by Marion Nestle

Search results: soda tax

Nov 25 2008

Publications

This page lists books and articles. Books start under the first photo, and articles under the second.

Witt Program on Activism, DeWitt Clinton High School, Bronx NY, 12-8-09

BOOKS: For more information on books, click here

  • 2022:  Nestle M.  SLOW COOKED: AN UNEXPECTED LIFE IN FOOD POLITICS.  University of California Press.  
  • 2020: Nestle M, Trueman K.  LET’S ASK MARION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE POLITICS OF FOOD, NUTRITION, AND HEALTH, University of California Press.
  • 2018: Nestle M.  UNSAVORY TRUTH: HOW FOOD COMPANIES SKEW THE SCIENCE OF WHAT WE EAT, Basic Books.  Portuguese (Brazil) edition, 2019.
  • 2015: Nestle M.  SODA POLITICS: TAKING ON BIG SODA (AND WINNING), Oxford University Press.  Paperback, 2017.
  • 2013: Nestle M.  EAT, DRINK, VOTE: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO FOOD POLITICS, Rodale Books.
  • 2012: Nestle M, Nesheim M. WHY CALORIES COUNT: FROM SCIENCE TO POLITICS, University of California Press.  Paperback, 2013.
  • 2010: Nestle M, Nesheim MC. FEED YOUR PET RIGHT, Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
  • 2008: Nestle M. PET FOOD POLITICS: THE CHIHUAHUA IN THE COAL MINE, University of California Press. Paperback, 2010.
  • 2006: Nestle M. WHAT TO EAT, North Point Press/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Paperback, 2007. Hebrew (Israel) edition, 2007; Korean edition, 2007.
  • 2003: Nestle M. SAFE FOOD: BACTERIA, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND BIOTERRORISM, University of California Press.  Paperback 2004; Chinese edition 2004, Japanese edition 2009. Revised and expanded edition retitled SAFE FOOD: THE POLITICS OF FOOD SAFETY, 2010.   
  • 2002: Nestle M. FOOD POLITICS: HOW THE FOOD INDUSTRY INFLUENCES NUTRITION AND HEALTH, University of California Press. Paperback 2003; Revised and expanded edition 2007; Chinese edition, 2004; Japanese edition, 2005; 10th Anniversary Edition with a Foreword by Michael Pollan, 2013.
  • 1985: Nestle M. NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE. Greenbrae CA: Jones Medical Publications. Asian edition, 1986. Greek edition, 1987.

Edited Books

Dr. Nestle at FAO 082

ARTICLES (SELECTED): For the most part, these are columns, professional articles, book chapters, letters, and book reviews for which links or pdf’s are available (or will be when I get time to find or create them). Additional publications are listed in the c.v. link in the About page.

2024

2023

2022

2021

  • Young LR, Nestle M.  Portion Sizes of Ultra-Processed Foods in the United States, 2002 to 2021. American Journal of Public Health 2021;111(12):2223-2226.
  • Carlos Augusto Monteiro,Mark Lawrence, Christopher Millett, Marion Nestle, Barry M Popkin, Gyorgy Scrinis, Boyd Swinburn.  The need to reshape global food processing: a call to the United Nations Food Systems Summit.  BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e006885. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006885
  • Nestle M.  Public health nutrition deserves more attention.  Review of Jones-Smith J, ed. Public Health Nutrition: Essentials for Practitioners (Johns Hopkins Press, 2020).  American Journal of Public Heath. 2021;111(4):533-535.
  • Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Ahmed S, Bailey Z, Bassett MT, Bird M, Bor J, Bor D, Carrasquillo O, Chowkwanyun M, Dickman SL, Fisher S, Gaffney A, Galea S, Gottfried RN, Grumbach K, Guyatt G, Hansen H, Landrigan PH, Lighty M, McKee M, McCormick D, McGretor A, Mirza R, Morris JE, Mukherjee JS, Nestle M, Prine L, Saadi A, Schiff D, Shapiro M, Tesema L, Venkataramani A.  Public policy and health in the Trump era: A Lancet Commission Report.  The Lancet, February 10, 2021.
  • Nestle M.  Review of Jessica Harris, Vintage Postcards from the African World: In the Dignity of Their Work and the Joy of Their Play.  Food, Culture, and Society, 2021;743-744.

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2002 – 2005

  • Nestle M. Preventing childhood diabetes: The need for public health intervention (editorial). American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:1497-1499.
  • Nestle M. Increasing portion sizes in American diets: more calories, more obesity (commentary). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003;103:39-40.

  • Berg J, Nestle M, Bentley A. Food studies. In: Katz SH, Weaver WW, eds. The Scribner Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, Vol 2. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003:16-18.

  • Nestle M. The ironic politics of obesity (editorial). Science 2003:299:781.

  • Nestle M. Not good enough to eat (commentary). New Scientist 2003;177 (February 22):25.

  • Nestle M. Hearty Fare? Review of Faergeman, O. Coronary Heart Disease: Genes, Drugs, and the Agricultural Connection. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003. Nature 2003;425:902.

  • Nestle M. Thinking about food (letter). Wilson Quarterly Autumn 2003 [27(4)]:4.

  • Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding Portion Sizes to the U.S. obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:246-249.
  • Mahabir S, Coit D, Liebes L, Brady MS, Lewis JJ, Roush G, Nestle M, Fay D, Berwick M. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dietary supplementation of a-tocopherol on mutagen sensitivity levels in melanoma patients: a pilot trial. Melanoma Research 2002;12:83-90.
  • Byers T, Nestle M, McTeirnan A, Doyle C, Currie-Williams A, Gansler T, Thun M, and the American Cancer Society 2001 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer with Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity. CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2002;52:92-119.
  • Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools (commentary). Journal of the American Medical Association 2002;288:2181.

2001

  • Nestle M. Genetically engineered “golden” rice unlike to overcome vitamin A deficiency (letter). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2001;101:289-290.

  • Nestle M. Nutrition and women’s health: the politics of dietary advice [editorial]. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association 2001;56:42-43.

  • Kumanyika SK, Morssink CB, Nestle M. Minority women and advocacy for women’s health. American Journal of Public Health 2001;91:1383-1388.

  • Nestle M. Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: A conflict of interest? Public Health Nutrition 2001;4:1015-1022.

  • Nestle M. Review of: Bendich A, Deckelbaum RJ, eds. Primary and Secondary Preventive Nutrition (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2001). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2001;74:704.

2000

1999

  • Nestle M. Hunger in America: A Matter of Policy. Social Research 1999;66(1): 257-282.
  • Nestle M. Commentary [dietary guidelines]. Food Policy 1999;24(2-3):307-310.
  • Nestle M. Meat or wheat for the next millennium? Plenary lecture: animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: is the historical record unequivocal? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1999;58:211-218 (online here).
  • Nestle M. Heart disease’s decline (letter). New York Times, August 12, 1999:A18.
  • Nestle M. Dietary supplement advertising: a matter of politics, not science. Journal of Nutrition Education 1999;31:278-282.

1998

1987-1997

  • Nestle M.Broccoli sprouts as inducers of carcinogen-detoxifying enzyme systems: clinical, dietary, and policy implications [Commentary].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 1997;94:11149-11151.

  • Nestle M.The role of chocolate in the American diet: nutritional perspectives.In: Szogyi A, ed.Chocolate, Food of the Gods.Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1997:111-124.

  • Nestle M.Epidemiologists’ Paradise.Junshi C, Campbell TC, Junyao L, Peto R.Diet, Life-style, and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties.NY: Oxford University Press, 1990 [book review].BioScience 1991;41:725-726.

  • Nestle M. National nutrition monitoring policy: the continuing need for legislative intervention. J Nutrition Education 1990;22:141-144.

  • Nestle M, Porter DV. Evolution of federal dietary guidance policy: from food adequacy to chronic disease prevention.Caduceus: A Museum Journal for the Health Sciences 1990;6(2):43-67.

  • McGinnis JM, Nestle M. The Surgeon General’s report on nutrition and health: policy implications and implementation strategies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1989;49:23-28.

  • Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health. Publ. No. (PHS) 88-50210. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988, 712 pages [Managing Editor]. Reprint: Prima Publishing, 1989. Reprint: Warner Books, 1989.

  • Nestle M. Promoting health and preventing disease: national nutrition objectives for 1990 and 2000. Food Technology 1988;42(2):103-107.
  • Nestle M, Lee PR, Baron, RB. Nutrition policy update.  In: Weininger J, Briggs GM, eds.  Nutrition Update, Vol 1.  New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983:285-313.

1968-1972 Dissertation and Postdoctoral Papers

Nestle M, Sussman M.  The effect of cyclic-AMP on morphogenesis and enzyme accumulation in Dictyostelium discoideum.  Developmental Biology 1972;28:545-554.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  An extracellular nuclease from Serratia marcescens. II. Specificity of the enzyme.  Journal of Biological Chemistry 1969;244:5219-5225.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  An extracellular nuclease from Serratia marcescens. I.  Purification and some properties of the enzyme.  Journal of Biological Chemistry 1969;244:5213-5218.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  Separation of ribonucleosides and ribonucleotides by a one-dimensional paper chromatographic system. Analytical Biochemistry 1968;22:349-351.

 

 

Dec 14 2021

My latest paper: portion size

My former doctoral student and now colleague Lisa Young has been tracking the increase in portion sizes of junk foods for more than 20 years.  Our latest report has just come out in the American Journal of Public Health: Portion Sizes of Ultra-Processed Foods in the United States, 2002 to 2021.

At first introduction, most companies offered products in just 1 size; that size is smaller than or equal to the smallest size currently available. For example, the original size of a Coca-Cola bottle was 6.5 ounces; today it comes in 6 sizes marketed as single servings; these range from 7.5 ounces to 24 ounces, 4 of which have been introduced since 2002.
Since 2002, McDonald’s has reduced the sizes of its french fries and eliminated its “supersize” french fries and soda, but still offers quart-sized sodas and double burgers. While McDonald’s and Burger King decreased the size of their largest portion of french fries, they increased the sizes of their smallest portions. While Burger King reduced the sizes of it’s hamburger sandwiches, since 2002 they added a triple Whopper.
As we have pointed out previously, portion sizes increased in parallel with the rising prevalence of obesity.
Larger portions are a problem for three reasons.  They:
  • Have more calories (if only this were intuitively obvious, but it is not)
  • Encourage people to eat more
  • Confuse people about how much they are eating

Our recommendations:

We think it is time to also consider caps and other legislatively mandated national policy options to require the food industry to make smaller food portions more available, convenient, and inexpensive:

•  offer consumers price incentives for smaller portions of ultra-processed foods,
•  discontinue the largest sizes of ultra-processed packaged foods and fast-food portions, and
•  restrict marketing of large portions of ultra-processed foods, especially those targeted to children and minorities.

Our article is accompanied by an editorial by Carlos Monteiro and Geoffrey Cannon, the inventors of the term, “ultra-processed”: Yes, Food Portion Sizes and People Have Become Bigger and Bigger. What Is to Be Done? 

Their point: reducing portion sizes is unlikely to work internationally.

In such countries, reduced portion sizes of ultra-processed foods would at best have limited effect, and most likely would be counterproductive if they were marketed to promote their consumption. Generally, the most rational guideline, for global as well as personal health and well-being, is to protect and promote minimally processed foods and freshly prepared meals and to discourage the consumption of ultra-processed foods altogether, together with statutory measures including fiscal policies and actions. These measures should make fresh and minimally processed foods cheaper and more available. Ultra-processed foods should be made more expensive and less available, if at all, especially in canteens and hospitals, other health settings, and in and near schools. Cosmetic additives should be banned or highly taxed.

We have much work to do.

Tags:
Jul 30 2020

Income and sugary beverage consumption

A recent study confirms what we already knew: poorer people drink more sugary beverages than richer people.

This analysis suggests the richest 10% of families drink about 2.5 fewer sugary drinks a week than those in the poorest 10%.

These investigators found this relationship to hold up “even after taking into account things like education, race, gender, cognitive abilities and interest in nutrition.”

Drinking sugary beverages correlates with all those factors as well as with poor diets in general, overweight, the diseases for which overweight is a risk factor, and overall mortality.

I discuss the evidence for all that in my book, Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning).

Tags: ,
Jul 24 2019

At last: attention to sugar’s role in dental health

I included a chapter on sugar and dental disease in my 2015 book, Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), because billions of people have decayed teeth and other dental problems that could have been kept intact by dental hygiene, fluoride treatment, or—consuming less sugar or sugary drinks.

But:

  • Dental disease has a long history of being overlooked as a public health problem.
  • Sugar has a long history of being ignored as a cause of dental disease.

This may now be changing.

The Lancet has a new series on oral health:

Radical action on oral health will benefit from harnessing a clear global health mandate. Because oral diseases share the main risk factors of other non-communicable diseases (NCDs)—sugar consumption, tobacco use, and harmful alcohol use—oral health should have a stronger place on the global NCDs agenda.

  • Oral diseases: a global public health challenge: Marco A Peres, Lorna M D Macpherson, Robert J Weyant, Blánaid Daly, Renato Venturelli, Manu R Mathur, Stefan Listl, Roger Keller Celeste, Carol C Guarnizo-Herreño, Cristin Kearns, Habib Benzian, Paul Allison, Richard G Watt.  The Lancet, Vol. 394, No. 10194.  

Among this article’s key messages:

  • Oral conditions share common risk factors with other non-communicable diseases, which include free sugar consumption, tobacco use, and harmful alcohol consumption, as well as the wider social and commercial determinants of health
  • Of particular concern is the effect of free sugar consumption on the prevalence of caries and overweight or obesity, and associated conditions such as diabetes
  • Recognition is increasing of the influence, power, and effect of the global sugar industry as a threat to public health, which requires tighter regulation and legislation by governments
  • Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action: Richard G Watt, Blánaid Daly, Paul Allison, Lorna M D Macpherson, Renato Venturelli, Stefan Listl, Robert J Weyant, Manu R Mathur, Carol C Guarnizo-Herreño, Roger Keller Celeste, Marco A Peres, Cristin Kearns, Habib Benzian.  The Lancet, Vol. 394, No. 10194

In this Series paper, we focus on the need to reduce sugar consumption and describe how this can be achieved through the adoption of a range of upstream policies designed to combat the corporate strategies used by the global sugar industry to promote sugar consumption and profits. At present, the sugar industry is influencing dental research, oral health policy, and professional organisations through its well developed corporate strategies. The development of clearer and more transparent conflict of interest policies and procedures to limit and clarify the influence of the sugar industry on research, policy, and practice is needed. Combating the commercial determinants of oral diseases and other NCDs should be a major policy priority.

A check of dental research organisation websites shows that corporate members of ORCA include Cloetta, a Nordic confectionery company; Unilever, a global consumer goods company that sells ice cream and sugary beverages; and Mars Wrigley Confectionery, a leading manufacturer of chewing gum, chocolate, mints, and fruity confections (through its Wrigley Oral Healthcare Program). Corporate members of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) include Unilever and Mondelēz International, one of the world’s largest snack companies, whose products include cookies, chocolate, and confectionery. These financial ties are slightly less shocking given the oral health-care products these companies sell: xylitol chewing gum and pastilles (Cloetta), sugar-free gum with xylitol (Mondelēz, Mars Wrigley), and toothbrushes and fluoridated toothpaste (Unilever). Nonetheless, as the dental research community comes to terms with its neglect of sugars intake, these relationships with industry are ripe for scrutiny.  [I’ve written previously about Kearns’ discovery of links between sugar trade associations and dental professional organizations].

Two key strategic aims for a global oral health movement will be to ensure that oral health treatment and prevention services are central to UHC [universal health coverage] and to support global efforts to limit the damage caused by the sugar industry…There is fragmented global action for reducing the damage of the sugar industry and some progress has been made in a number of cities and countries, especially with the introduction of taxes on sugary drinks.  However, there is no united global movement against sugar, as there is against the tobacco industry.

  • Perspective:  Richard Watt: time to tackle oral diseases: Rachael Davies.  The Lancet, Vol. 394, No. 10194.  “The mouth really is a marker of people’s social position and future disease risk…and oral diseases are a canary in the coal mine for inequality.”
  • Perspective: Polished smiles and porcelain teeth.  Richard Barnett.  The Lancet, Vol. 394, No. 10194. 
This is a history of George Washington’s teeth and the later development of the dental profession, ending with this thought: “in the early 21st century, the great global divide in dentistry remains—as it was in Washington’s day—between the rich and the poor.”

It’s great that The Lancet has finally taken this on.

Here’s The Guardian’s Account.  There should be a lot more press coverage.  Dental conditions affect billions of people throughout the world.

Tags:
May 24 2019

Weekend Spanish lesson: a book about obesity for teenagers

Simón Barquera.  ¿Hasta que los kilos nos alcancen? Una introducción desde la ciencia sobre el aumento de la obesidad y la forma de enfrentar esta epidemia [My and Google’s translation: Until the kilos reach us?  A scientific introduction to the increase in obesity and how to confront this epidemic]. Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica and SPM Ediciones, 2019 (119 pages, hard cover).

I did a blurb for this book (it’s in Spanish on the back cover):

I can’t think of a better target audience for a book about the social, economic, and political causes of obesity than the young people who will be tomorrow’s leaders and policymakers.  Simón Barquera gives them–and readers of any age—the skills to recognize how food and beverage companies promote corporate profits over public health, and to act on this knowledge through advocacy for regulating conflicts of interests.  These skills are essential for preventing obesity and creating healthier food systems.

I’ve wrote about Barquera’s work a couple of years ago; he is one of the Mexican soda-tax advocates who had spyware installed on his phone, and is a researcher at the public health institute in Cuernavaca where I went on a Fulbright in February 2017.

I hadn’t seen the book’s illustrations when I did the blurb.  If I had, it would have been hard to talk about anything else because they are beyond charming.  It’s hard to pick a favorite, but I especially like this one.

This book needs an English translation!  I hope someone is doing one.

If you want a copy, try this link.

Tags: ,
Jan 2 2019

US votes no on action on global nutrition

I was fascinated to see this FoodNavigator account of the recent United Nations’ call for action on nutrition.

The lengthy new UN resolution on “a healthier world through better nutrition” begins with pages of preliminary comments before getting to bland admonitions that member states should improve nutrition, health conditions, and living standards; address hunger and malnutrition; and promote food security, food safety, and sustainable, resilient, and diverse food systems.

The resolution encourages member states to strengthen nutrition policies that promote breastfeeding and control the marketing of breast-milk substitutes.

It also promotes physical activity. It

Calls upon Member States to develop actions to promote physical activity in the entire population and for all ages, through the provision of safe public environments and recreational spaces, the promotion of sports, physical education programmes in schools and urban planning which encourages active transport.

What got FoodNavigator’s—and my—attention, however, was its encouragement of member nations to:

develop health- and nutrition-promoting environments, including through nutrition education in schools and other education institutions, as appropriate.

Nutrition education?  That’s it on improving the nutrition environment?

Nothing about curbs on food industry marketing practices, front-of-package food labels, soda or sugar taxes, or other policies established to be effective in improving nutritional health (see, for example, the policies listed on the World Health Organization’s database, or the NOURISHING database of The World Cancer Research Fund).

The UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report on the value of education in improving the food environment.  Its author, Corinna Hawkes, makes it clear that education is useful, but is far more effective when it thoroughly involves policies to change the food environment.

nutrition education actions are more likely to yield positive results…when actions are implemented as part of large, multi-component interventions, rather than information provision or direct education alone. It is notable that governments have been taking an increasing number of actions involving multiple components, such as combining policies on nutrition labels with education campaigns, public awareness campaigns with food product reformulation, and school food standards with educational initiatives in schools.

The resolution says none of this.  Even so, it did not pass unanimously.  The vote:

  • Yes:       157 countries
  • No:           2 (Libya and the United States)
  • Abstain:    1 (Hungary)

And why did the United States vote no?  The US mission to the UN explains its position on the grounds—and I am not making this up—that the resolution:

  • Favors abortion:  “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”​
  • Promotes free trade in medicines: “This could lead to misinterpretation of international trade obligations in a manner which may negatively affect countries’ abilities to incentivise new drug development and expand access to medicines.”​
  • Promotes migration: “we believe [the resolution represents]…an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign rights of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws and interests.”​

To be clear: UN resolutions are non-binding.  The UN cannot tell member countries what to do.  All it can do is exert leadership and moral force.

When it comes to the food environment these days, we need all the moral force we can get.  We didn’t get it here.

Tags: ,
Jul 24 2018

The Obesity Society should support public health, not corporate health

My email inbox was flooded last week with The Obesity Society’s call for more research on the value of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.

“Although taxing SSBs might generate revenue that can be used to promote other healthy food items, the net outcome may not necessarily decrease overweight and obesity rates in the United States or worldwide,” said Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, FTOS, President-Elect of The Obesity Society (TOS) and professor and director of the Body Composition-Metabolism Laboratory at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

Why would a professional society that represents people who ostensibly care about obesity science, treatment, and prevention issue a statement aimed at casting doubt on a demonstrably effective public health measure?  (Soda companies know the taxes are effective; that’s why they fight them so hard).

The Obesity Society (TOS), alas, often appears far more favorable to the interests of food and beverage companies than those of public health.  Could funding of the society and its members have anything to do with this?

Here is the TOS position on corporate funding:

TOS recognizes the value in providing any donor that wishes to support our mission to find solutions to the obesity epidemic the opportunity to provide financial support.

The current TOS policy expressly eliminates all forms of evaluation or judgment of the funding source (other than the stipulation that funding is reasonably assumed not to be derived from activities deemed ‘illegal’).

TOS chooses instead to focus its ethical mission on transparency in disclosing the sources of funding, clear stipulations outlining our commitment to the ethical use of funds, and a commitment to non-influence of the funding sources over the scientific aspects of funded projects and TOS as a whole.

Translation: We will take money from any company, regardless of the effects of its products on public health.

The TOS rationale is that disclosure takes care of the problem and that funding won’t influence the science.  Unfortunately for this view, research demonstrates that disclosure does not eliminate the influence of funding, and the influence of funding is considerable—though often unrecognized, as is apparent in this case.

TOS has a disclosure policy, and discloses its officers’ conflicts of interest.  These are considerable.

In 2013, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff resigned his TOS membership over the society’s sponsorship policies.  In his comment on the current TOS statement, Freedhoff points out that “sugar-sweetened beverage taxes decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and increase healthier beverage consumption while providing the greatest potential health benefits to low income consumers.”

TOS members who care about creating a healthier food environment should consider joining Dr. Freedhoff.  lf not, they should insist that TOS leadership take vigorous pro-public health stances on matters affecting their patients’ health.

Additional comments, October 31, 2018

Yesterday I received a message from Liz Szabo, a reporter for Kaiser Health News, who is writing a piece on TOS’s relationships with food companies.  She questioned Steve Heymsfield, the group’s current president, who responded at length with a message that included this paragraph:

Marion Nestle, on the other hand, is professor “emeritus” and our understanding is that she no longer reports directly to a dean at New York University. That created a hurdle for us when trying to manage Dr. Nestle’se false and misleading blog related to this matter on her website. Even after learning her comments were misleading from Dr. Popkin, and unlike Popkin who has a high ethical standard, she failed to take down that post.

This surprised me, because nobody from TOS or anywhere else had written me to correct the post, Dr. Popkin’s corrections were to something he—not I—had written, and my ongoing relationship with NYU is readily evident from the information posted under About on this site.

I pointed this out to Dr. Heymsfield, who replied with annotations to my post.  Most of these deal with opinion and interpretation rather than fact.  The one thing I got “completely false” is my interpretation that TOS lacks standards for deciding which donors are acceptable.  Dr. Heymsfield says it does.  I am happy to hear that and stand corrected on that point.

Tags: ,
Apr 9 2018

FoodNavigator on Sugars and Sweeteners

Here is another collection of Food Navigator articles on special topics from a food-industry perspective.

Special Edition: Sugar reduction and sweeteners

Food and beverage manufacturers have a far wider range of sweetening options than ever before, from coconut sugar to allulose, monk fruit and new stevia blends. This special edition looks at the latest market developments, the changing political landscape, formulation challenges and consumer research.

Tags: