Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Apr 11 2025

Weekend reading: how to do research for advocacy purposes

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!

 

Tags:
Apr 10 2025

The US vs. Mexico dispute over GMO corn: an attempt to keep track of it

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

Apr 9 2025

What’s up with candy? And its food dyes?

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).

Apr 8 2025

In the New York Times: Me!

Didn’t want you to miss this.  I was profiled in the New York Times yesterday.

 

Apr 7 2025

Industry-funded study of the week: artificial sweeteners

Thanks again to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for sending this one.

The study: Sievenpiper JL, Purkayastha S, Grotz VL, Mora M, Zhou J, Hennings K, Goody CM, Germana K. Dietary Guidance, Sensory, Health and Safety Considerations When Choosing Low and No-Calorie Sweeteners [LNCSs]. Nutrients. 2025 Feb 25;17(5):793. doi: 10.3390/nu17050793.

The greater sweetness intensity of LNCSs compared to sucrose allows for the use of lesser amounts to achieve a similar level of sweetness, facilitating a reduction in an individual’s caloric and sugar consumption. Furthermore, the substitution of LNCSs for sugar supports individual and public health outcomes by addressing issues related to obesity, diabetes, and chronic illnesses…Lastly, emerging evidence from in vitro and a randomized controlled trial have investigated food intake and satiety management and suggests that natural LNCSs may be beneficial…The diverse range of LNCSs available in global food and beverage choices, coupled with their varying sweetness intensities, offers enjoyment and pleasure to consumers on their respective health and wellness journeys.

Funding Statement: The development of this paper received support from Pure Circle, Ingredion, Inc. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of Pure Circle, Ingredion, Inc.

Comment: Because these authors have so many conflicted interests, I’ll save their declarations for last. This paper is explicitly reviews the benefits of low- and no-calorie sweeteners.  On that score, I find it useful.  It is comprehensive and well written; if you want an uncritical review of the benefits of artificial sweeteners, this is the place to start.  Its summary of international front-of-package labels alone makes it a valuable resource.  But do not expect to find a deep analysis of the potential hazards of alternative sweeteners; these authors dismiss or discredit that evidence out of hand.  No surprise:  The funder, Ingredion, Inc, makes alternative sweeteners, four of the authors work for Ingredion, and four others were paid for writing the paper.  This makes this review a company project.  The conflict-of-interest statement gives the authors’ affiliations and the lead author, John Sievenpiper, provides another notable disclosure statement of this work for hire (see one of my previous posts on his alliances with food companies).

Conflict of interest statement: The following authors are employed at Ingredion, Inc.: Margaux Mora, Jing Zhou, Katie Hennings, and Kristen Germana. The following authors received an honorarium from Ingredion, Inc. for professional services provided: John L. Sievenpiper, Sidd Purkayastha, V. Lee Grotz and Cynthia Goody. Dr. John L Sievenpiper has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, American Society for Nutrition (ASN), National Honey Board (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey “Checkoff” program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, The United Soybean Board (USDA soy “Checkoff” program), Protein Industries Canada (a Government of Canada Global Innovation Cluster), Almond Board of California, European Fruit Juice Association, The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), The Plant Protein Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund which has received contributions from IFF among other donors), The Plant Milk Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Karuna Foundation through Vegan Grants), and The Nutrition Trialists Network Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by donations from the Calorie Control Council, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Login5 Foundation). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Danone, Nutrartis, Soylent, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from FoodMinds LLC, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Arab Beverage Association, International Sweeteners Association, Calorie Control Council, and Phynova. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Almond Board of California, Perkins Coie LLP, Tate and Lyle, Ingredion, and Brightseed. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves as an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees of IAFNS. He is a Director at Large of the Canadian Nutrition Society (CNS), founding member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His spouse is a former employee of Nestle Health Science and AB InBev.

 

 

 

Apr 4 2025

Weekend reading: Feeding the Economy

I was sent the press release for an annual report from a long list of food trade associations: Feeding the Economy, Ninth Annual “Feeding the Economy” Report Demonstrates Immense Impact of the American Food and Agriculture Industry Amidst Economic Challenges.”

The 2025 report confirms the agriculture industry is at the heart of the U.S. economy, generating more than $9.5 trillion in economic value, which amounts to 18.7% of the overall national economy.

The report, online and interactive, isn’t really about agribusiness: The big agribusiness companies—Cargill, Bayer, Corteva, Archer Daniels Midland, etc—are not sponsors.  The first six alphabetically are

  • American Bakers Association
  • American Beverage Association
  • American Farm Bureau Federation
  • American Frozen Food Institute
  • American Peanut Council
  • American Soybean Association

They want you to know what they collectively contribute to the economy.  A lot.

They also want you to know that times are tough.

Direct and indirect industry wages have grown year-over-year but have failed to keep pace with inflation, reflecting nationwide economic stressors and the high cost of labor for employers. Additionally, the number of agricultural manufacturing jobs has fallen year-over-year and is down nearly 30,000 jobs since 2020.

Times are tough for everyone these days.  I wish this report had said more about the plight of small farmers and what could be done to help them.

Apr 3 2025

Paid influencers opposing soda restrictions on SNAP

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America, for sending this one.

According to the Daily Beast: MAGA Influencers Caught Red-Handed Shilling for Big Soda

A string of MAGA influencers appear to have been caught taking money from Big Soda to undermine the government’s attempts to ban people from buying soda with food stamps.  Last week, a host of influential online pro-Trump personalities…raised eyebrows on X when they all appeared to abruptly change their views on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to pass legislation which would ban food-stamp recipients from spending their money on soft drinks and junk food….conservative journalist Nick Sortor posted an expose of the offending posts side-by-side on X, alongside claims they had been paid to adopt a pro-soda stance by a social media PR company named Influenceable….“Not a SINGLE ONE of them disclosed they were paid for these posts, which led readers to believe a general SODA BAN was in the works.”

According to The Daily Wire: Soda Lobby Group American Beverage Denies Paying Influencers To Fight SNAP Restrictions

In a statement sent to The Daily Wire on Tuesday, ABA President and CEO Kevin Keane further echoed the denial, saying it had conducted a “thorough vetting” and is “confident” that it was not involved in the effort.

Whew.  What is this about?

The issue of adding sugar-sweetened beverages to the short list of food items that cannot be bought with SNAP benefits (Alcohol, Cigarettes, prepared foods, medicines, supplements) is a difficult one, splitting some public health advocates from some anti-hunger advocates and forging unexpected political alliances.

RFK Jr’s MAHA movement wants sodas out of SNAP.  The MAHA arguments:

  • Sodas contain sugars (lots) but no other nutrients.
  • Drinking a lot of them correlates with poor health.
  • SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda.
  • SNAP benefit are not taxed, making the cost of sodas cheaper for them in some states.
  • SNAP recipients could still buy sodas with their own (non-SNAP) money.
  • The WIC program specifies which foods (all of them healthy) recipients can buy with their benefits; it works fine.

Arguments against:

  • Poor people should be able to eat just as unhealthfully as everyone else.
  • Blocking them from buying sodas is condescending.
  • Doing this removes choice and is unfair.
  • A ban will hurt the profits of the soda industry and retailers who sell sodas.

For years, public health advocates and some states have called for pilot projects (“waivers”) to see how removing sodas might work.  The USDA has always rejected such petitions.

I favor pilot projects, in part because of what I learned as a member of the SNAP to Health Commission, and also because of the letters I received after publication of Soda Politics.  SNAP recipients wrote me that they viewed their benefits as a license to buy junk food and would welcome restrictions.  They would not buy as much soda if they had to pay for it with non-SNAP funds.

The new USDA Secretary says she will agree to waivers.  Good.  Let’s try this and see how it works.

Apr 2 2025

Keeping up with MAHA: RFK Jr’s latest actions

There is never a dull moment with Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s taking over the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Wall Street Journal announced this first: RFK Jr. Plans 10,000 Job Cuts in Major Restructuring of Health Department

Kennedy on Thursday said the agency would ax 10,000 full-time employees spread across agencies tasked with responding to disease outbreaks, approving new drugs, providing insurance for the poorest Americans and more. The cuts are in addition to roughly 10,000 employees who chose to leave the department through voluntary separation offers since President Trump took office, according to the department.

Together, the cuts would eliminate about one-quarter of a workforce that would shrink to 62,000. The department would lose five of its 10 regional offices.

RFK Jr explained what all this was about in a six-minute video) on Twitter (X: “We’re going to eliminate an entire alphabet soup of departments and agencies while preserving their core function.”The agency said the 25% reduction in workforce would not affect essential services.

That, however, is a matter of opinion.  As Politico put itRFK Jr.’s massive cuts stun staff, leave senior employees scrambling, which, one can only suppose, is the point.

To further explain, HHS issued Fact Sheet: HHS’ Transformation to Make America Health Again.

You can read it for yourself, but here are selected items that got my attention [my comments follow]

    • FDA will decrease its workforce by approximately 3,500 full-time employees, with a focus on streamlining operations and centralizing administrative functions. This reduction will not affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. [This is hard to believe.  Many staff have already left.  Were they scientists?  Who is left who can write Federal Register notices, for example].
    • The CDC will decrease its workforce by approximately 2,400 employees, with a focus on returning to its core mission of preparing for and responding to epidemics and outbreaks. [But the first layoffs were of probationary staff of the Epidemiology Intelligence Service.  They may have been hired back, but it’s hard to imagine what morale is like]
    • The consolidation and cuts are designed not only to save money, but to make the organization more efficient and more responsive to Americans’ needs, and to implement the Make America Healthy Again goal of ending the chronic disease epidemic. [How, pray tell]
    • A new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will…coordinate chronic care and disease prevention programs and harmonize health resources to low-income Americans. [This could work if done right and if adequate personnel are still available]

My question here is to what end?  What, exactly, does RFK Jr plan to do to Make America Healthy Again?

So far, he has done a few things:

  • Made it clear that food companies have to stop using artificial color dyes.
  • Started talking about closing the GRAS loophole (that allows companies to say whether additives are safe)
  • Indicated that he prefers beef tallow to seed oils.

I am all for getting rid of artificial colors and closing the GRAS loophole but neither of those is a major cause of obesity and its health consequences.  Nor will replacing seed oils with beef tallow addresss that problem; both have about the same number of calories.

If RFK Jr really wants to Make America Health Again, he needs to get American eating less junk food and more real food.  Yes, food colors are a marker of ultra-processed foods but they are mainly in candy, confectionary, and kids’ cereals.

I’m eagerly waiting to hear what RFK Jr plans to do to help Americans reduce calorie intake, reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, stop smoking, avoid drinking too much alcohol, become more physically active, and eat more vegetables.

Tags: ,