Charlotte Bilekoff.  Real Food, Real Facts: Processed Food and the Politics of Knowledge.  University of California Press, 2024.  267 pages.

Food processing is a big issue these days (witness RFK Jr’s pledge to get ultra-processed foods out of school meals) and I was interested to see what food studies scholar Charlotte Biltekoff had to say about it.

Her thesis: When people say they want to eat “real food” rather than highly processed food, the food industry responds with “real facts,” science-based discussions of the benefits of food processing (“food scientism”).

The industry’s response is based on the idea that if you could only correct public ignorance and misperceptions, you could sell your products more easily.

But public concerns are about politics, not science.  And food scientism is a form of antipolitics.

She cites as an example, the FDA’s ongoing inability to define the term “natural.”

Concerned about health, sustainability, and risk and wanting change in the food system, the public sought to act on its values and aspirations in the marketplace.  Narrowly reframing those concerns as demands that could be met through product reformulations and new approaches to marketing—but without serious, systemic engagement with the broader issues they reflected—the food industry produced products that appeared to be more natural, less processed, and therefore better…articles in the industry press and comments to the FDA show that many perceived the consumers of “real food” as irrational and misinformed.  Seen through the lens of food scientism of the Real Facts frame, consumer perceptions of processing and what “natural” meant, or should mean, were further proof that the public lacked the skills and understanding to meaningfully participate in the regulatory processess, let alone act as knowledgeable participants in the governance of technology and the shaping of the food system. (p. 143)

What Biltekoff has done here is to translate the classic two-culture risk communication problem to food.

Her book made me go back and look at what I wrote about the two-culture problem in Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.  The book contrasts the differing perceptions of industry and the public about the potential harm of microbial foodborne illness versus GMOs.

These differences in approaching questions of risk were understood long before anyone invented the techniques for genetically modifying foods. In 1959, for example, the scientist and writer C. P. Snow characterized the ways in which people trained in science tend to think about the world—as opposed to those without such training—as representing two distinct cultures separated from one another by a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” [1]. Much more recently, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz wrote, “The ways in which we try to understand and deal with the physical world and those in which we try to understand and deal with the social one are not altogether the same. The methods of research, the aims of inquiry, and the standards of judgment all differ, and nothing but confusion, scorn, and accusation—relativism! Platonism! reductionism! verbalism!—results from failing to see this” [2].  [1. Snow CP. Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution: The Rede Lecture. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959; 2. Geertz C. Empowering Aristotle (book review). Science 2001;293:53].

Science-based approaches to food safety, I pointed out, count cases and estimate costs, whereas what I called “value-based” approaches, are about feelings of dread and outrage.

Biltekoff’s analysis applies the two-culture framework to public responses to food processing and to the ways the food industry deals with those responses.

Her analysis explains much about the current pushback against the concept of ultra-processed foods from the food industry and some nutritionists.  If you want to understand why the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has chosen not to recommend reducing intake of ulra-processed foods, read this book.

And, amazingly, the book is available as open source.  Read the book online here.

Read Charlotte Biltekoff’s interview with UC Press here.

DietaryGuidelines.gov provides handouts on Food Sources of Select Nutrients.

Alas, calories are not among these handouts, even though 75% of American adults are now considered overweight or obese.

These are meant for nutrition professionals but are fun to see if you want to see what they get.

The page lists lots of other resources.

• Download Handouts & SpreadsheetLearn More About Food Sources
• Print materials on the professional resources page 
• MyPlate Quiz
• MyPlate Plan
• MyPlate Kitchen
• Professional food photography

Will these help you make healhier dietary choices?

Nutrients are not the problem; calories are the problem.

To do something about them, we need a healthier food environment.

I wish the USDA would give that as much attention as it gives nutrients.

The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) report is well underway.   The committee either has submitted or is about to submit its report to HHS and USDA;.  The report has not yet been posted, but presumably will be posted soon.

But understand: the scientific advisory committee is just that: advisory.

The agencies, HHS and USDA, are responsible for writing the actual guidelines.  They choose an internal committee to do that work.  That new committee can pick, choose, add, or subtract from the advisory committee’s report.

So yes, the new Secretaries of HHS and USDA can have a lot of input (and veto power) into the new guidelines.

As I’m fond of repeating, the guidelines process was quite different when I was on the DGAC in 1995.  Then, our committee chose the research topics, reviewed the research, wrote the advisory committee report, and wrote the actual dietary guidelines.  The agencies made only minor tweakings.

The agencies have written the guidelines since 2005, making the process much more subject to politics.

The DGAC, for example, viewed the evidence on ultra-processed foods as too limited to take a stand, yet RFK, Jr says ultra-processed foods are killing us.

The development of the 2025-2030 guidelines will be most interesting to watch.  Stay tuned.

I spent a lot of time last week responding to reporters’ questions about Trump’s appointing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here’s what the president-elect said about the appointment on Twitter (X):

For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health…HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!

Trump has instructed Mr. Kennedy to end chronic disease and “Go wild on food.”

In various statements, Mr. Kennedy has said he wants to get rid of “poisons”

• Ultra-processed foods in schools
• Artificial colors in cereals
• Chemicals, pollutants, pesticides
• Mercury in fish
• Fast food

He also wants to

• Restrict sodas on SNAP
• Promote sustainable, regenerative farming by small farmers
• End conflicts of interest between government agencies and corporations: Corporate capture is the biggest threat to democracy.

These are the kinds of things I’ve been saying and writing about for decades!

[He also is pushing for some things that are much less well grounded in science: getting rid of grains for kids, seed oils, and fluoride in drinking water; deregulating raw milk; and firing all nutrition scientists on day 1].

If he really does do what he’s promising here, it means taking on the food industry, in a way that no government has ever done, and Trump showed no signs of doing in his first term.

What can we expect?  I have no idea, but thist sure will be interesting to watch.

Mother Jones calls Kennedy’s appointment “a genuine catastrophe.”

For charges of hypocrisy, click here.

Civil Eats asked a bunch of people to predict “The Path Forward for Food and Ag.”  Here’s what I said.

I wish I had a crystal ball to say how food and agriculture issues would play out over the next four years, but all I have to go on is what Trump and his followers say. If we take them at their word, then we must expect them to implement their Project 2025 plan, which replaces one deep state with another that favors conservative business interests and ideology. This calls for replacing staff in federal agencies with Trump loyalists and dismantling them, stopping the USDA from doing anything to prevent climate change, reforming farm subsidies (unclear how), splitting the farm bill to deal separately with agricultural supports and SNAP, reducing SNAP participation by reinstating work requirements and reducing the Thrifty Food Plan, and making it more difficult for kids to participate in school meals.

On the other hand, some of the plans make sense: eliminating checkoff programs and repealing the sugar program, for example. So do some of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s goals: Make America Healthy Again by focusing on chronic disease prevention, getting harmful chemicals out of kids’ foods, and getting rid of conflicts of interest among researchers and agency staff. It’s too early to know how much of this is just talk, but I’m planning to do what I can to oppose measures I view as harmful, but to strongly support the ones I think will be good for public health.

No food industry is too small or too obscure to fund research in its own interest.  Try this one, for example.

Effects of Supplementation with a Microalgae Extract from Phaeodactylum tricornutum Containing Fucoxanthin on Cognition and Markers of Health in Older Individuals with Perceptions of Cognitive Decline. Yoo C, Maury J, Gonzalez DE, Ko J, Xing D, Jenkins V, Dickerson B, Leonard M, Estes L, Johnson S, et al.  Nutrients. 2024; 16(17):2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16172999

Background: Phaeodactylum tricornutum (PT) is a microalgae extract that contains fucoxanthin and has been shown to enhance cognitive function in younger populations.

Purpose: The present study assessed if PT supplementation affects cognition in healthy, young-old, physically active adults with self-perceptions of cognitive and memory decline.

Methods: Forty-three males and females…with perceptions of cognitive and memory decline completed the double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled intervention clinical trial. Participants were…randomly allocated to their respective 12-week supplementation interventions, which were either the placebo (PL) or 1100 mg/day of PT containing 8.8 mg of fucoxanthin (FX).

Results: FX supplementation significantly affected (p < 0.05) or exhibited tendencies toward significance (p > 0.05 to p < 0.10 with effect sizes ranging from medium to large) for word recall, picture recognition reaction time, Stroop color–word test, choice reaction time, and digit vigilance test variables.

Conclusions: The results demonstrate some evidence that FX supplementation can improve working and secondary memory, vigilance, attention, accuracy, and executive function.

Funding: Microphyt (Baillargues, FRA) funded this study through a grant (Microphyt #410991) to Texas A&M University.

Conflicts of interest: J.M. and R.P. are sponsor-affiliated researchers who therefore have conflicts of interest in study results. They provided input on study design but were not involved in data collection or analysis. R.B.K. has conducted grant and contract-funded research on nutritional supplements awarded to the universities he has been affiliated with, received an honorarium for making scientific presentations, and served as a paid scientific expert. He has no financial conflicts of interest with the study sponsor or product evaluated in this study. The remaining coauthors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Comment: I like “some evidence.”  That suggests the evidence is not particularly impressive.  The study found positive conclusions, not surprising since two of the authors work for the sponsoring company.  Industry-funded studies almost invariably find conclusions that favor the sponsor’s interests.  Otherwise, why bother to sponsor research.  That’s its point: marketing.

Ashley N. Gearhardt, Kelly D. Brownell, Mark S. Gold, and Marc N. Potenza, editors.  Food & Addiction: A Comprehensive Handbook, Second Edition.  Oxford University Press, 2024.  570 pages.

This is the second edition of a book I wrote about in 2012.

At the time, I said:

Brownell and Gold have produced an instant classic.  Food and Addiction presents a comprehensive, authoritative, and compelling case for considering whether food is addictive.  Its chapters raise serious questions about our current laissez-faire attitude toward food marketing, especially to children.  This book is a must read for everyone who cares about the causes and consequences of obesity and the need for food policies that better promote health.  It is a game changer.  Readers will never look at food the same way again.

Much has happened since then to focus greater attention on the ways food triggers addictive-like eating behavior.

• Michael Moss’s books, Salt, Sugar, Fat, and Hooked.  These document how food companies deliberately formulate products to make them irresistible (“you can’t eat just one”).
• The emergence of the concept of ultra-processed foods as a researchable category.
• Kevin Hall et al’s demonstration that ultra-processed foods encourage people to eat more calories but not realize it.
• The increase in research using the Yale Food Addiction Scale, and
• The research described and reviewed in this book.

All of this makes an increasingly convincing case that the word “addiction” applies to food as well as to other addictive substances, and that similar proportions of people (10% to 15%) meet criteria for addiction; everyone eats, but not everyone meets those criteria.

The editors’ introductory and concluding chapters lay out the diagnostic and policy issues.

The short chapters address biological, behavioral, clinical, and legal correlates of food addiction.

They are written by a authors who address these issues from enormously different , but highly critical, perspectives ranging from the exceedingly personal to the big-picture political.

Is anything missing here?  As with any multi-authored book, this one undoubtedly took years to produce.  That makes it a few years out of date in fast-moving areas.  It does not cover recent research on ultra-processed foods, Kevin Hall’s experiment, the concept of food “noise,” or the way the new GLP-1 drugs might interact with addictive behavior.

But, this is the resource of food addiction, a great gift to the addiction-perplexed and an enormous public service at a time when it is badly needed.

A reader, Lynn Ripley, sent me a link to this article from the New York Times: What a Crackdown on Immigration Could Mean for Cheap Milk

What Peter does know, however, is that without foreign-born workers, his dairy could not stay afloat. Americans are understandably reluctant to perform dirty, dangerous and demanding work — what economists call 3-D jobs — as long as they have better alternatives. Unemployment in southern Idaho has averaged 3.4 percent for a decade; wages for entry-level workers on Peter’s farm are competitive with those for cashiers at fast-food franchises. He can’t pay much more, he insists, and still break even.

The issue for dairy farms is that the system is structured so the cost of production exceeds the price dairy farmers can get for their milk.

The problem, as Peter sees it, is that the price of everything in America has gone up except the price of milk. In the 1980s, a tractor cost him roughly $60,000, the federal minimum wage was $3.35 and his first hundred pounds of Class III milk — the kind used in making yogurt and cheese — sold to a processing plant for $12.24. Since then, many of his expenses have doubled or tripled. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Peter says, his costs soared, and they still haven’t come down. Fuel-tank fittings that cost him about $2,000 in 2014 now run $13,000. Mechanics who once charged $60 an hour now charge $95.

And one other problem: monopsony (market control by a single buyer).

So Peter, like almost every dairyman in the country, sells his milk through a co-op. Twice a day an insulated truck drains about 75,000 pounds of freshly pumped milk from his holding tanks. A couple of weeks later, Peter finds out what he will be paid in return.  “We’re not price makers,” Peter said. “We’re price takers.”

This system is not sustainable now, and it will be even less sustainable if the threatened roundup of immigrants takes place.

Dairy is not the only industry likely to be affected.  Think: farm work, meat packing plants, slaughter houses, back-of-the-house restaurant and foodservice work, house cleaning, childcare, eldercare, and all the other menial, low-wage jobs nobody else wants to do.

This system is not sustainable either.

Maybe Make America Healthy Again can take this on?

The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee has a lengthy (179 pages) new report ‘Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system’.

Key finding: Obesity and diet-related disease are public health emergencies costing society billions in healthcare costs and lost productivity.

Key recommendation: The Government should develop a comprehensive, integrated long-term new strategy to fix our food system, underpinned by a new legislative framework.

Key actions (selected):

• Require large food businesses to report on the healthfulness of their products
• Exclude businesses making unhealthful products from policy discussions on food, diet and obesity prevention.
• Tax products high in salt and sugar; use revenues to make healthy food cheaper.
• Ban the advertising of less healthy food across all media.

No recommendation on reducing intake of ultra-processed foods?  Despite finding the link between ultra-processed foods and poor health outcome “alarming,” the report ducked the issue and recommended only to fund more research.

It also advised reviewing dietary guidelines with ultra-processed foods in mind.

Still, the recommendation to keep food businesses out of public policy discussions is a good one, not to mention taxes and advertising bans.

This, mind you, is the House of Lords.  Impressive.

LINKS

• Full report
• News story
• Shorthand version of the report
• Video
• Audio (Baroness Walmsley)