San Francisco’s city attorney has sued major food companies for marketing ultra-processed foods (UPF) that make people sick.

The lawsuit: COMPLAINT FOR: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW AND PUBLIC NUISANCE

The arguments

I. UPF are dangerous: “No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products.”

II.  UPF-like tobacco and illegal drugs–are addictive.

• UPF cause compulsive use in the same ways as other addictive substances
• UPF are psychoactive substances
• UPF are reinforcing

III. Defendants designed UPF to be addictive to drive sales and profits.

IV. Defendants have created a public health crisis, especially for children.

V.  Defendants have deliberately targeted kids (harmful dyes, aggressive marketing, disproportionate targeting).

VI.  Defendants actively conceal the dangers of UPF.

VII.  UPF have contributed to a public health crisis in San Francisco.

This one will be fun to watch,

Resources

• Press conference: City attorney announces legal action
• State of California complaint
• San Francisco City Attorney’s Office: Chiu sues largest manufacturers of ultraprocessed foods
• New York Times: San Francisco will sue ultraprocessed food companies
• Civil Eats: MAHA figure touts San Francisco laawsuit against food companies

There was much fuss last week about the retraction of this highly significant paper about the safety of glyphosate (Roundup), the Monsanto weed killer widely used with genetically modified crops.  As has been suspected for years, it was ghostwritten by Monsanto on cherry-picked data.

The original paper: Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65.  doi: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371.  

Its conclusion: “Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

The authors thanked Monsanto for generous provision of data.  The acknowledgments did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

The retraction notice includes several remarkable statements.

• The article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto.
• The authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999.
• Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors.
• The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section.
• Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication.

The retraction points out that the article “has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup…[and] had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and
Roundup for decades.”

Yikes.

Much of this was discovered as a result of litigation.  Do not miss this analysis by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Orestes: The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse.  Environmental Science & Policy Volume 171, September 2025, 104160

Litigation in 2017 revealed that Monsanto ghost-wrote an influential 2000 review defending the safety of glyphosate…In all domains, citations predominantly appear without caveats, even after the ghost-writing was exposed.

 I wrote an in-depth investigation of this study and the journal that published it, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, eight years ago, revealing that the society behind the journal, ISRTP, was run by a tobacco consultant and held their meetings in the offices of Keller and Heckman, the chief law firm in DC for the chemical industry.

In short, a National Academies staffer seeking a job in the biotech industry picked panelists with ties to biotech companies to write an influential report that alleged no harms in GE agriculture … and that report just happened to be littered with studies published in Reg Tox Pharm—industry’s favorite journal.

And here’s what Retraction Watch has to say: “Glyphosate safety article retracted eight years after Monsanto ghostwriting revealed in court”

The safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is hotly debated and currently under review at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in 2015 declared glyphosate “possibly carcinogenic.”…Three papers about glyphosate on which Williams was an author received an expression of concern and lengthy corrections in 2018 because the authors didn’t fully disclose their ties to Monsanto or the company’s involvement in the articles.

• The New Lede: Citing “serious ethical concerns,” journal retracts key Monsanto Roundup safety study
• The New Lede: Trump administration sides with Bayer in seeking Supreme Court ruling on Roundup fight
• US Right to Know: Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems
• U.S. Supreme Court:  Monsanto Company, Petitioner v John L. Durnell: Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
• EPA Office of Pesticide Programs:  Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (December 12, 2017)
• EPA: Glyphosate
•  The Guardian:  Science journal retracts study on safety of Monsanto’s Roundup: ‘Serious ethical concerns’
• Le Monde: Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication
• AgFunder News: Landmark glyphosate paper retracted in random reckoning for a scientific relic
• The Canadian Press: Study that said glyphosate herbicide is safe retracted 25 years after publication
• No More Glyphosate NZ: Stop the Chemical Creep

I learned about this industry-funded study from NutraIngredients, one of a series of industry publications especially careful to disclose sponsorship, this time in the headline.

Specnova’s ginger extract reduces joint pain and inflammation: Study:  Low-dose ginger supplementation reduces perceptions of pain, according to new Specnova-funded research published in the journal Nutrients…. Read more

The study:  Effects of Ginger Supplementation on Markers of Inflammation and Functional Capacity in Individuals with Mild to Moderate Joint Pain.  Nutrients 2025, 17(14), 2365; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142365

Rationale: “Ginger contains gingerols, shagaols, paradols, gingerdiones, and terpenes, which have been shown to display anti-inflammatory properties and inhibit pain receptors.”

Method: 30 participants with joint pain took either ginger or a placebo for two months.

Results: “There was evidence” that ginger “attenuated perceptions” of pain.

Conclusions: “Ginger supplementation (125 mg/d, providing 12.5 mg/d of gingerols) appears to have some favorable effects on perceptions of pain, functional capacity, and inflammatory markers in men and women experiencing mild to moderate muscle and joint pain.”

Funding: “This research was funded by a grant to Texas A&M University MU (M2203671) from Specnova LLC (Tysons Corner, VA, USA), in collaboration with Increnovo LLC (Whitefish Bay, WI, USA), which served as an independent external consultant to facilitate the planning and completion of the study.”

Comment: Specnova is a dietary supplement company. Mostly, the results did not reach statistical significance, meaning that they could have occurred by chance.  Hence, the hedging language.  Usually, industry funding exerts its influence primarily in the framing of the research question, and secondarily in putting a positive spin on the results.  This study is an example of the latter.

I find ginger to be especially delicious in practically anything edible (ginger ice cream is my favorite).  That’s reason enough to enjoy it.

NOTE: Nancy Matsumoto is speaking today at NYU at 3:30, 411 Lafayette, 5th Floor, Manhattan.  RSVP HERE

Nancy Matsumoto.  Reaping What She Sows: How Women Are Rebuilding Our Broken Food System.  Melville House 2025.  322 pages.

I did a blurb for this book.

Women play enormously important roles in food systems and in the food movement, but are often overlooked. Matsumoto brings women out of the shadows and highlights the efforts of a wide diversity of women in the United States and in low-resource countries throughout the world to create food systems healthier for people and the planet.

Nancy Matsumoto interviewed women doing wonderful work with grains, supply chains, grass-fed cattle, fish, cacao and coffee, grape and agave, and more.

From the chapter “Fighting Big Food on the Produce Front: Women Wranglers of the Alt Supply Chain”

One example [of regulations that favor industrial agriculture] involved progressive California legislators’ attempt to rid farm communities of toxic nitrogen in their groundwater. “There are lots of small communities in the Central and San Joaquin Valleys where residents can’t drink their water because there are so many nitrates in it and that’s directly related to runoff from chemical fertilizers,” Redmond [Judith, of Full Belly Farm] explains. But the paperwork required to comply with this regulation was geared toward giant chemical fertilizer–dependent farms growing a single crop, or monoculture, not a farm like Full Belly that strives for diversity. It was easy for a mega almond farmer, for example, to plug in one set of numbers, but much harder for Full Belly—with its eighty different crop varieties that harness the power of the sun and complex ecological interactions to build soil carbon—to comply with the regulations

From the chapter, “Women of the Grain, Grape, and Agave: Regenerative Beverages”

When I drop in on MISA’s [Minnesota’s Institute for Sustainable Agriculture] offices at the University of Minnesota to visit executive director Helene Murray and local writer Beth Dooley, they ply me with coffee, local raspberries, and packets of popped Kernza. Dooley’s contribution to the MISA effort is her cookbook, The Perennial Kitchen, centered on Midwestern perennial grains, nuts, and seeds, and regeneratively farmed vegetables, poultry, and livestock. Murray tells me about efforts to increase Kernza’s small seed size, which will make cleaning and threshing much easier, and to address the five-foot-tall plant’s propensity for “lodging” or toppling over. While Kernza gets most of the attention, she points out that there are many other grains the institute is researching and promoting. To counter some of the hype around Kernza as the poster grain for regenerating soil and ecosystems, she adds, “there’s no silver bullet.”

The UK government has been trying to reduce consumption of junk foods—those high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) for several years.

• 2019: The government consulted on restricting the promotion of HFSS products by volume price (for example, multibuy offers such as ‘buy one get one free’) and location, both online and in store.
• 2020: The government consulted on technical enforcement of the restrictions.
• 2022: Legislation to restrict HFSS products by location came into effect.
• 2023: The government issued “Restricting promotions of products high in fat, sugar or salt by location and by volume price: implementation guidance.”  These restrict placement of HFSS products at store entrances, aisle ends and checkouts.
• 2025: Restriction of HFSS products by volume price came into effect in October.

The rationale here, as I discuss in my book What to Eat Now, is that the more visible a product is, the more you are likely to buy it.  Food companies pay supermarkets to put their products at store entrances, aisle ends and checkouts.

If such placements are restricted, what happens?  Just what you might expect.

Now we have the first evaluation of these measures : Positive impact of supermarket junk food restrictions revealed

The research, which was carried out in England by the University of Leeds, estimates that two million fewer in-scope HFSS products were sold per day after the new law took effect.

Before the legislation was implemented, 20 out of every 100 items sold were in-scope HFSS products. Following legislation this number dropped to 19.

The Leeds researcher found “a statistically significant reduction in the sales of in-scope HFSS products, as a proportion of total sales by weight and by unit volume,…The scale of the impact varied by retailer, with two retailers’ sales showing a clear step change reduction in sales of in-scope HFSS products. No significant impact was observed in the third.”

Here’s an amusing thought: How about trying this in the U.S.

Maybe RFK Jr could add this to his MAHA recommendations.

Bottom line: Here’s another strategy that works.  If we ever get a chance to use it, let’s do it!

A recent study finds pasteurization of milk to be an effective preventive measure against avian influenza in mice.

We found that milk pasteurization fully inactivated pandemic H1N1 and bovine H5N1 influenza viruses yet preserved hemagglutinin (HA) protein integrity. In mice, repeated oral exposure to inactivated virus did not alter mortality after H5N1 virus challenge.

This is excellent news.  It means that the risk of getting bird flu from pasteurized milk is extremely low.

Bird flu is increasingly widespread in dairy cattle.

The CDC says the risk to humans is low, but 71 cases have been observed so far, with one death.

The situation with bird flu is one more reason to expect bettter safety from pasteurized than raw milk.

The FDA continues to say that pasteurized milk is safer.  Its page on raw milk offers these links.

• Food Safety and Raw Milk
• The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
• Questions & Answers: Raw Milk
• Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption

The FDA reports that from 1998 through 2018, there were 202 outbreaks linked to drinking raw milk, which caused 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations.

This is a lot or not, depending on point of view, but all were likely to have been prevented by pasteurization.

The Raw Milk Institute insists on the benefits of raw milk.

My assessment: there may be benefits, but they are marginal.  There are safer ways to improve immunity.

The risks of raw milk may be infrequent, but when it comes to milk, I’d rather play it safe.

If you are wondering about the effects of China’s not buying US soybeans (and the Trump administrations bailout of Argentinean soybeans), Farm Action says the real problem started decades ago.  

Its analysis is well worth reading.

The numbers reveal how concentrated our agricultural system has become. In 2024:

• Soybeans were the number one U.S. agricultural export, worth about $24.5 billion.
• More than half of all U.S. soybeans were exported, and China historically bought more than half of that total (roughly $12.6 billion worth).
• Soybeans contributed $46.9 billion to total U.S. farm income.

The current crisis, it says, is “the result of decades of decisions that put export growth ahead of food security at home.”

Farm Action wants agricultural policies that will break the cycle of overproduction and bailouts.

1. Grow food, not just livestock feed crops: Incentivize production of fruits, vegetables, and nutrient-dense crops for local markets.
2. Reform subsidies: Redirect federal spending away from endless bailouts and toward programs that reward resilience and healthy food production.
3. Rebuild local infrastructure: Invest in regional processing, storage, and distribution to give farmers alternatives to export markets.
4. Break up corporate monopolies: Enforce antitrust laws to restore competition in input and processing markets.

How to do this, it does not say.  But these goals are worth advocacy.

Start on them now.

We might get lucky.

Thanks to Charles Platkin, who directs the Center for Food as Medicine & Longevity, for sending this press release from the Peanut Institute: New research finds dietary intervention of peanuts improves brain vascular function and memory.  

The NUTRIM study of 31 healthy older adults ranging in age from 60-75 observed that consuming 60 grams (approximately two servings) of peanuts daily for 16 weeks increased global cerebral blood flow (CBF) by 3.6% and verbal memory by 5.8%. In addition to the brain improvements, systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure decreased by 5 mmHg and 4 mmHg, respectively.

This seemed fantastic, and worth a look.

The study: Longer-term skin-roasted peanut consumption improves brain vascular function and memory: A randomized, single-blind, controlled crossover trial in healthy older adults.  Clinical Nutrition 2025;55:170-179.  

Conclusions: Daily consumption of skin-roasted peanuts for 16 weeks improved brain vascular function in healthy older men and women. These favorable effects may underlie the observed improvements in verbal memory, highlighting a potential mechanism by which increased peanut intake beneficially affects cognitive performance.

Funding: This research was funded through a grant from The Peanut Institute Foundation (TPIF). TPIF did not participate in the study design, data acquisition or analysis, decisions regarding publication, or the writing of the manuscript.

Comment: The logic behind this study goes like this: The Mediterranean and DASH diets are associated with less decline in cognition with aging.  Nuts are part of both diets and also show that correlation.  Peanuts, which are legumes high in protein, should do that too.  I can’t wait to see how peanuts will be marketed based on this study.

OK, give peanuts a try, but watch out for the calories.  Participants in this study must have added the two ounces of peanuts to their regular diets. and guess what: “self-reported dietary intake data indicated a higher caloric intake during the peanut intervention.”  They gained an average of 0,7 kg (1.5 pounds), which the authors deem not clinically meaningful.