Navid Teimouri, who is at the School of Public Health, University of Queensland, sent me his team’s recently published analysis of meat industry sponsored nutrition studies and their outcomes: Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.

This is a classic study of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the bias toward favorable results caused by industry sponsorship of research.

The authors examined 500 research studies of meat and health outcome.

The results:

Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.

The conclusion:

Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.

Comment

When I wrote my book, Unsavory Truth, I could only find a few funding-effect studies dealing with food or nutrition.  This one adds to the collection.  It confirms previous findings.  Only a small percent of nutrition research is industry funded, but those studies are more likely to find results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests than those that are not industry funded.  Why?  Food companies are unlikely to sponsor research that might find their products harmful.  Sheldon Krimsky mostly looked at studies funded by the pharmaceutical drug industry.  Studies funded by food or nutrition companies share similar biases.

I am a big fan of Whole Dog Journal, a terrifically interesting and useful publication about anything you might want to know about having a dog as a pet—or family member.

One of its recent articles: What to Do If Your Dog Eats Marijuana (Edibles, Weed, Vape Cartridges, etc.)

I wrote about cannabis edibles in a chapter in my latest book, What to Eat Now, and discussed edibles as pet food in that chapter.  That section starts like this:

Pet treats and supplements constitute a sub-genre of edibles, and one that is highly profitable. Owners of dogs and cats spent an estimated $426 million on CBD [non-psychoactive cannabidiol],  pet products in 2020, an amount expected to increase in parallel with reports of increasing anxiety, stress, and behavioral problems in companion animals. For the cannabis industry, pet anxiety is a market opportunity, one that easily explains Honest Paws Calm CBD Peanut Butter for dogs or D Oh Gee CBD turkey and cranberry chewies for calming support and joint wellness.

Every cannabis store in my Manhattan neighborhood sells CBD—but also THC (psychoactive delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol)—treats for dogs.

The Whole Dog Journal article warns: “The amount and type of THC-containing product consumed will determine the seriousness of this event for your dog, and dictate the level of your emergency response.”

A variety of products are available as cannabis edibles, including gummies and other candies, mints, chocolates and chocolate bars, beverages, potato chips, and baked goods such as brownies and cookies. Unfortunately, many of these sweet or savory options are also attractive to our dogs. While we may have more self-control regarding how many edibles we consume at one time, dogs are more likely to ingest an entire package of any edibles they can reach because they taste delicious.

The writer warns that if you see signs of THC toxicity in your dog “listlessness, incoordination when walking, falling over when standing, dilated pupils, slow heart rate, dribbling urine, and an exaggerated response to light, touch, and sound,” take it to a veterinarian immediately.

My advice:

• If you have edibles in your home, lock them up where your pets—and your children—cannot get at them.  Edibles are an increasing cause of kids’ visits to hospital emergency rooms.
• If you have pet edibles in your home, keep them away from your pets (so they don’t overeat them)—but also keep them away from your children.  Young kids can’t tell the difference between gummies for pets, grownups, and them.

Secretary Kennedy promised to define ultra-processed foods by April (after a call for input), but then said it may be too complicated to define these foods for policy purposes.

Apparently not.

Healthy Eating Research convened an expert panel.

It made three recommendations:

I.  Definition

A food product is ultra-processed if it contains at least one

Cosmetic additive

Examples: flavors (natural or artificial), emulsifiers, sweeteners (both sugar and non-sugar), colors (natural or artificial), thickeners, bulking agents, gelling agents, glazing agents, carbonating agents, anti-foaming agents, and other additives recognized by FDA or Codex technical classifications.

And/or

Non-culinary ingredient

Examples: casein, dextrose, high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, modified starch, protein isolates (e.g., soy or whey), hydrogenated or interesterified oils, mechanically separated meats, lactose, lecithin, and others.

II.  Exempt ingredients

Some ingredients do not mark foods as ultra-processed:

• Vitamins
• Minerals
• Herbs
• Spices
• Yeast-derived ingredients

III.  Exempt foods

Foods that meet the FDA’s definition for “Healthy” claims are not considered ultra-processed.  These contain:

• Adequate amounts of recommended food groups
• Less than FDA thresholds for added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat
• No non-sugar sweeteners

Using this definition, the panel recommended a broad range of policies to deal with ultra-processed foods.  These are worth a look and further discussion.  See:

• Executive Summary
• Technical Report
• Partner Toolkit

FDA: take note.  This ought to work.  Now you can get started on some policy actions!

The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

• Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
• Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
• Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

• Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
• Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
• Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

• Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
• More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
• Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, A that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

A CORRECTION OF SORTS

A reader reminds me that the new school food rules that go into effect by 2025-2026 (at the earliest) call for no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 ounces of flavored milk.  This standard will apply to whole as well as reduced or no fat milks.

Let me start with a summary from Food Safety News:

The final four in the [meat] consolidation game are:

• JBS – This Brazil-based food giant is the world’s largest beef processor. It owns facilities that slaughter and pack over 20,000 cattle per day in the U.S.
• Tyson Foods – Known for chicken, Tyson is also the second largest U.S. beef processor. Their five beef plants process thousands of cattle daily.
• Cargill – This agribusiness conglomerate is the third largest U.S. beef packer and also owns one of the nation’s largest feedlot operations, Cargill Cattle Feeders.
• National Beef – Majority owned by Brazilian meatpacker Marfig, National Beef operates three U.S. packing facilities that process thousands of cattle per day.

Those are the four companies that control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef market, and there is no reason to believe that any of them are satisfied with their share. American consumers are paying some of the highest, inflation-adjusted prices for steaks and hamburgers than at any time in history.

The Trump administration says it is taking this on.  In a series of announcements on X (formerly Twitter), USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says:

We must work to address this to protect our ranchers and consumers. @POTUS  and this administration are focused on promoting fairness and competition — ensuring our producers have options and a level playing field.

Not only that, she adds,

Half of these meatpacking giants, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control, making them a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.

Here’s what she says they doing about it:

We’re putting forward short- and long-term solutions through the @USDA  Beef Plan and a major DOJ investigation into anti-competitive practices ordered by @POTUS.  Food security is national security.

And what is the USDA Beef Plan?  This will enhance disaster relief, increase grazing access, and build demand.

Anti-trust regulation?

Not a chance.

As I endlessly repeat, industry-funded studies tend to favor the sponsor’s commercial interests.  The correlation between industry funding and study outcome is not 100% however.  Exceptions do occur.

Here’s one sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey: “Marion, a rare industry funded study with results that likely did not please the sponsors.”

The study: Effects of one avocado a day for six months on cognitive performance in overweight adults: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of nutrition, health and aging. Volume 30, Issue 6, June 2026, 100847.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnha.2026.100847.

Objective: “To determine if consuming one avocado per day for 6 months has cognitive benefits in adults with central obesity, addressing cognitive health early in the aging trajectory.”

Conclusions: “The consumption of one avocado per day without any additional lifestyle modifications for six months did not significantly alter cognitive function in adults with central obesity across all age groups. Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Funding disclosure: “This study was funded by the Hass Avocado Board in Mission Viejo, California”

Competing interests: Nine of the eleven authors report financial support from the Hass Avocado Board Avocado Nutrition Center.

Comment: I could not imagine why anyone would do this study in the first place.  It is a rare example of one that produced negative result from an industry-funded study, but note the positive spin in the conclusions: “Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Really?  Why?  I can’t think of any reason why more studies like this would be needed, except to get more funding from the Hass Avocado Board, which seems willing to spend lots on research aimed at positioning avocados as superfoods.

Note:  All fruits and vegetables have nutritional benefits.  By these criteria, all are superfoods.

I just got my copy of the University of California Press catalog for Fall 2026.

The full catalog does not seem to be online yet (mine is hard copy), but the UC Press entry for Sugar Coated is here.

The publication date is September 8.

It can be pre-ordered:

I saw this on AgWeb:

I knew this came from USDA’s Food Dollar series, which reports measurements of where the food dollar goes in the chain of production.

The USDA also illustrates the dollar in reports.  The most recent, with figures from 2023, is here.

These USDA illustrations used to be easier to read, so I like the way AgWeb shows the current data.

But you get the idea: farmers don’t get much.  The real money in food is in processing, retail, and service.

Note the incentive in processing.

No wonder the number of farms continues to decline.

What the Farm Bill (an apparently hopeless cause at the moment) really needs to do is to start from scratch and do two things: promote smaller scale organic and regenerative farming that will protect soil, mitigate climate change, and repopulate the Midwest, and make sure those farmers make an adequate living.