Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Mar 20 2026

Weekend reading: A how-to on writing laws to protect kids against food marketing

While I am on the topic of legal challenges, UNICEF has produced an invaluable resource.

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM UNHEALTHY FOOD MARKETING: A Toolkit for Developing Effective Laws.

It is based on a previous UNICEF document,  Taking Action to Protect Children from the Harmful Impact of Food Marketing: A Child Rights-based Approach.

It includes Model Legal Language along with essential background information.

Use it!

Toolkit roadmap

Introduction pages

Steps

Spotlights and tools

Tags:
Mar 19 2026

Lawsuit #3: banning food dyes in Texas

Here’s the chronology:

In June, Texas passed the “Make Texas Healthy Again” bill which required food companies to put warning labels on products containing any of 44 ingredients such as artificial additives, dyes, and chemicals.  As I wrote at the time, the label would have to say:

WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United  Kingdom.

In December, the American Beverage Association, joined by other food industry groups, sued Texas over this.

In February, a federal district court issued an injunction on First Amendment grounds.

Also in February, Texas issued a final rule on the labeling law.  But this says that “ingredients considered generally recognized as safe or determined to be safe by the FDA or USDA are not subject to the rule requirements.”

Oops.  I’m pretty sure that most of those 44 ingredients are considered GRAS by the FDA.

It will be interesting to watch what the courts decide on this one too.

Interesting times we live in.

Tags: , ,
Mar 18 2026

Lawsuit #2: SNAP restrictions

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement now counts 22 states as having passed laws eliminating sodas and sometimes other sweet foods from what SNAP recipients are allowed to buy with their electronic benefit cards.

I am often asked what I think about these laws.  I can argue them either way.

Pro: Even with these restrictions, SNAP recipients can continue to buy sugar-sweetened beverages with their own money; the government should not support purchases of demonstrably unhealthy drinks.

Con: These laws are not about improving the health of SNAP recipients; they are about punishing the poor for being poor, further stigmatizing them, and encouraging them to withdraw from benefits to which they are entitled.

I have long been a supporter of pilot research projects (USDA “waivers”) to see whether restrictions like these help SNAP recipients eat more healthfully.  But these laws are not designed that way.  I just hope their effects are being researched adequately.

Now, the laws are being challenged in court. The lawsuit calls for a halt to waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia – five of the 22 states to which USDA has granted them.

The suit comes from the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, an advocacy group focused on equity, and Shinder Cantor Lerner, an anti-trust law firm.

The suit alleges that USDA is:

  • Trying to shrink SNAP by authorizing a patchwork of state laws.
  • Changing the statutory definition of food without authority or notice.
  • Preventing recipients from buying foods they need to maintain health.
  • Confusing SNAP recipients about what they can buy.
  • Increasing burdens on retailers, thereby adversely affecting SNAP recipients.

I can’t help wonder whether the food industry is behind all this.

Calley Means, who advises Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, says no.  He blames the Democrats.

What are we to make of all this?

I guess we wait to see what emerges during the discovery process and what the courts decide.

What a strange and complicated time this is.

Tags: , ,
Mar 17 2026

Lawsuit #1: David’s protein bars

This week, I’m going to be writing about lawsuits against food companies, starting with the class action lawsuit filed against David Protein, which states that the company misrepresented the calorie and fat content of its bars.

Here is a Nutrition Facts panel from the company’s website.

The FDA allows several methods for counting calories in food products, one of which is to apply Atwater values, 4 calories per gram for protein and carbohydrate, and 9 calories per gram for fat (this is why fat is fattening).

Doing that here gives:

Fat: 2.5 x 9     =    23 (rounded off)

Carbs: 12 x 4  =    48

Protein: 26 x 4 = 104

Total calories  =   175

This is higher than what’s on the label.  But calories are difficult to measure accurately, so the FDA allows a 20% margin of error.

But the difference must have gotten the attention of the plaintiffs.

They took the product and burned it in a bomb calorimeter, a device that measures the heat produced when foods are burned to completion.  This heat is equivalent to calories, when corrected for the nitrogen in protein.

Here is what the plaintiffs got when they did this.

Wow.  That’s quite a difference.

But David’s has a rebuttal.

…bomb calorimetry is not the right testing method for determining calories in foods containing certain ingredients, such as dietary fiber, certain sweeteners, and, critically for us, fat substitutes like esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG)…If you burn ingredients like complex carbohydrates, fiber or EPG in a calorimeter, these ingredients would appear to deliver far more calories than the body actually metabolizes.

This took me right to the ingredient list (see above)

PROTEIN SYSTEM: MILK PROTEIN ISOLATE, COLLAGEN, WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, EGG WHITE. | BINDING SYSTEM: MALTITOL, GLYCERIN, ALLULOSE, TAPIOCA STARCH, SOY LECITHIN. | FAT SYSTEM: MODIFIED PLANT FAT (EPG), COCONUT OIL. | FLAVOR SYSTEM: UNSWEETENED CHOCOLATE, PEANUT FLOUR, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, PEANUT EXTRACT, SALT, DUTCH PROCESS COCOA POWDER, SUCRALOSE, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM.

My first question: Why would anyone want to eat a collection of concocted ingredients like this with hardly any of them recognizable as food?  These bars are quintessential ultra-processed products.

Whatever.  EPG is esterified propoxylated glycerol, a fat substitute. It provides less than one calorie per gram.

Here’s my quote from the New York Times

Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition and food studies at N.Y.U., told DealBook that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on counting calories from a “concocted ingredient that’s not absorbed” by the body. The lawsuit was likely to be dismissed, she added.

Not that Nestle was weighing in on the healthfulness of David bars: “Whether anyone should be eating non-absorbable fat is another discussion,” she said.

Precisely.

Tags: ,
Mar 16 2026

Industry-funded study of the week: Magnesium L-threonate

I learned about this one from a sponsored article in the online newsletter, NutraIngredients:

Magnesium L-threonate delivers effective cognitive support, studies show:  Demand for cognitive health support has never been higher. Unique ingredient can unlock high magnesium bioavailability, studies show…. Read more. 

I went right to the site it and saw this, first thing:

When I clicked on “Learn more,” I got this:

Translation: This article looks like a scientific report but it’s actually an ad for the supplement, magnesium L-threonate, which Threotech patents and markets as Magtein.  Indeed, Threotech says it is “Dedicated to the worldwide expansion of Magtein.”

The article summarizes studies showing impressive improvements in memory and cognition with this supplement, and provides a bunch of references to studies, some of which were also funded by Threotech.

When I say things like this, companies write me in despair: If they don’t do the studies, who will?

That’s my point.

Studies like these are important for selling supplements.

But magnesium is widely available in the diet: “Good sources of magnesium include green leafy vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains….”

Magnesium is another reason for eating plenty of foods from plant sources.

Tags: , ,
Mar 13 2026

Weekend reading: the debate about ultra-processed foods

In a previous post, I wrote about the series of papers on ultra-processed foods published in The Lancet (I am a co-author on papers II and III)

As might be expected, the papers generated a fair amount of discussion and debate.  The Lancet has now published five letters raising issues about the series, along with a letter of response (which I signed).

Here are the letters:

I.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy.  David Ludwig argues that the Nova classification of food procesing is imprecise and ideological.

II.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Dirk Jacobs and Rafael Sampson say the papers look like a campaigning platform to shut down criticism and reject expertise out of hand.

III.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Gunter Kuhnle says the papers give “insufficient attention to the central methodological challenge of this field: the assessment of UPF intake itself,” a concern because “most of the evidence against UPF relies on observational data.”

IV.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy: Tatiana Campos and Aintzane Esturo, representing the International Fruit and Vegetable Juice Association, disagree with the classification of reconstituted fruit juices as ultra-processed; they say the juices should be classified as unprocessed or minimall processed (Nova 1, not Nova 4).

V.  Ultra-processed foods in research and policy:  Lilian dos Santos Raha,  Patrícia Chaves Gentil, Gisele Ane Bortolini, Felipe Silva Neves, and Bruna Pitasi Arguelhes point to actions in Brazil that offer “a blueprint for translating these recommendations into binding regulation.”

And here is Ultra-processed foods in research and policy – Authors’ reply   (full text)  Note: I am a co-author.

We thank the authors for their comments and interest in our Series on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and human health.
We acknowledge David S Ludwig’s concern about the limits of any single classification system. The Nova framework does not replace nutrient science, but adds a complementary layer focused on food processing as a determinant of dietary patterns. Foods, nutrients, additives, and food matrices all matter, and the second Series paper explicitly proposed that all regulations should combine criteria on crucial nutrients with markers of food ultra-processing, rather than treating processing as a stand‑alone metric. Importantly, nationally representative surveys from multiple countries show that the dietary contribution of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is the main driver of nutrient-imbalanced diets. For example, in the USA, 92·4% of diets excessive in added sugar, saturated fat, energy density, and insufficient in fibre are attributed to UPF consumption. UPFs, therefore, function not as an ideology but as structural drivers of dietary nutrient imbalance, as well as of other determinants of ill health including overeating, exposure to harmful additives and contaminants, snacking, and other harmful eating patterns. Nova explains dietary patterns in ways that nutrient-centric models alone cannot. Critiques based on isolated UPF products overlook the logic of dietary displacement and the relevant counterfactual: fresh and minimally processed foods and cooked meals. We have recently explained why UPF subgroup analyses suggesting differential health effects are conceptually and methodologically flawed, undermining the credibility of nutrition science and risking policy misinterpretation.
Rafael Sampson and Dirk Jacobs of FoodDrinkEurope characterise the UPF industry and industry-funded scientists as impartial brokers of evidence and argue that proposals to limit corporate influence go too far. FoodDrinkEurope’s membership includes many of the world’s largest UPF manufacturers and lobby groups, and the organisation is within a broader network of corporate interest groups that have actively promoted misinformation about Nova and the evidence on UPFs. Based on decades of evidence from food, tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel research, we question the credibility of industry-funded science when commercial imperatives conflict with public health goals. Transparency alone is insufficient. The empirical literature shows that disclosure does not neutralise bias, nor prevent the strategic use of funding to manufacture doubt, delay regulation, and frame debate in industry-favourable terms. Safeguards against conflicts of interest are pro-science, not anti-science. Editors exclude conflicted reviewers, governments restrict lobbying, and ethics committees limit funding sources for precisely these reasons. Food and nutrition research should be no exception.
We agree with Gunter G C Kuhnle that evidence on the harms of UPFs was generated using dietary instruments not designed to capture Nova groups. However, exposure misclassification is likely non‑differential in regard to outcomes, and therefore bias associations towards the null. As dietary tools for assessing food consumption aligned with Nova are adopted, associations strengthen rather than weaken. Misclassification has a greater effect on UPF subgroup analyses than on UPF-pattern analyses. Aggregating all UPFs partly mitigates food‑level measurement error, whereas attempting to distinguish fine subgroups with imperfect instruments amplifies instability, multiple testing, and false positives.
Tatiana Campos and Aintzane Esturo argue that reconstituted fruit juices should be treated as minimally processed. These products differ in matrix integrity, intrinsic fibre, and typical consumption patterns. Concentration, storage, reconstitution, and flavour restoration involves losses and reformulation that place these products beyond minimal processing. Some UPFs might perform better than others in specific comparisons, and relative harms might be modest in narrow contrasts. Policy, however, cannot be built on marginal cases. The relevant issue is displacement at scale: when reconstituted juices replace fresh fruit or freshly prepared juices, dietary quality deteriorates.
Gisele Ane Bortolini and colleagues illustrate how Nova can be operationalised in real-world policy. Brazil’s National Food Basket shows that processing criteria can coexist with nutrient standards, procurement rules, fiscal instruments, and broader food‑system policies. This directly addresses Ludwig’s concern that Nova is too imprecise for regulation. In practice, it has enabled coherent, multisectoral action adapted to national context rather than a universal, one‑size‑fits‑all template.
The global shift towards ultra-processed dietary patterns is a preventable driver of chronic disease, and effective policy action should prioritise protecting and restoring diets based on fresh and minimally processed foods and cooked meals. We continue to welcome any scientific inquiry related to the Series that might contribute to strengthening food policies for all.

Competing Interests

The Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods and human health was supported by funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies through a contract with Deakin University and subcontracts between Deakin and the University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, and University of São Paulo. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpreta-tion, or writing of the Series. CAM was part of the team that developed the NOVA food classification system. BMP declares funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Aging, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and has consulted for Resolve to Save Lives and the World Bank. PB reports funding from an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship awarded by the Australian Government, and from a Sydney Horizon Fellowship awarded by the University of Sydney. All other authors declare no competing interests.  [Note: I was advised not to include mine, since I do not accept funding from food and beverage companies with interests in this topic.  I do, however, earn honoraria for lectures and royalties from books about the politics of food].
References
1. Scrinis, G ∙ Popkin, BM ∙ Corvalan, C ∙ et al. Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. Lancet. 2025; 406:2685-2702
2. Martinez Steele, E ∙ Marrón Ponce, JA ∙ Cediel, G ∙ et al. Potential reductions in ultra-processed food consumption substantially improve population cardiometabolic-related dietary nutrient profiles in eight countries. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2022; 32:2739-2750
3. Rezende, LFM ∙ Martinez-Steele, E ∙ da Costa Louzada, ML ∙ et al. Misleading narrative of healthy ultraprocessed foods. BMJ. 2026; 392, e087538
4. Baker, P ∙ Slater, S ∙ White, M ∙ et al. Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response Lancet. 2025; 406:2703-2726
5. Nestle, M. Unsavory truth: how food companies skew the science of what we eat. Basic Books, 2018
6. Willett, WC. Nutritional epidemiology. Oxford University Press, 2012
7. Werneck, AO ∙ Steele, EM ∙ Delpino, FM ∙ et al. Adherence to the ultra-processed dietary pattern and risk of depressive outcomes: findings from the NutriNet Brasil cohort study and an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2024; 43:1190-1199
8. Monteiro, CA ∙ Louzada, ML ∙ Steele-Martinez, E ∙ et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence
Lancet. 2025; 406:2667-2668
Tags:
Mar 12 2026

USDA is closing buildings, relocating staff, and downsizing—a lot.

When President Trump was elected, he promised to downsize government.  He is doing that, for better or worse.  The latest move affects the USDA: GSA and USDA Unlock $1.6 Billion in Savings for Americans with Ag South Disposition.

Translation: The USDA is getting rid of the enormous, aging building it occupies across the street from its headquarters near the National Mall.

I love the positive spin: “The Ag South disposition will deliver significant value to taxpayers while advancing the Trump Administration’s objectives to reinvigorate, consolidate, and better utilize the federal real estate portfolio.”

Another account of this action reveals that two properties are involved, one of them currently housing the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that runs food assistance programs.

The USDA announced this plant last summer as part of the department’s major reorganization plan.  Its point: to relocate staff to new USDA hubs.

As explained in yet another account, this is about relocating staff:

Thousands of USDA employees have taken buyouts and left the department over the past year amid Republican U.S. President Donald Trump‘s effort to reshape and reduce the size and footprint of the federal government. The USDA has said it is planning to relocate much of its remaining staff in the U.S. capital to hubs in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado and Utah.

From Government Executive, we learn:

The department announced the disposal of the South Building, which Rollins and other officials repeatedly described as dilapidated and mostly empty, last year as part of a larger reorganization that will push 2,600 employees out of the national capital region…USDA currently has 4,600 employees in the Washington area and is looking to shrink that number to 2,000…The department has already shed more than 15,000 employees from its initiative that allowed employees to sit on paid leave for several months before resigning.

Government Executive explains why this concerns me so much:

During Trump’s first term in 2019, the department relocated its Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, 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 Joe Biden, both agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington while maintaining their Kansas City offices.

…USDA solicited feedback on its reorganization plan last year, leading to 14,000 unique responses. Of those, 82% expressed negativity toward the plan, while 5% took a positive tone. Employees, lawmakers and stakeholders submitting the comments warned of a significant brain drain and disruptions to key farmer-support programs if the changes were implemented.

Oh no, not again.

I long considered the Economic Research Service to be the best kept secret in Washington, DC.  It produced reliable, credible analyses of food issues.  I considered it a national treasure and was devastated by its destruction (I wrote about this often on this site).  In my view, the agency has never recovered from its loss of national experts.  USDA says the FNS will remain in the DC area.

It’s hard not to see this as yet another attempt to undermine food assistance programs and make it harder for people to enroll in them.

Tags: ,
Mar 11 2026

What’s going on at the FDA? Nothing good, apparently.

Two recent reports say that the FDA is a mess as a result of staff cuts, loss of expertise, and leadership vacuums—a national tragedy by any criterion.

I.  From Timothy Inklebarger at FoodNavigator-USA: Trump purge at FDA and USDA triggers food safety ‘brain drain’: Government data shows deep staff cuts as food safety leaders warn of fewer inspectors, loss of institutional knowledge and delays in lab and outbreak work… Read more

The US Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Workforce Data tool shows the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services are among the hardest hit, losing 22,253 and 17,406 jobs, respectively, since the beginning of 2025.

II.  ͏ From Gary Schwitzer’s Health News Review:FDA staff “rife with mistrust and paranoia”: Concern about staff “trampled on…perpetual uncertainty…chaos…no stability.”

It didn’t take Dr. Richard Pazdur long to see that he wanted out of Marty Makary’s FDA. The 26-year FDA veteran was hired in November to be director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He resigned in December. Why?  …Pazdur, looking distraught, spoke of an agency crumbling, with leaders making up rules as they went and longtime, experienced staff members leaving after layoffs and perpetual uncertainty left them unable to do their jobs. At different points, he described “chaos” at the agency with staff having gone through “a lot of trauma,” and said “you do not have stability.

Comment

If your purpose is to dismantle government, this is how you do it.  As I said, a national tragedy.

Tags: ,