Stuart Gillespie.  Food Fight: From Plunder and Profit to People and the Planet.  Canongate, 2025.

I wrote a blurb for this book:

From his years of experience working in international nutrition, Gillespie has on-the-ground knowledge of why and how global food systems lead to widespread hunger, obesity, and environmental damage, and what needs to be done to make those systems healthier for all.  He makes it clear that this food fight is crucial to take on.

I particularly like his discussion of what is needed to transform food systems:

‘Food system transformation’ has become the mother of all development clichés in this decade.  The real goal of many who invoke it is not real transformation—it’s more about fiddling on the fringe.  To truly overhaul the food system, we need to see a major shift in the structure and dynamic of power.  Unsurprisingly, those in power now don’t really want such a shift, whatever they proclaim in conferences, interviews, and annual reports…What’s really being discussed in these conferences and reports is transition, not transformation.

On the need for a real food movement:

Linking people working separately on obesity, undernutrition or the climate crisis is one of the big challenges in creating concerted local-to-global action.  No transformative social movement yet exists that addresses malnutrition.  It’s about time.

Indeed, yes.

This announcement on X of his resignation from NIH comes from Kevin Hall, who did the study I admire so much on how ultra-processed foods induce people to eat more calories (500 more a day!).

Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science. Specifically, I experienced censorship in the reporting of our research because of agency concerns that it did not appear to fully support preconceived narratives of my agency’s leadership about ultra-processed food addiction.

I was hoping this was an aberration. So, weeks ago I wrote to my agency’s leadership expressing my concerns and requested time to discuss these issues, but I never received a response.

Without any reassurance there wouldn’t be continued censorship or meddling in our research, I felt compelled to accept early retirement to preserve health insurance for my family. (Resigning later in protest of any future meddling or censorship would result in losing that benefit.)

Due to very tight deadlines to make this decision, I don’t yet have plans for my future career.

Comment

I consider Hall’s departure from NIH a national tragedy.

It is utterly shameful that NIH was not allowing him to talk about his science openly because its results don’t fit with aspects of the MAHA (Make America Health Again) narrative.  It is shocking that NIH refused to allow him to sign papers he co-authored because they mentioned equity—one of the hundreds of words forbidden by this administration.

His work was essential to the MAHA agenda—exactly the science needed to promote public health.  NIH is part of HHS, which is headed by RFK Jr, who leads MAHA.

Hall’s treatment does not bode well for the MAHA movement.  Instead, it casts doubt on this movement’s credibility.

Hall’s group is the only one I know of that was able to conduct carefully controlled clinical trials of calorie intake and weight gain.  His study subjects are monitored; they cannot “forget” what they ate, or lie about it, or eat what they are not supposed to.  No other nutrition studies have this level of control.

His ultra-processed study had an enormously important result, not least because it was so unexpected.  Hall went into the study thinking that ultra-processing would not make any difference.  The 500 calorie difference was a big surprise.  That’s the way science is supposed to work; this was real science in action.

Hall was engaged in further studies to determine the mechanism underlying the calorie finding.  Let’s hope someone continues them.

I view his resignation under these circumstances as an act of extraordinary courage and scientific integrity.

He deserves our deepest respect and appreciation.

For more on this

• Kevin Hall’s complete statement on Twitter (X)
• CNN Health’s account: Top NIH nutrition researcher studying ultraprocessed foods departs, citing censorship under Kennedy (I’m quoted)
• The New York Times account: Leading Nutrition Scientist Departs N.I.H., Citing Censorship.  This quotes Hall:“We experienced what amounts to censorship and controlling of the reporting of our science,” Dr. Hall said, adding that he was worried that if he stayed, officials might also interfere with the design and execution of his studies. “That would make me hate my job every day”…In February, Dr. Hall said that N.I.H. officials told him he couldn’t be listed as an author on a yet-to-be-published scientific review on ultraprocessed foods that he co-wrote with a group of university scientists. This was because the review included language about “health equity” (it acknowledged that some people in the United States don’t have access to healthy food)…If Dr. Hall wanted to stay on the paper, they said, that section would need to be modified. Dr. Hall removed his name — a first in his career as a government scientist.
• Jane Black on Consumed:  MAHA just cost the NIH its star nutrition researcher. Nutrition research has always been a red-headed stepchild at NIH, underfunded and undervalued. In 2023, the NIH allocated $2.2 billion to nutrition research, just over 4 percent of its total research budget. This, despite the fact that nearly 40 percent of Americans are obese, and the cost of obesity-related medical care is estimated to be nearly $173 billion annually…And this is why Kevin Hall matters so much. Against the odds, Hall was performing randomized controlled trials. He was conducting them on ultra-processed foods, the hottest issue in nutrition policy. He has persisted in the face of deep cuts: In 2017, the NIH clinical trial unit went from 10 beds to seven, reducing the speed at which Hall could conduct his research.
• Ted Kyle on ConscienHealth: In March, Hall and colleagues published a study in Cell Metabolism and concluded: “The etiology of common obesity is more complex than dopamine-mediated ultra-processed food addiction, and the neurochemistry associated with excess adiposity, such as increased dopamine tone, is not analogous to a state of drug tolerance.”  This apparently did not fit well enough with Kennedy’s narrative that ultra-processed foods are “poisoning” Americans because they are addictive and full of chemicals that harm us.
• MSNBC interview with Chris Hayes.

Washington Post: As egg prices soared at the supermarket, so did producer profits: A USDA program doled out hundreds of millions in relief payments to big egg companies, even as the largest earned record profits.

On Tuesday, the nation’s largest egg producer, Mississippi-based Cal-Maine, announced quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago. It caps three years of extraordinary earnings, which have surged since the avian flu outbreak began in 2022.

By wiping out millions of laying hens, the avian flu has slowed egg production for many companies. But the outbreak also has driven up prices enough for some companies to recoup losses and, for Cal-Maine, to record exceptional profits….At the same time, Cal-Maine and other large egg companies have received tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has been doling out relief payments to help egg companies restock after the virus strikes.

To me personally, the big news last week (besides my profile in the New York Times) is the announcement that the USDA plans to move its headquarters out of Washington, DC to three locations yet to be determined.

USDA is expected to offload one of its two Washington headquarters buildings, according to two employees familiar with the matter.

The relocations will accompany widespread layoffs at the department, according to four officials made aware of the plans, though the exact number is not yet clear. Those cuts are expected in late April or early May.

Some employees have been told to expect the department to cut back to fiscal 2019 staffing levels—which would lead to USDA slashing around 9,000 of its 98,000 employees—while others have been told there is a an overall federal workforce reduction number the administration has developed and the department will do its part proportionally to meet that target.

My translation: I haven’t been able to confirm this story, but what better way to get USDA employees to quit en masse.  This worked during Trump I to dismantle the Economic Research Service, a national treasure in my view.  I complained early and often about its transfer to Kansas City, MO.

As this article explains,

In 2019, the department relocated the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, Mo., over the objections of employees and some lawmakers. Following the move, both agencies lost more than half of their staff, leading to a significant loss of productivity from which it took the agencies years to recover. Under President Biden, both agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington while maintaining their Kansas City offices.

I would say (and the Government Accountability Office agrees) the ERS has never recovered.  It still produces technical reports, but no longer publishes the kind of analytical pieces that I found so valuable to my work.

It’s fine to move government offices to the middle of the country.  Anything to help repopulate middle America is a good thing.

But this move has only one real purpose: to reduce staff.

This means reducing meat inspectors, and people who help participants use food assistance programs.  It means getting rid of agricultural and other USDA-supported researchers.  Basically, it means getting rid of anyone good enough to get another job without having to relocate.

Even without this, USDA staff are quitting in droves: USDA employees head for the doors as potential RIFs [reduction in forces] loom

Thousands of USDA employees are planning to leave the agency through a deferred resignation program that could challenge the department’s ability to fulfill critical functions such as food import and export inspections. According to one report, 16,000 USDA employees have opted for buyouts over two rounds.

I considered the transfer of the ERS to Kansas to be a national tragedy.  This is another one.

The Study: Whole cranberry fruit powder supplement reduces the incidence of culture-confirmed urinary tract infections in females with a history of recurrent urinary tract infection: A 6-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Stonehouse, Welma et al. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 4, 932 – 941

Methods: “This multicenter, 6-mo, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study enrolled 150 healthy females [18–65 y, body mass index (BMI) >17.5 and <35 kg/m²] with rUTI defined as ≥3 UTIs in the last year or ≤2 UTIs in the last 6 mo, excluding those with >5 UTIs in the last 6 mo. Participants consumed either 1 capsule of 500 mg/d of whole cranberry powder (Pacran) or placebo.”

Results: “Whole cranberry powder capsules reduced culture-confirmed UTI risk compared with placebo by 52%…reduced Escherichia coli UTIs…reduced incidence of UTI with urinary frequency and urgency symptomatology; delayed time to first UTI episode…and reduced the mean total number of UTIs per participant.”

Conclusion: “This study shows that whole cranberry powder capsules do not impact safety markers and reduce the incidence of culture-confirmed UTI and several other UTI-related outcomes in healthy females with rUTI history.”

Conflict of interest: “Financial sponsorship for the study was provided by Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd to the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation. All authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Funding: “Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd was the trial sponsor and Givaudan Flavors Corp was the raw material supplier.”

Disclaimers: “The funding source and the raw material supplier, in collaboration with the research scientists, designed the trial and monitored its implementation, but had no influence over the analyses, reporting, interpretation of the data and preparation of the manuscript. The manuscript was reviewed by the sponsor and the raw material supplier before the submission to the journal, but they had no influence over the manuscript content.”

Comment: You should not be surprised to learn that the funder, Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd, makes “supplements for everyday lifestyle.” among them cranberry supplements.  The raw material supplier, Givaudan, sells cransberry oil.  The disclaimer reveals that both companies  designed the trial, were involved throughout, and reviewed the manuscript.  The authors consider all this to constitute “no influence,” in quotes because it is impossible to avoid influence under these circumstances.  At the very least, the companies would make sure the study design had little chance of coming up with the wrong result.  This is an industry-funded study with predictable results that will help them sell cranberry powder.  I hope it works.

If you are going to do advocacy (or be an activist, if you prefer), it’s likely to be far more effective if done right.  The steps begin with identifying the problem you want solved, deciding what you want to do to solve it, and figuring out who or what you have to convince to solve the problem.

Note: the best thing I’ve ever read about how to do this is the Midwest Academy’s how-to manual for activists, Organizing for Social Change.

Research is a crucial component of effective policy advocacy; it’s the basis of convincing change agents to agree to make the change.

The Global Health Advocacy Incubator (“Changing Policies to Change Lives”) and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids have  just published Research for Advocacy Action Guide: Five Stretegies to Use Research in a Policy Change campaign.

This tells you what to look for, how to find it, what to highlight, and how to present it. Download the Guide.

The research piece extends the information in these groups’ Advocacy Action Guide, a shorter version of the information from the Midwest Academy.

Advocacy done “by the book” has a much better chance of success than what might seem intuitive.  These guides are well worth reading.

Advocacy, by the way, is one of the words on the government’s new forbidden list.  This alone is why we need it more than ever.  Get to work!

In the midst of President Trump’s tariff impositions, I’m trying to keep track of what’s happening with US demands to make Mexico accept our GMO corn.

February 2023:  Mexico (1) banned the use of GMO corn in dough and tortillas, and (2) called for gradual elimination of GMO corn for other food uses and in animal feed. Mexico does not want GMO corn contaminating its native varieties, and the “dumping” of cheaper US GMO corn undermines the Mexican corn economy.  US corn farmers want their GMO corn sold in Mexico.  The US claimed these provisions violated the USMCA (US Mexico Canada Trade Agreement, which replaced NAFTA in 2020).  It sued to have them overturned.

December 2024: United States Prevails in USMCA Dispute on Biotech Corn.  The USMCA panel agreed with the US that  Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access that Mexico agreed to provide in the USMCA.

February 2025: Mexico Lifts GM Corn Restrictions Following USMCA Panel.  The USDA Applauds Mexico’s Action Towards Resolving USMCA Dispute on GE Corn.

March 2025: Don’t mess with Mexico’s maíz: Constitutional amendment to ban GMO corn seeds

Sin maíz, no hay país. Without corn, there is no country.

This week, Mexico’s leaders voted to enshrine that concept in the Constitution, declaring native corn “an element of national identity” and banning the planting of genetically modified seeds.

What will the US do next?  This is definitely a stay tuned.

Resource

USRTK: GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 

Previous posts

• US wins trade dispute over GMO corn to Mexico 
• Mexico vs. US: trade dispute over genetically modified corn

I don’t say much about candy on this site, mainly because it’s best consumed in small amounts, if at all.

Candy sellers, however, have a very different view.  Their job is to sell candy, and the more the better (never mind consequences).

I’m always interested to see what they say and do to increase sales, especially when they try to make candy seem healthier (oops).

• What ‘unlikely’ social factors are shaping the candy market?  Surprising reasons like cultural changes and social shifts are transforming confectionery consumption habits. Here’s what you need to know… Read more  [Would you believe fewer marriages and an older population?]
• Freeze-dried sweets boosted by TikTok as new confectionery craze: Bursting onto our shelves and socials with eclectic flavours and novel textures, freeze-dried candies are set to be the coolest confectionery trend of 2024…. Read more
• How gifting brings together top confectionery trends: Sweet-treat gift-giving creates engagement and brand loyalty, so it’s no wonder many global brands are tapping into the purchasing driver…. Read more
• Has the world’s first ‘super candy’ arrived?  Protein candy aims to revolutionize confectionery with high-protein treats… Read more  [Oh great; candy as a superfood]
• Scientists develop better-for-you chocolate, and it’s better for the planet:  Healthier and more sustainable chocolate? While it sounds almost too good to be true, that’s exactly what scientists have created in Switzerland…. Read more  [Anything to get you to eat more chocolate and not feel guilty]
• The race to replace red no 3: Is your brand ready?Colour manufacturers advise confectioners on top considerations when replacing soon-to-be-banned synthetic food dye… Read more  [This will be a big issue, given RFK Jr’s concerns about artificial food dyes] 
• Governor Patrick Morrisey Signs Food Dye Legislation Into Law: Charleston, W.Va. – Today, Governor Patrick Morrisey signed House Bill 2354 into law, which prohibits certain harmful food dyes in school lunches and unhealthy food items for sale in West Virginia. [The dyes are red 3 and 40, yellow 5 and 6, blue 1 and 2, and green 3].
• How Prevalent Are Dyes in Foods? We Crunched the Numbers. RFK Jr. and consumer advocates want to rid Americans’ diets of artificial colors; switching to natural alternatives can be costly.   [Candy will get hit hardest]