I know I just posted a bunch of these, but here are even more.

To understand what’s happening with alternative meats—both plant- and cell-based—it helps to remember that companies making these products are businesses funded by venture capitalists.

The European Union’s recent ban on using the term “meaty” to apply to these products could have major implications for sales.

In the U.S.

• Alt protein investors are tired of waiting – they want confidence in the future: As the initial hype dies down, investors in meat alternatives want a return on their investment… Read more
• Are we wrong about plant-based’s decline?  Some predict that plant-based growth could balloon in the coming decade… Read more
• Beyond Meat is now Beyond: The plant-based meat manufacturer has been diversifying for a while, but now it has fully rebranded… Read more

In the European Union

• EU ‘meaty’ names ban: What it means for the future of plant-based: Restrictions on naming may not be a disaster for meat alternatives… Read more
• EU ‘meaty’ names ban agreed, ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ exempt: The ban will go ahead, but certain words will be allowed… Read more
• Does the EU ‘meaty’ names ban affect seafood? Many have speculated that the ban could impact products beyond analogues… Read more

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.

Mehmet Oz’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) sent a memo to hospitals last week, telling them to align their food service policies and practices with the 2025–2030 dietary guidelines (see announcement in video).

Hospitals should:

• Limit ultra-processed food options for patients.
• Eliminate sugar-sweetened beverages unless clinically appropriate in limited scenarios.
• Eliminate refined grains and replace them with 100% whole grains.
• Prioritize minimally processed protein sources, including plant-based options.
• Emphasize vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, seeds, seafood, and healthy fats.
• Ensure baked, broiled, roasted, stir-fried, or grilled vegetables and proteins – and eliminate deep fried cooking methods
• Eliminate processed meats and foods high in added sugars, sodium, and artificial additives.
• Ensure meals contain less than 10 grams of added sugar, unless clinically appropriate.

These sound terrific!

According to RFK Jr’s advisor, Calley Means, these guidelines will be enforced.

Hospital food, of course, has been criticized heavily for decades.  A hospital director once explained to me that it was the only place in his budget that was discretionary, the only option he had for cutting spending, which he did.

But as always, the situation is complicated and the devil is in the details. Kevin Klatt, a nutrition professor in Toronto, questions on his Substack whether this is “anything more than the nutrition political theatre that we’ve come to expect from this federal administration/MAHA?”

He reviews the regulatory issues but also points out that clinical (hospital-based) nutrition is not the same as public health nutrition.

Patients who are acutely ill and hospitalized are not the general public that the DGAs are made for…Patients who are hospitalized often have conditions that impact their nutritional requirements, alter their ability to digest, absorb, and assimilate nutrients, and major barriers to consuming a normal diet – everything from altered taste and smell to the inability to chew and swallow…It’s clear no clinical dietitians…were in the room when this memo was put out…or it was always meant as more political performance before the midterms, as RJK Jr is being encouraged to quiet down on vaccines and play to his foodie base.

Yes, clinical dietitians must deal with their patients’ needs.

But surely these rules ought to apply to the hospital cafeterias and vending machines that serve visitors and staff.  That alone would be a big step forward.

Here too, I can’t wait to see how it all plays out.

The American Heart Association has just published its updated dietary guidelines: The 2026 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association  [the press release is here].

These constitute a firm rebuttal to the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) guidelines issued in January.

The AHA’s clear and straightforward messages are beautifully illustrated:

The AHA messages particularly differ from the MAHA messages:

• Protein: Plant rather than animal sources
• Meat: Lean cuts, avoid processed, limit portions
• Dairy: Low-fat or fat-free rather than full-fat
• Fats: Unsaturated rather than saturated; nontropical oils rather than animal fats and tropical oils

The Wall Street Journal summarized the differences in its headline: Heart Association clashes with RFK, Jr over red meat, dairy, and beef tallow.

The recommendations, released Tuesday by the association, contrast with dietary guidelines that the Trump administration introduced earlier this year. The differences add to disagreements between the federal government and mainstream medical groups on medicine and nutrition advice, after the Health and Human Services Department under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for instance, sought to dial back vaccine recommendations and President Trump told pregnant women to minimize Tylenol use.

I suppose clashing is a matter of perception, but the differences are real.

Earlier, Calley Means had posted a more gracious response:

Wow!  Applause to the American Heart Association.  Let’s hope its graphic replaces the meat-heavy inverted pyramid and ends up in all the textbooks.

One last point: This is dietary advice for heart disease prevention, but it works for everything else too—obesity, other major chronic diseases, overall longevity, and while it’s at it, planetary as well as human health.

Eileen M. Duffy, Publisher and editor of Edible Port City (Wilmington NC) sent me this announcement:  Kimchi probiotic promotes the excretion of nanoplastics from the gut.

Experiments have confirmed that lactic acid bacteria isolated from kimchi can bind with intestinal microplastics and promote their excretion from the body. In an animal study, the amount of plastic detected in feces more than doubled.

I went right to the reference:

Efficient biosorption of nanoplastics by food-derived lactic acid bacterium.  Bioresource Technology Volume 447, May 2026, 134234.  doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2026.134234

Guess who paid for this?

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the World Institute of Kimchi.

Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Comment

I’m always amused that authors do not view research support as a source of competing interests.  They should.  Research funding is so well established to influence how research is designed and interpreted that it has its own name: The Funding Effect.

But this study breaks new ground.  Microplastics are a huge issue right now since we are all loaded with them and have no idea how harmful they might be.

Kimchi, like other fermented foods, promotes a healthy microbiome.  Wouldn’t it be fabulous if eating it not only was good for us but also helped get rid of microplastics.  This study compared the effects of two kinds of bacteria derived from kimchi; one kind did better at getting microplastics excreted from the intestines of germ-free mice.

It’s a big jump from that to doing something similar in human intestines.

But if you want to use this as an excuse to up your kimchi intake, go for it.  I’m all for eating more kimchi.

Vital Strategies has just released two of its Canary platform reports based on use of AI.  Here’s its webinar.

• From Stadiums to Screens: Coca-Cola’s Sportswashing at the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup
• Exposing Alcohol’s Advertising Playbook: Digital Marketing in RESET Alcohol Initiative Countries

The findings:

• During the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (June 14-July 13), Coca-Cola branding appeared in 795 social media posts, generating an estimated 6 billion impressions globally.
• In March 2025 alone, digital alcohol marketing appeared in nearly 4,000 posts generating close to 2 billion impressions.
•  79% of Coca-Cola-linked posts came from sports broadcasters, with branding visible in match highlights, celebrations and interviews, including those featuring child athletes such as the Powerade Ball Crew.
• Alcohol brands amplified reach through influencers and major cultural moments like Carnival, partnering with celebrities such as Luísa Sonza and Anitta to reach tens of millions of followers via their social channels.

Why should we care?

Research shows that such marketing influences consumption. Children exposed to high volumes of digital marketing for unhealthy food and sweetened beverages may develop unhealthy habits for life. Alcohol advertising is linked to earlier initiation, binge drinking and increased consumption.

Two examples

• In the Philippines, Red Horse Beer ads deployed cartoon imagery reminiscent of tobacco’s Joe Camel to appeal to younger audiences—despite carrying small-print “For 18 years old and above only” warnings.   Source: Red Horse Beer on Facebook
•  San Miguel Flavored Beer—available in sweet flavors like apple and chocolate designed to mask the taste of alcohol—markets itself around music festivals through the language of friendship and self-expression, embedding the brand into youth identity and inviting attendees to make “#Sweeeet memories” with their “beshies.” Source: @sanmiguelbeerph on Instagram  

Bottom line: These reports provide further evidence for the need for marketing regulation and policies such as taxes on unhealthy products.

While we are on the topic of labels, here’s the USDA’s newest:

“Tastes like freedom?”  You have to love the Orwellian rhetoric.

“Our great patriot ranchers and producers grow, raise, and harvest the world’s safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply. American consumers want to support America by buying American and this label will strengthen our food supply chain through transparency, fairness, and trust,” said USDA Secretary Rollins. “This new standard policy ensures producers who invest in a fully American supply chain can compete fairly, and it gives consumers the confidence they deserve about the food they bring home.”

Here’s what this is about:

Under this standard, the “Product of USA” label is reserved exclusively for meat, poultry, and egg products from animals that were born, raised, harvested, and processed in the United States. The claim is voluntary, but companies using it must meet this transparent and verifiable requirement.

It is part of the USDA Plan to Fortify the American Beef Industry.  This “focuses on rebuilding domestic capacity, improving transparency across the supply chain, and ensuring U.S. ranchers can compete on a level playing field.”

And, you can “Learn more at productofusa.gov,”

RFK Jr has promised that we will soon ahve a new front-of-package label..  As soon as they define ultra-processed foods,

Every food in your grocery store will have a label on it,” Kennedy told [Joe] Rogan. “It’ll have, maybe, a green light, a red light, or a yellow light telling you whether or not it’s going to be good for you.”

This has been in the works for a long time, as I’ve written previously.  The FDA’s original version did not have colors so we don’t know yet what this might look like.

But which of the many possible designs is likely to be most effective?  We now have the answer to that question: Efficacy of front-of-package nutrient labels designed for mandatory implementation in the USA: an online randomised controlled trial.

The study asked particicpants to identify products with the most and least healthful nutrition profiles from among these designs.

The clear winner: The last column (“multi-high-in-label), which greatly outperformed the ones like what the FDA is proposing.

The winning label helped participants

• Identify healthy products
• Avoid interpreting unhealthy foods as healthy
• Recall label contents

The obvious interpretation: Use the winners.

These, by the way, are much like those used in Chile, Mexico, and other Latin American countries, with much evidence for effectiveness.

Resources

• Open-access Article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00027-7/fulltext 
• Link to article and Appendix
• Press release: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/new-research-suggests-fda-should-consider-redesign-proposed-nutrition-labels
• Lancet PH Podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1793453/episode_players/18876284