, there is no regulatory influence of distribution between the two dietary patterns on the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young adults.”

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: “This study was funded by The Beef Checkoff…Beef Checkoff sponsor was only involved in financial support of the project, without involvement in design, data collection, and analysis, nor interpretation and dissemination of the report.”

Comment: The idea here was that meat protein would promote muscle synthesis better than vegetable protein, especially at relatively low levels of intake. Hence, the Beef Checkoff’s interest.  Not only did this sponsored study come to what must have been an unexpected conclusion, but the University of Illinois issued a press release announcing it:  Omnivorous? Vegan? Makes no difference to muscle building after weight training, study finds.  High marks to the researchers and to the university press office.  This is one instance where you can be sure the Beef Checkoff really did stay out of the study design and interpretation.  Exceptions that prove the rule do happen. Sometimes.  I wish they happened more often.