How did a nice girl like me end up in New York Magazine’s MAHA issue?  I was amazed to find myself in this.

MAHA is the Trump Administration’s Make America Healthy Again campaign.

For the record: I’m totally for making America healthy, and especially for doing everything possible to reduce risks from chronic disease.  I’m for some of what RFK, Jr wants to do (reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, get toxins out of the food supply, reduce conflicts of interest) but by no means all.

Oh well, I didn’t want you to miss this. Enjoy (?).

Here’s what the FDA says about Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling.

To meet the updated criteria for the claim, a food product needs to

1. contain a certain amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (such as fruit, vegetables, grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy and protein foods) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and
2. meet specific limits for added sugars, saturated fat and sodium.

To qualify, a breakfast cereal, bread, or any other grain food would need to have 3/4 ounce of whole grains, and have less than 10% of the Daily Value for added sugars (5 grams per serving), less than 10% for sodium (230 mg per serving), and less that 1 gram of saturated fat (5% DV).

On this basis, kids cereals won’t qualify.

Oh.  And the FDA is still working on the symbol.

Resources

• Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling | FDA
• FDA Finalizes Updated “Healthy” Nutrient Content Claim | FDA
• Constituent update
• FDA’s Updated “Healthy” Claim Definition: Fact Sheet
• Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-29957.pdf
• New York Times: What Are ‘Healthy’ Foods? The F.D.A. Updates the Labeling Terms
• The Hill: FDA updates definition of ‘healthy’ on food labels for first time in 30 years

What are we to make of this?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health says moderate drinking

• Reduces all-cause mortality (moderate certainty)
• Reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (moderate certainty)
• Increases the risk of breast and colorectal cancer (but can’t decide about others)

The Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, says in his Advisory on Alcohol and Cancer Risk

• Consuming alcohol increases the risk of developing at least 7 types of cancer.
• The causal relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer is firmly established.

Let me try some context.

That alcohol is a risk factor for cancer has been known since the 1980s.

The Surgeon General’s conclusion is especially noteworthy for its lack of ambiguity.  He says flat out: alcohol causes cancer, and 7 kinds no less.

In contrast, the NASEM report talks about low and moderate certainty for its conclusions.

Presumably, both reports were based on the same data.

Here’s what this is about.

At issue: what the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines will say about how much alcohol is safe to drink (if any).

Since 1990, Dietary Guidelines have said two standard drinks a day for men and one for women could be considered low risk.

But the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, based on recent research indicating harm from any level of alcohol intake, said only one drink a day for both men and women was probably OK.

This alarmed the alcohol industry and other industries that profit from drinking.  They convinced Congress and federal agencies to revisit the effects of moderate drinking.

Yet another report on moderate drinking and health, this one from federal agencies, is expected any day now.

The bottom line

While all this is going on, the moral is pretty clear: the less alcohol, the better.

Resources

NASEM report press release

Industry pressure to make sure Dietary Guidelines to not toughen alcohol restrictions

New York Times: What is Moderate Drinking?

Example of alcohol industry pressure on Dietary Guidelines

Rani Rabin has been right on top of this fuss.  See, for example

• Surgeon General calls for cancer warnings on alcohol
• The battle over what to tell Americans about drinking
• US diet panel adds another researcher with alcohol industry ties
• Major study of drinking will be shut down

 

 

 

 

Let’s start the new year off with a classic industry-funded study with predictable results.

Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Sanders, Lisa M et al. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 12, 104500

Background: Results from observational studies suggest associations of red meat intake with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, RCTs have not clearly demonstrated a link between red meat consumption and CVD risk factors. Further, the specific effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, have not been extensively investigated.

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data evaluating the effects of minimally or unprocessed beef intake on CVD risk factors in adults.

Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and CENTRAL databases.

Results: Beef intake did not impact blood pressure or most lipoprotein-related variables, including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, non–HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A or B, and VLDL-cholesterol. Beef consumption had a small but significant effect on LDL-cholesterol (0.11; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.20; P = 0.03), corresponding to ∼2.7 mg/dL higher LDL-cholesterol in diets containing more beef than that in low-beef or -o beef comparator diets. Sensitivity analyses show this effect was lost when 1 influential study was removed.

Conclusions: In summary, the results of this analysis showed no meaningful effect of daily unprocessed beef intake, compared with diets with less or no beef, on circulating lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressures, except for a small effect to increase the LDL-cholesterol concentration by ∼2.7 mg/dL. Given that unprocessed beef has minimal to no impact on these CVD risk factors but is a significant source of highly bioavailable protein as well as iron, zinc, and selenium, its inclusion in the diet may help improve dietary nutrient profiles without significantly affecting lipids or blood pressures.

Funding: This study was supported by the Beef Checkoff. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. A report was shared with the sponsor prior to submission. The final decision for all aspects of the study and the manuscript content were those of the authors alone.

Comment:  As I said, an instant classic of the genre.  The USDA-managed Beef Checkoff had input into the study design and got to comment on the results and conclusions before the article was submitted for publication.  The sponsor exerted influence at the two places bias is most often found: the study design and the interpretation of the results.  Hence, industry influenced and predictable.

More to come.  Happy new year!

I’ve just been sent the copy-edited manuscript of my forthcoming book, What to Eat Now, the new and almost entirely revised edition of What to Eat to be published in fall 2025 (Picador Press).  I will be working on that over the holidays, will have more to say about it next year, and will return to the daily updates on January 6.

Have wonderful holidays.  Happy new year!

Let’s end Food Politics this year (this is the last post until January 6) with some more good news: USDA Builds on Actions to Protect Livestock and Public Health from H5N1 Avian Influenza

The Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today announced a new National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) requiring that raw (unpasteurized) milk samples nationwide be collected and shared with USDA for testing.  T

This new guidance, developed with input from state, veterinary and public health stakeholders, will facilitate comprehensive H5N1 surveillance of the nation’s milk supply and dairy herds, USDA said.

Testing will be mandatory.

• Producers will have to share raw milk samples, if asked
• Producers must provide epidemiological data to enable contact tracing of infected cattle
• Veterinarians and labs must report positive results to USDA

Great.  Now if USDA would only enact the same requirements for testing for toxic E. coli.

As food safety lawyer Bill Marler explains in Hey, RFK, your “Raw Milk Czar” has had a few E. coli issues:

A total of 11 people infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli were reported from 5 states…Of 11 people with information available, 5 were hospitalized and 2 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious condition that can cause kidney failure. No deaths were reported.

Raw milk, after all, is high on the list of foods Bill Marler won’t eat.

On that cheerful note, happy food politics holidays.  I will be back on January 6.

A federal judge has said no to the proposed $25 billion purchase of Albertson’s by Kroger.  This is a win for the Federal Trade Commission and for consumers faced with store closures and higher prices almost certainly expected as a result of the merger.

U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson agreed in the ruling that the merger was likely to remove direct competition between the two grocers, which would make it unlawful…Albertsons shares were down around 2.2% on Tuesday afternoon. Kroger shares were up around 5%.

I’ve written about the proposed merger in earlier posts.

• Kroger v. the Federal Trade Commission: Not a pretty story
• The proposed Kroger-Albertson’s merger: divestment consequences
• Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons: What this means

A lot of money was at stake.  Now things are geting really ugly.

Albertson’s is suing Kroger for not trying hard enough to get the merger through the FTC.

Kroger says this charge is baseless.

“This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger’s written notification of Albertsons’ multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger’s break fee, to which they are not entitled.

The cases are likely to go on and on.  In the meantime, enjoy going to your local supermarket while you can.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee may not think there is much to ultra-processed foods (UPF), but companies making them have just been served with a lawuit.

I learned about this from a tweet (x) from Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian public health professor who coined the UPF term.

CMonteiro_USP (@Carlos A. Monteiro) posted: A first-of-its-kind lawsuit against 11 UPF industries alleging they engineer their UPF products to be addictive with details on the actions taken to target children including internal memos, meetings & the research conducted to create addictive substances.

The lawsuit, filed by several law firms, is aimed at Big Food: Kraft, Mondelez, Post, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, WK Kellogg, Mars, and Conagra.

The suit charges that these firms, through their deliberate marketing, are making people sick.

Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Plaintiff is now suffering from these devastating diseases, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life.

The suit makes interesting reading.

Some examples:

• Big Tobacco companies intentionally designed UPF to hack the physiological structures of our brains.  These formulation strategies were quickly adopted throughout the UPF industry, with the goal of driving consumption, and defendants’ profits, at all costs.
• The same MRI machines used by scientific researchers to study potential cures for addiction are used by UPF companies to engineer their products to be ever more addictive.
• Big Tobacco repurposed marketing strategies designed to sell cigarettes to children and minorities, and aggressively marketed UPF to these groups.
• The UPF industry now spends about $2 billion each year marketing UPF to children.
• UPF increase the risks of disease because they are ultra-processed, not because of how many grams of certain nutrients they contain or how much weight gain they cause. Therefore, even attempts to eat healthfully are undermined by the ultra-processed nature of UPF. One cannot evade the risks caused by UPF simply by selecting UPF with lower calories, fat, salt, sugar, carbohydrates, or other nutrients.
• The UPF industry is well aware of the harms they are causing and has known it for decades. But they continue to inflict massive harm on society in a reckless pursuit of profits.

Can’t wait to see what happens with this one.  Stay tuned.

Resources

Consumer Federation of America: “Ultra-processed Foods: Why They Matter and What to Do About It.”

With government officials reluctant to issue advice on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), Consumer Federation of America aims to raise awareness about research on UPFs, explain the leading theories of how they harm health, and build support for public policies to reduce harms from UPFs in our diet.

The report pushes back on arguments that researchers have not consistently defined UPFs, or that the categorization lacks scientific rigor. In fact, researchers have operationalized the “Nova classification” system behind UPFs in a largely consistent manner, defining foods based on whether they contain ingredients that are “industrial formulations” or “rarely used in home kitchens,” with little serious disagreement about which ingredients should be considered “ultra processed.” Consumers can take CFA’s online quiz to test their knowledge of which ingredients are markers of “ultra processing.”

New research: Trends in Adults’ Intake of Un-processed/Minimally Processed, and Ultra-processed foods at Home and Away from Home in the United States from 2003–2018.  J Nutr 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.10.048.  The data show that 50% or more of calories are consumed from UPF at home, away from home, and by pretty much everyone.

New research: Hagerman CJ, Hong AE, Jennings E, Butryn ML. A Pilot Study of a Novel Dietary Intervention Targeting Ultra-Processed Food Intake. Obes Sci Pract. 2024 Dec 8;10(6):e70029. doi: 10.1002/osp4.70029.  Behavioral interventions to reduce UPF intake cut calories by about 600 calories per day.

My post summarizing the three studies demonstrating that diets high in UPF induce intake of an excess of 500, 800, and 1000 calories per day.