Let me start by confessing that I did not review the references in the MAHA Comission report I wrote about last week—except for mine.

The reference to my book, Food Politics, is a bit garbled (In Food Politics?  No.  This is Food Politics), but these are basically OK.  It’s easy to make mistakes like that one and I rely on the help of many proofreaders and factcheckers to try to avoid such errors in my published work.  I checked a couple of the other references related to food topics and they seemed basically OK too.

So I was surprised by the report from NOTUS that The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,

This finding was immediately attributed by the New York Times and other sources to the report’s having been referenced by Artificial Intelligence (AI), a tool well known to be scientifically inaccurate and to make things up.

To immediately plagiarize (well, quote) Ted Kyle at ConscienHealth: The MAHA Report: Make America Hallucinate Again.

I was also surprised—no, dismayed—by the administration’s response to these discoveries.

According to FoodFix,

White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt told reporters…“I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed,” Leavitt said. “But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that’s ever been released by the federal government, and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government.”

FoodFix also quotes the HHS Press Secretary:

Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children…“It’s time for the media to also focus on what matters.”

Formatting issues?  Oh come on.

Calley Means, the top advisor to RFK Jr, posted “The least surprising thing about the MAHA Report is that the media and failed medical leaders are talking about footnotes instead of its actual content.”

Sorry.  Footnotes matter.  Everything in a report making policy recommendations depends on where its information comes from.  Hallucinating references implies hallucinating data.

The MAHA Report is now being continually updated to fix the citation problem.

Some of the updates are introducing other errors. 

Yikes.

The Washington Post has published details: The MAHA Report’s AI fingerprints, annotated.

I was interviewed by Reuters about all this:

Nobody has ever accused RFK Jr. of academic rigor…The speed (of the MAHA report) suggests that it could not have been vetted carefully and must have been whisked through standard clearance procedures. The citation problem suggests a reliance on AI.”

Science magazine headlined the downplaying of the fake citations and pointed out the irony:

Problems with the MAHA report’s integrity came to light even as Kennedy has threatened to prevent government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA, which he claims are “corrupt” and controlled by pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy has instead proposed a state-run alternative.

Discovery of the fake citations also came just days after President Donald Trump unveiled an executive order that called for “Restoring Gold Science Standards” to government activities…One goal, Trump wrote, is to ensure that “Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.”

Yeah, right.

All of this has led cartoonists like Clay Bennett to ridicule the report.

Here’s another good one from Carlos Muñoz.

Ridicule—or lack of credibility if you prefer—is one reason why this matters.

What I had drilled into me as a graduate student in molecular biology was the importance of reading references, and never under any circumstances citing a reference I hadn’t read.

Why?  Because the credibility of my work depends on where I got my information—how I know what I claim to know.

When I managed the editorial process for the 1988 Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, checking references was crucial to supporting the report’s recommendations.  It took years to get the report out, not least because of the enormous amount of vetting involved—from scientists, but also government agencies.

This report, unfortunately, was a rush job.  It astonished me that it got done in only three months (I really want to know who wrote it).

It’s one thing to make editorial errors in citing references (try as hard as I can to get them right, errors invariably get overlooked).

But this report had references that were made up.  Hallucinated.  This means nobody looked at them.

If its references are not reliable, nothing else in the report can be trusted either.

And that’s a shame.  It said a lot of things that badly needed to be said.

Too many corners were cut in throwing this together at the last minute.  I know this was a rush job because I have four versions of the report.

• Version 1: May 22 early morning.  It has no references at all.  My first reaction: What?  No references?
• Version 2: Also May 22, but later in the morning. It has references but not much in the way of formatting.
• Version 3: May 22. This is the one released to the public.
• Version 4: This is the one online on May 31.  Other versions, perhaps multiple, came in between and may come after.

None of this bodes well for the future of MAHA initiatiatives.  Sad.

 

Why alas?  I love maple syrup.

But the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers association apparently has decided that it needs to boost sales by promoting maple syrup as a superfood.

Sigh.

The article in the New York Times is titled: “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.”

The subtitle: “Funded by the maple industry, a researcher has exaggerated his findings to suggest that syrup could help prevent serious diseases.”

For more than a decade, Navindra Seeram, a biomedical researcher, has praised maple syrup, calling it a “hero ingredient” and “champion food” that could have wide-ranging health benefits…As he straddles the realms of scientific inquiry and promotion, he has distorted the real-world implications of his findings and exaggerated health benefits…In videos and press releases, he has suggested that consuming maple syrup may help stave off diseases including cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

The article continues…

At the University of Rhode Island, where he worked until last year, Dr. Seeram oversaw projects that were awarded $2.6 million in U.S. government funding, including a grant explicitly intended to increase maple syrup sales. That promotional work produced a stream of social media posts like, “Maple Syrup’s Benefits: Anti-Cancer, Anti-Oxidant, Anti-Inflammatory.”

Oh how I wish.

As for who pays for this,

The Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, an industry association that markets and regulates most of the world’s maple syrup, has long funded Dr. Seeram’s work. The association and the Canadian government have together provided at least $2.8 million for his research, according to a 2019 grant applicatio

Maple syrup is just a form of sugar, and mostly sucrose at that.  It does have a few minerals in small amounts, along with its fabulously delicious flavoring ingredients.

But a nutritional powerhouse?  Alas, no.

Sylvia R. Karasu.  In Essence: A Tapestry of Selected Writings. 2025.

I wrote a blurb for this gorgeous book.

In Essence collects Dr. Sylvia Karasu’s elegant essays from Psychology Today and other publications.  These cover a broad variety of topics–vegetarianism, twins, opium, gullibility–each full of unexpected information, and all stunningly illustrated with artworks chosen to precisely illuminate the subject under analysis.  The book is breathtaking—a treasure not to be missed.

A brief excerpt from her essay on Collecting: A Demonic Passion:

Key Points

• The accumulator, rationalizing that someday things will come in handy, amasses an assortment of objects without any discernment.
• The collector, different from the accumulator and the hoarder, engages in a voluntary activity of selecting and ordering.
• People can collect objects, but also ideas and experiences.
• Collecting may include elements of exhibitionism, addiction, and obsession when the collection possesses the collector.

She writes:

“Let me look at my demon objectively. With the exception of my parents, no one really understood my obsession,

and it was many years before I met a fellow sufferer,” wrote the internationally renowned novelist Vladimir Nabokov in his autobiography Speak, Memory (1999). Continues Nabokov, “Few things indeed have I known in the way of emotion or appetite, ambition or achievement, that could surpass in richness and strength the excitement of entomological exploration.”

I’m hoping the Making America Healthy Again includes keeping us safe from food pathogens.

Four items relevant to food safety.

I.  Food Safety News: Salmonella outbreak sickens over 100; Animal operations blamed for leafy greens risk.

II. And the FDA is investigating yet another outbreak.

Cucumbers grown by Bedner Growers, Inc., and distributed by Fresh Start Produce Sales, Inc., to retailers, distribution centers, wholesalers, and food service distributors from April 29, 2025, to May 19, 2025. Cucumbers distributed before this timeframe should be past shelf life and should no longer be available on the market…FDA has posted a list of additional recalls being conducted by retailers that may have received potentially contaminated recalled cucumbers from Bedner Growers, Inc. This list includes recalls conducted by companies that further processed the cucumbers by using them as ingredients in new products or by repackaging them.

III.  The Journal of Food Protection just published this article: An Overview of Farm Investigation Findings Associated with Outbreaks of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Infections Linked to Leafy Greens: 2009 – 2021

These investigations showed that the outbreak strain can be found throughout the lifespan of leafy greens products, from the agriculture water used for the leafy greens, sediment from irrigation reservoirs, manure in nearby land, to retail product.

The contaminants come from animal manure leaching into water and soil.  Leafy greens should not be grown near CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).

IV.  And what are FDA (plants) and USDA (animals) doing about all this?  The budget cuts are unlikely to help.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently laid off approximately 6,000 employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, the Trump administration has proposed almost $40 million in budget cuts to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a $1 billion decrease in the USDA budget, which recently resulted in workforce cuts and the suspension of services such as milk quality tests…The budget cuts and layoffs are partially intended to lessen federal government oversight and to shift many of the responsibilities to the state level. However, some states simply do not have the resources to serve as equally effective replacements.

This could have significant impacts on food safety and quality assurance.

How’s that for an understatement?

 

The press release: USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins Approves First Ever State Waiver to Restrict Soda and Energy Drinks from Food Stamps in Nebraska

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins today signed the first-ever waiver to amend the statutory definition of food for purchase for Nebraska’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Effective January 1, 2026, taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing the purchase of soda or energy drinks in the State of Nebraska.

Nebraska governor Jim Pillen put it this way:

There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there’s nothing nutritious about the junk we’re removing with today’s waiver. I’m grateful to have worked with Secretary Rollins and the Trump Administration to get this effort across the finish line. It is a tremendous step toward improving the health and well-being of our state. We have to act because we can’t keep letting Nebraskans starve in the midst of plenty.

USDA Secretary Rollins then announced approval of SNAP soda waivers in Indiana and Iowa.

On Secretary Rollins’ first full day in office, she sent a letter to the nation’s governors (PDF, 88.8 KB), outlining her vision for the Department and inviting them to participate in a new “Laboratories of Innovation” initiative to create bold solutions to long-ignored challenges.

More are sure to follow.

Full disclosure: I was a member of the advisory committee for SNAP to Health, a project of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, chaired by Dr. Susan Blumenthal.  We released our report at a congressional briefing in 2012 (here’s what I said about it at the time.  Alas, most of the links no longer work, but here’s the report).

One of our recommendations:

Provide States with Flexibility to Evaluate Fresh Approaches to SNAP The USDA should grant states greater flexibility for waivers to pilot test and evaluate program changes in SNAP that would improve nutrition (e.g. pilot projects to assess the feasibility of incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods and/or limiting the purchase of high-calorie, nutrient-poor products with
SNAP benefits).

Our commission favored pilot projects to remove sodas from SNAP, but not at the expense of overall benefits.  We cited evidence that SNAP recipients would not necessarily object to having sodas removed; they could still buy sodas using their own money.

Historical note: the original plan for food stamps, the forerunner of SNAP, was to have sodas on the list of foods that could not be purchased with benefits.  The soda industry and retailers succeeded in lobbying to keep sodas in the program.

Guess who is objecting to the waivers: soda trade associations and retailers.  They say the new exclusions are “misguided” and could “create chaos and confusion.”

Food assistance advocates have long argued that restrictions are condescending and are in any case a cover for cutting SNAP benefits.

They are not wrong about that.  The Trump administration has cut SNAP benefits by 20% or so.

Will budget cuts make SNAP recipients healthy again?  I doubt it.

As for the waivers: I hope researchers in these states are lining up.

I want to know what effect these restrictions will have on overall SNAP food and drink purchases, drink purchases using their own funds, and overall health.  And I particularly want to know how SNAP recipients feel about the changes.

Resource

USDA’s tracking page on SNAP waivers

 

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

• The press release: MAHA Commission Unveils Landmark Report Exposing Root Causes of Childhood Chronic Disease Crisis
• The Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission
• The Commission report: Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment

Additional resource

• Errol Schweizer sent me his analysis on Medium, well worth reading.

 

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.

The newly released Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) has bad news.

In 2024, more than 295 million people across 53 countries and territories experienced acute levels of hunger– an increase of 13.7 million from 2023.

Of great concern is the worsening prevalence of acute food insecurity, which now stands at 22.6 percent of the population assessed. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which this figure has remained above 20 percent…Malnutrition, particularly among children, reached extremely high levels, including in the Gaza Strip, Mali, Sudan, and Yemen. Nearly 38 million children under five were acutely malnourished across 26 nutrition crises.

Why?

• Conflict
• Economic shocks
• Climate extremes
• Forced displacement

The report makes dismal reading.  These crises may seem remote, but if people cannot survive in their own countries, they will migrate.  We are one world and we will be much better off if everyone else is too.