Remember former FDA commissioner David Kessler’s petition to the FDA to revoke GRAS status for refined carbohydrates as a way to immediately regulate ultra-processed foods?

I wrote about this here on August 14, 2025.

David Kessler, a physician, lawyer, and former FDA Commissioner, has done a great service for the Make America Healthy Again movement.  He has written a letter to RFK Jr presenting a Citizen’s Petition to the FDA: “Petition to Limit the Exposure of Refined Carbohydrates used in Industrial Processing in order to Prevent Obesity, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease in Children and Adults.”

The FDA has 180 days to respond to citizens’ petitions.  It did not come close to meeting this deadline.

But now The Washington Post says that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr tried to meet it.  He wrote a letter in response in March but he White House held it up and it has never been sent.  The Post based its account on a leaked copy of the letter.

I also acquired a leaked copy. Here it is.

The letter is undated, and I do not know whether this is the latest version or the one obtained by the Post.

Whatever it is, it’s impressive.  It’s thoughtful, well written, compelling, and referenced in detail.

The draft I received came with two highlighted statements.

The first contains RFK Jr’s statement of intention:

I will be calling on companies to provide any safety information they have to HHS on the health impacts of refined starches and sweeteners to allow FDA to evaluate the GRAS status of the refined starches and sweeteners listed in your petition.

The second states his endorsement of Kessler’s petition.

I believe your petition points toward an historic opportunity to significantly improve the quality of our food supply and thus the health of our citizens.

FDA’s statute and regulations require that GRAS status be based on the ingredient’s intended use. We want to see any information that proves these ingredients at the quantities they are being added to the food supply should still be generally considered safe. Today, HHS will begin seeking any detailed safety studies food companies may have conducted for proving the safety of the refined starches and refined sugars they are adding into the food supply.

The letter states Secretary Kennedy’s further intentions: “during my time as Secretary, I intend to work across the Administration to oversee a process that will include at least the following actions:”

• Fully Implementing the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
• Engaging Congress, the States, the Food Industry, and the Public in a Strategy to Address the Concerns Raised by Ultra-Processed Foods.
• Ongoing and Systematic Reassessment of Ingredients and Additives of Concern.
• Added Sugar Reduction Strategy.
• Labeling to Better Inform Consumers.
• Facilitate Research and Technical Assistance to Industry.

This signals that RFK Jr is serious about reducing ultra-processed foods and added sugars.  Of sugars, the letter says:

I have directed FDA to develop an added sugar reduction strategy that will encourage food manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants to reduce added sugars in their products and provide greater transparency to consumers on added sugar content. On January 23, 2026, FDA’s Human Foods Program released its 2026 priority deliverables, which include specifics on this strategy. I have directed FDA to develop an added sugar reduction strategy that will encourage food manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants to reduce added sugars in their products and provide greater transparency to consumers on added sugar content.

On January 23, 2026, FDA’s Human Foods Program released its 2026 priority deliverables, which includes this statement about sugar reduction.

The strategy will focus on encouraging the food industry to lower added sugar in processed and prepared foods, proposing a nutrient content claim for added sugars (defining “low added sugar”), exploring targeted consumer education initiatives in collaboration with other federal agencies, investigating ingredient labeling and menu labeling requirements, exploring potential strategies for labeling of sugar alternatives that do not increase blood glucose, and assessing the use of low or no-calorie and non-nutritive alternative sweeteners.

Comments

The letter does not sound like it was written by RFK, Jr.  I wonder who wrote it.

The letter is hard hitting; it threatens the food industry with major federal efforts to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugars.

I can understand why it’s been held up.  It means the government is taking on the food industry, as promised by RFK Jr (“the food industry is poisoning America”).

Will he take on the food industry?  Does he want to do that?  Will the White House let him?

So far, the MAHA agenda has been mostly talk and no action.  I don’t see this being any different, but let’s wait and see.

Charles Platkin of the Center for Food as Medicine & Longevity sent me this gem.

His summary: Eating almonds improved how people rated their sleep, but most objective sleep measures did not change…Almonds are nutritious, but this is not proof they treat insomnia.

The study: Desai SR, Pinto L, Halbe A, Vaidya RA, Udipi SA and Kalita S (2026) Effects of almond consumption on sleep quality in adults: a randomized controlled trial. Front. Nutr. 13:1892442. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1892442

Method: 175 adults with sleep problems were randomized to eat almonds or another snack for 5 months.

Results: Those eating almonds reported improvements in sleep quality and melatonin levels were higher.  But no significant treatment effects were observed for most parameters and there were no significant differences observed for other biochemical or anthropometric outcomes.  The almond eaters felt that they slept better.

Conclusion: “Almond consumption was associated with improvements in subjective sleep efficiency and sleep continuity in adults with poor sleep quality. These findings suggest that almonds may enhance perceived sleep quality, with slight objective improvements among responders.”

Funding: The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This clinical trial was supported by Almonds Board of California.

Comment: This study is a classic instance of industry-influenced interpretation bias.  It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would think 50 almonds a day (350 calories!) would help anyone sleep and they didn’t.  But the conclusions put a positive spin on the results.

As placebos go, I’ll take almonds any day.  I like them.  But sleep?

When my children, Rebecca and Charles Nestle, visited last week, we took a walk on the High Line in Manhattan, spotted this water fountain at 23rd Street, and I took this picture.

Here’s what the sign says:

Ximena Garrido-Lecca
The Golden Crop, July 2026 – June 2027

The High Line press release explains:

Ximena Garrido-Lecca uses sculpture and installation to highlight the complex relationship between Indigenous knowledge, colonial history, and modern technological and industrial systems.

For the High Line, Garrido-Lecca presents The Golden Crop, a nine-foot corn cob water fountain, made of bronze. Corn holds a central position in pre-Columbian mythology and was considered the origin of humanity by the Aztecs and Maya.

It also is one of the most important crops in the global economy, and is often genetically modified to tolerate pesticides like glyphosate. Glyphosate has sparked debates for its effects on human health and the environment, such as river contamination.

Garrido-Lecca dyed the water that trickles down the corn and between the kernels to have a neon yellow hue, a reference to the toxic chemical and its effects on runoff water sources, particularly those that communities use for drinking, fishing, and recreation. The artist also highlights the way industrial farming and GMO corn have impacted the existence and strength of native varieties, risking the erosion of cultural heritage associated with these crops, ultimately, challenging the viewer to reconsider the social, health, and environmental costs of our interconnected modern world.

Indeed.  It seemed appropriate to post this at foodpolitics.com.

Everyone should read Eric Schlosser’s op-ed, Why Did Trump Order Up 660 Million Pounds of Mystery Meat?  We have country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce.  But because of Big Meat lobbying,

Beef and pork are notable exceptions to these laws. And that may help to explain why President Trump signed a proclamation last month that will allow the duty-free importation of about 660 million pounds of inexpensive beef.

If American consumers knew where that beef was coming from, they might not want to eat it.

As he explains, this beef is  trimmings, possibly stored frozen for years, intended to be added to ground beef to adjust the fat content.

He lists the food safety scandals around such trimmings.

• China rejected two shipping containers of beef from Uruguay after finding residue of an anti-parasitic drug in the meat.
• China rejected beef from Argentina reportedly because it tested positive for a banned antibiotic that can cause serious blood disorders.
• Brazilian federal police raided nearly 200 meatpacking plants after allegations that government inspectors and politicians were being bribed to allow the sale of contaminated beef.

As for why President Trump allowed this, against the wishes of the US beef industry:

“Regime Change,” the recent book by the Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, contains an interesting clue: a White House meeting last November between President Trump and Joesley Batista, whose family controls JBS…Mr. Batista gained the White House meeting last November, Ms. Haberman and Mr. Swan wrote, because of his friendship with Melania Trump. In addition, a JBS subsidiary had donated $5 million to Mr. Trump’s second inauguration, the largest gift from any individual or corporation.

Eric Schlosser discusses this and other such matters on Democracy Now.

Comment

We need country of origin labeling for beef, for sure.  We have it for produce.  Congress made beef exempt.  Bring it back.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler wants more USDA inspection and more transparency, as he says in 660 Million Pounds of Trimmings — The Part of Eric Schlosser’s Op-Ed I Would Underline.  His advice to hamburger eaters:

The one thing that makes a hamburger safe is 160°F, measured with a thermometer. Buy from your butcher if you want to know where your beef came from. Then cook it to 160 anyway.

And then, of course, there’s what’s happening to beef prices.  You might feel better about this if you knew the beef was raised here and was safe.

A bunch of items got me thinking about the gap between what MAHA promised and what it is actually doing: mostly talk, but not much action.

I.  This post from Senator Elizabeth Warren on X.

II.  The New York Times: How Kennedy did on children’s health reforms

Everything seems to be a mixed bag:

• Dietary guidelines advising eat real food and restrict highly processed foods, but also advising more meat, fat, and saturated fat.
• State restrictions of sodas and other sugary foods on SNAP, but other requirements that have dropped enrollments.
• An FDA proposal to close the GRAS loophole, but cuts to personnel will make oversight impossible.
• Removal of artificial dyes from food products, but this is voluntary.
• Defining ultra-processed foods, but this is held up and its fate is uncertain.
• Promises to put real food in schools, but no rules have as yet been issued nor is more money being appropriated.

III.  “MAHA Moms Built a Movement. MAGA Bros Have Taken It Over,”

With the midterm elections approaching and MAHA voters increasingly dissatisfied with Trump, it’s worth asking: How exactly did a cause powered by women turn into one run by men? And will the women who built the MAHA movement ever revolt?

IV.  KFF  Health News:  Trump and Kennedy’s Health Industry Deals Haven’t Been Enforced and Are at Risk of Vanishing

Like the focus on artificial dyes, however, many of the administration’s highest-profile health initiatives rely on voluntary agreements. The goals, such as lower drug prices and nutrition classes for doctors, have widespread appeal, cutting across party lines and economic divisions.  But the administration-industry deals lack the enforcement teeth of more traditional federal regulation. Their details are vague, and minimal oversight makes it hard to monitor progress. In some cases, the administration has claimed victories that have yet to materialize.

Comment

I had some cautious hope that this particular piece of this administration’s plans might actually get somewhere.  At the beginning, RFK Jr sounded like he really did want to improve American diets and Make America Healthy Again.  Apparently, he was unable to stand up to food industry pressures, as is most evident by his failure to get glyphosate out of the food supply.

His one resounding success?  Destroying confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccinations, despite tons of evidence that their benefits hugely outweigh risks.

In a word, disappointing.

It’s Climate Week, so this seems ironically appropriate.  Never mind global warming, ruminant greenhouse gas emissions, or food safety.

You have to love the double-speak rhetoric:

This action aligns research and promotion activities with the Department’s priorities and the original mission of the checkoffs. USDA remains committed to ensuring that every dollar collected from American producers serves American agriculture for the better.

“Serving American agriculture for the better” is a red flag.  It usually translates as serving the interests of agribusiness or the peculiar politics of the current USDA.

The USDA’s target here is its Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.  This, according to the announcement, was

established through the checkoff, has pursued extensive ESG initiatives, including greenhouse-gas and net-zero targets. USDA’s action ends checkoff support for those ESG-related projects…This action also directs the Agricultural Marketing Service to ensure no research and promotion funds in other commodity checkoffs advance ESG mandates…USDA is taking swift action to bar the Dairy Checkoff from spending farmer paid dollars on the radical ESG ideology [my emphasis].

I took a look at the Innovation Center website.  Its focus areas may explain why the USDA wants its funding stopped.  Radical ideology?  You decide.

• Animal care: Align the industry on best practices for animal well-being and care.
• Environmental Stewardship: Advance solutions that protect natural resources and nourish the planet for future generations.
• Food Safety: Drive adoption of world-class food safety practices while exploring next generation technologies that progress safety and traceability.
• Health & Well-being: Deliver dairy nutrition that meets emerging and personalized health while improving nutrition security in the U.S. and around the world.
• People & Community: Support efforts to alleviate hunger, promote community vitality, and empower the dairy workforce.

The Center is funded by the checkoff program.  With no checkoff funding, it will no longer exist.

Chalk this up as another tragic casualty of the Trump administration’s radical ideology.

I subscribe to Jerry Hagstrom’s “The Hagstrom Report” for his tracking of food events in Washington DC I would not know about otherwise.  He occasionally hosts sponsored posts and I was especially interested to read this one on September 15: “Candy: An American Manufacturing Success Story 250 Years in the Making” by John Downs, the president and CEO of the National Confectioners Association.

I don’t write about candy much.  Yes it’s sugar, but most people don’t eat all that much of it.

The CDC lists these main sources of sugar in US diets:

• 24% from sugary drinks, such as soft drinks, fruit drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks.
• 19% from desserts and sweet snacks.
• 11% from coffee and tea that is sweetened before sale or added later.
• 9% from candy and sugars.
• 7% from breakfast cereals and bars.

According to Google’s AI, for candy:

Wish Fast Food Nation a happy 25th anniversary.

It’s hard for me to believe it’s been 25 years since this book first appeared, but 25th anniversary editions of my Food Politics and Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma are also in the works.

The book is about the beef industry and what it does to the animals, packing house workers, the environment, and human health.

Eric Schlosser wrote a new Afterword for this edition.

Here are two excerpts.

As of this writing…highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) has not yet caused a deadly epidemic among human beings.  Pasteurization kills H5N1 in milk, and the virus hasn’t yet mutated to become for contagious or more lethal.  But H5N1 has become endemic among wild birds, chickens, turkeys, and dairy cattle in the United States, allowing a continual mixture of its genes.  A bird flu epidemic that kills millions of people may never emerge from America’s factory farms—or it may next week, next month, next year.  The industrialization of livestock, the transformation of sentient creatures into commodities, and the absence of government oversight have created an efficient system for creating dangerous new pathogens.  As this book argued twenty-five years ago, that’s the price we pay for cheap meat.  That price doesn’t appear on the menu. (p. 312)

Economists often use the four-firm concentration ratio as a measure of the competition in a market for goods and services.  When four companies gain a combined market share of 40 percent or higher, an oligopoly has formed.  The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces.  A handful of companies have gained control of the market.  Effective government regulation becomes more difficult, as state and federal agencies readily become “captive” to the corporations they’re supposed to oversee.  Today, four companies control about 60 percent of the worldwide market for seeds and 61 percent of the market for pesticides.  Four companies control about 70 to 90 percent of the worldwide trade in grain.  Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of America’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle.

This book kicked off the food movement 25 years ago.  If you haven’t read it, now is the time.  We need it more than ever.