Register for this here.

On Mondays, I typically post something about industry-funded research or investigator conflicts of interest.

In the light of Robert F. Kennedy’s complaints about conflicts of interest in previous dietary guidelines advisory committees, it is startling to observe the industry ties reported by members of this administration’s committee.

These conflicted interests are also surprising in light of the high prioritization of meat in these guidelines, which advise eating protein (a commonly understood euphemism for meat) in every meal, and high-fat dairy.

The committee’s membership and disclosures are given on pages ix-xviii of the Scientific Foundation report.

To focus just on ties to meat and dairy groups, members report financial ties to

• Global Dairy Platform
• Nutricia/Danone
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Texas Beef Council
• American Dairy Science Association
• National Dairy Council
• National Pork Board
• California Dairy Innovation Center
• Fonterra Limited
• California Dairy Research Foundation
• Dairy Management Inc

This was reported originally in Stat News (which quotes me elsewhere in the story).

It’s unclear how the Trump administration appointed its group of nutrition scientists and other researchers. A scientific report linked at the bottom of a new federal website, RealFood.gov, says only they were chosen through “a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise.”

The Times quotes Mark Kennedy, the senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines.

Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to cut it..Because if nobody ever had a chance to weigh in, and nobody other than the government behind closed doors had a way to assess it, there’s no way to ensure there’s fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the health secretary.)

Comment

In reading through press accounts, I’m pretty sure I saw one where one of the committee members reporting financial ties tossed it off with some comment about how he was sticking to the science and that’s all that mattered (I’ve searched but can’t find it now).

I heard that a lot after publication of my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In that book, I review research on the “funding effect,” the strong correlations between who pays for food and nutrition research and its outcome.  Industry-funded research tends to produce results favorable to the funder’s interests (otherwise it wouldn’t be funded).  But recipients of funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence.  It is not surprising that this committee—unlike many other scientific committees over the past decades—came to precisely the conclusions decided in advance by Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins.

This is the second in a series of posts I will be writing about the new Dietary Guidelines for America, 2025-2030.

Yesterday, I gave an overview of the guidelines, finding them cheerful, but muddled, contradictory, ideological, and retro.

I do like the cheerful message: Eat Real Food.

But after reviewing lsome of the rest of the materials that come with the guidelines, I think those terms miss a more important concern: they are about personal responsibility, not public health.

This is most explicit from the Eat Real Food Website.

Our nation is finding its footing again, moving past decades of unhealthy eating and rebuilding a food culture rooted in health, science, transparency, and personal responsibility.

In March, I posted a a comment about a statement made by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Secretary [of HHS] Kennedy and I have a powerful, complementary role in this, and it starts with updating federal dietary guidance. We will make certain the 2025-2030 Guidelines are based on sound science, not political science. Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.

I could not imagine how anyone could think the dietary guidelines reflected leftist ideology and guessed that she must have been talking about plant- as opposed to meat-based diets.  I wasn’t entirely wrong.  Eating meat is the first priority of the guidelines, a matter I will discuss next week.

But now I think she must have meant personal responsibility as opposed to public health policy.

This approach leaves it entirely up to you to make healthful food choices, never mind that if you try to eat healthfully, you are fighting the entire food system on your own.

The goal of food companies—even those selling real food—is to get you to buy as much of it as possible, regardless of how their products affect your health or that of the planet.

Given this administration’s destruction of the public health system in America, you really are on your own.

The groups in America who eat most healthfully are educated; have decent jobs, money, and resources; have homes with functioning kitchens; can cook; live in safe neighborhoods with grocery stores; and have access to affordable health care.  That’s what public health is about.

If the government leaves it to you to “do your own research” and fight the food system on your own, it is saying it has no responsibility for creating a food environment that can help you eat and enjoy real food.

It’s all on you.

The eat-real-food message is cheery and for sure it’s how I eat, at least most of the time.  I will have more to say about it next week too.

But the focus on personal responsibility troubles me.  Shouldn’t all of us be able to eat as healthfully as possible?

The Fact Sheet rejects health equity out of hand, but then says:

We reject this logic: a common-sense, science-driven document is essential to begin a conversation about how our culture and food procurement programs must change to enable Americans to access affordable, healthy, real food.

Isn’t that what health equity is about?  For that we need policy backed by resources.  Personal responsibility won’t work without it.

The new Dietary Guidelines  [The guidelines are in bold; my summary follows]

• Eat the right amount for you: balance calories
• Prioritize protein foods at every meal: prioritize animal sources
• Consume dairy: prioritize full-fat
• Eat vegetables & fruits throughout the day: eat more, but not as much as previously recommended
• Incorporate healthy fats: prioritize animal fats
• Focus on whole grains: prioritize, but eat less than previously recommended
• Limit highly processed foods, added sugars, & refined carbohydrates: eat less
• Limit alcoholic beverages

These were released along with a fact sheet, scientific report, and interactive website.  I’ve summarized the details below in a table comparing these guidelines to the previous version.

Why muddled?  The lists of guidelines differ among the various documents.  The prioritization of protein is hard to understand; most Americans already eat plenty.  Some of the instructions don’t make sense: “Consume meat with no or limited added sugars?”  Who does this?

Why contradictory?  If you increase the amount of protein, meat, and full-fat dairy in your diet, you will not be able to keep your saturated fat intake below 10% of calories, and will have a harder time maintaining calorie balance (fat has twice the calories of protein or carbohydrate).  If you want to increase the amount of fiber in your diet, you need to prioritize vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, not meat and dairy.

Why ideological? The fats recommended as sources of essential fatty acids—olive oil, butter, and beef tallow—have little or no essential linoleic or alpha-linolenic acids. For those, seed oils (not mentioned in these guidelines) are much better sources.  The prioritization of animal-based as opposed to plant-based is inconsistent with research on diet and health.  USDA Secretary Rollins said these guidelines would no longer reflect leftist ideology.  The fact sheet and website make the ideology explicit.

Why retro?  Except for the excellent advice to reduce intake of highly processed foods, which were not particularly prevalent back then, these guidelines take us back to the diets of the 1950s when everyone was eating lots of meat and dairy and not worrying much about vegetables, and heart disease was rampant.  I’m all for eating whole foods but these guidelines dismiss 75 years of research favoring diets higher in plant foods.   

Bottom line:  A mixed bag.  These guidelines are big wins for the meat, dairy, and alcohol industries (alas).  The loser: ultra-processed foods (yes!).  The recommendation to reduce highly processed foods (a euphemism for ultra-processed) is the one great strength of these recommendations.  Following that advice might help Make America Healthy Again.  But the rest must be viewed more as ideology than science, and also must be interpreted in the light of  this administration’s destruction of what was once a reasonably effective public health service (CDC, FDA, NIH) and system.  Eating more meat and fat is unlikely to help people resist measles and other illnesses preventable by vaccination.

I will have more to say about the specific recommendations in subsequent posts.  In the meantime, here’s my quick summary.

Dietary Guidelines: 2020-2025 vs. 2025-2030

**Correction: I wrote this before I saw Daily Servings by Calorie Level.  These make it clear that the new guidelines do not decrease fruit and vegetable recommendations.

I will be writing about the details in subsequent posts.  Stay tuned.

Resources

• The press release
• Dietary Guidelines for America 2025-2030
• Daily Servings by Calorie Level
• Fact Sheet
• The Scientific Foundation for The Dietary Guidelines of America
• Scientific Foundation Appendices
• Eat Real Food: The Interactive Website
• Press conference video
• Dietary Guidelines for America, Previous Editions, 1980-2020
• MAHA Report history of dietary guidelines
• South Park’s take on this

While waiting for the new dietary guidelines to be released today (I will write about them tomorrow), here’s a place-holder.

Artificial intelligence is taking over everything and food is no exception.  Here’s my latest collection of items about the design of AI technology ostensibly to improve foods and beverages, as well as human health.

FOODS AND BEVERAGES 

• AI goes mainstream in food and beverage in 2025: This year’s wave of tools – from trend‑spotting engines to autonomous R&D agents – turned AI into everyday infrastructure for food and beverage…Read more
• How AI can help design proteins for the food industry:  Using a combination of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, one start-up is enhancing proteins into a wide array of functions across the food industry…. Read more

HUMAN NUTRITION AND HEALTH

• Study: AI-assisted personalized diet program supports weight loss and gut microbiome health:  A personalized dietary and lifestyle program positively impacted the gut microbiome and demonstrated significant associations between gut microbial changes and weight loss, according to a recent study sponsored by Digbi Health…. Read more
• A.I. ‘digital twin’ microbiome model may predict infant neurodevelopment: A new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool that models the infant microbiome can be used to forecast which babies were at risk for cognitive deficits…. Read more
•  ASA targets menopause claims with AI assisted crackdown: The UK’s advertising standards authority (ASA) has warned supplement firms they must remove ads which make claims to treat or cure the symptoms of menopause, as part of a wider AI-assisted campaign…. Read more To unleash the true power of probiotics, manufacturers and brand owners should adopt an integrated approach to gut health that harnesses the benefits of bacterial strains…. Read more
• Study: AI guided supplement prescriptions more effective than doctors:  Supplement prescriptions guided by artificial intelligence (AI) are more effective at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides than those prescribed by a doctor, according to a recent pilot study reported in Nutrients…. Read more
• The rise of self-diagnostics: ‘The future of nutrition is hyper-personalized’: With the growing focus on personalization, the industry should present authentic data and information rather than scaring consumers into purchasing, experts agreed at the recent Future of Food Summit in Geneva ahead of Vitafoods Europe…. Read more

My most recent book, What to Eat Now, was published in November.

Within days, Amazon.com displayed one after another book based on it.  Wondering what these were, I asked my partner (who has Amazon Prime) to get copies right away in case they were taken down, which most were.

For the record: I had nothing do with with any of these, despite my name on their covers.

I acquired 8 of these items (and got screenshots of 2 more).  Here they are with my summaries of what is in them.

I.  The Look Alike

Who is Mateo Velasquez?  I have no idea.  For $19.99 (plus shipping), you get a paperback with 100 pages of blank lined paper (I’m not making this up).  Titles are not copyrighted, but because this item used the actual cover of the book, it violated copyright laws.  Amazon took it down right away.

II.  Workbook #1

I could hardly believe this one.  It lists 8 key lessons (e.g., “Choosing real food in a complex world”) but it doesn’t matter what the lessons are.  The titles are different but the content is the exact same page of text plus half a page of blank lines, repeated four times under each title.  A fraud.  Does Shanz Noor exist?  I doubt it.

III.  Workbook #2

I don’t know whether to be appalled or flattered.  This starts out by saying my book is “a powerful compass for anyone navigating today’s overwhelming food environment.”  It provides a not-bad summary (in what reads like AI-speak) with what I presume are AI-driven key lessons, suggested “life-changing” activities, and self-reflection questions for the first 16 chapters of my book.   Example of life-changing activity: “Commit to shopping with a list and sticking to it for a month.”  Example of self-reflection question: “When was the last time I checked a label for truth, not slogans.”  Like much AI-generated content, this is banal but not terrible.  But it only covers a third of the book.  This one is still on Amazon, but with no consumer ratings.

IV.  Workbook #3

By the time I saw this one, I had given up.  I didn’t buy it.

V.  Workbook $4

This one doesn’t have my name on the cover, but its Amazon description does.  I didn’t buy it.

VI.  Exercises

I didn’t know I had doctrines.  Oh well.  Lydia Harrow says “This work is a creative interpretive exercise based on the teachings and research of Marion Nestle.  It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by Marion Nestle or her representatives.”  It reads like an AI summary: “When Marion Nestle began her work in food studies, she confronted a world that was drowning in marketing but starving for truth [p. 4]…Marion Nestle’s doctrines remind us that food literacy is not an academic pursuit but a lived practice.  It is cultivated in daily choices….[p. 13]” and so on for 82 pages.

VII.  The study guide

AI, as always, tells you exactly what you want to hear.  This study guide could not be more flattering: “That’s exactly where the work of Marion Nestle becomes a powerful guide.  Few people have done more to uncover the truth about the modern food system.  Through her decades of research and advocacy, she teaches us something honest and practical: Healthy eating is simple—but the food industry works hard to make it confusing” [p. 11].  You get 100 pages of this, ending with “Your journey doesn’t end here—it begins here.”  The printing inside is sloppy and it’s full of sections that begin with things like “Nestle highlights, advocates, teaches….”

VIII.  Cookbook #1

Oh the flattery.  The introduction begins with a summary of my work: “Marion Nestle has long argued that food is political…Here you will find recipes that reflect Marion Nestle’s guiding values: foods that are transparent in their ingreedients; meals that bring plants to the center…”  The recipes are assemblies and require little cooking; most take 15-20 minutes to prepare.  The most complicated require things like pressing tofu, cutting into cubes, cooking it, and adding a sauce.  The recipes give basic nutrition information.  I assume AI can produce something like this in minutes.  63 pages

IX.  Cookbook #2

This book gives a brief biography of Louise Christian with a photo.  It says she is a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN) from Louisiana.  If so, she holds a credential from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.  I asked an RDN colleague to look her up.  But the Academy has no record of a RDN Louise Christian.  I tried AI and got two different responses; one said no such person exists, the other said she was at Baylor.  I tried finding her through Baylor, but could not. Louise Christian: if you exist, please contact me.  I want to know more about how you came to be associated with this book.  As for the book, it’s just like the rest: “But the truth, as Marion Nestle has long reminded us, is refreshingly simple: real food doesn’t need a marketing campaign” [p.6].  Its recipes boil down to: preheat oven, core apples, add cinnamon, bake 30 minutes, or collect salad ingredients, put them in a bowl, toss.  83 pages.

X.  Cookbook #3

This one has color illustrations, doesn’t mention me at all outside of the title, and has similar simple, quick, recipes involving assembly and heating rather than anything more complicated: Cook pasta; toss it with whatever the sauce is.  72 pages.  By the time I looked up its Amazon listing, it was too late to get the details.

Comment

• None of these is registered with the Library of Congress; none has an ISBN number.  Some say they are copyrighted.
• All are identified only by city of publication (mostly Cleveland) and date to November or December 2025.
• None is likely to violate copyright laws (except the one with the actual cover); the others can probably argue fair use for analytic purposes.
• All of them look and read as though written by AI.
• Only three, III, VI, and VIII, are still up on Amazon.  Is anyone actually buying them?

To repeat: I had nothing to do with any of them.

Caveat emptor!

Rumors are that the 2025=2030 dietary guidelines will be released this week and they will favor saturated fat and meat.  We will know whether this is true when they appear, and I will be sure to report on them when they do.

In the meantime, the meat industry is hard at work to try to convince you that meat is good for you and the more the better.  Here are two examples sent to me recently.

I.  From Serge Hercberg, developer of Nutri-Score.

• The study: Red meat intake and its influences on inflammation and immune function biomarkers in human adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2584482
• Conclusion: “Limited evidence from both experimental and observational research suggests no influence of red meat intake on multiple pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, and immune function biomarkers…These results are consistent with recommendations for people who choose to consume red meat to limit or avoid consuming processed red meat, especially among individuals with cardiometabolic diseases.”
• Disclosure statement: “During the time this research was conducted, W.W.C. received funding for research grants, travel or honoraria for scientific presentations, or consulting services from the following organizations: U.S. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Hatch Funding), Pork Checkoff, National Pork Board, Beef Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, American Egg Board, Whey Protein Research Consortium, National Dairy Council, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. J.B.R. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Whey Protein Research Consortium, and National Chicken Council. M.R.O. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association. Y.W., C.N.U., E.R.H., J.N.S., and N.L.A. declare no conflict of interest. The funders and these other organizations had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.” [my emphasis]
• Funding: “The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff.”

II.   From a reader, Cory Brooks

• Press release: “Eating meat may protect against cancer, landmark research shows:  A large study of nearly 16,000 adults found no link between eating animal protein and higher death risk. Surprisingly, higher animal protein intake was associated with lower cancer mortality, supporting its role in a balanced, health-promoting diet.”
• The study: Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips, Victor L. Fulgoni. Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2025; 50: 1 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594
• Conclusion: “Our data do not support the thesis that source-specific protein intake is associated with greater mortality risk; however, animal protein may be mildly protective for cancer mortality. “
• Funding: From the press release: “This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

Comment: We have here two studies funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the research and education arm of the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff.  Checkoff programs are designed to promote consumer demand for the sponsored food, in this case, beef.  Eating less beef has long been viewed as beneficial to human health, because of studies linking beef consumption to certain cancers.  Eating less beef is demonstrably beneficial to the environment since beef production results in so much waste pollution and greenhouse gas emission.  The NCBA would prefer that you not think about potential health risks.  Hence, this sponsored research.

As for the statements about the funder having no involvement: these are demonstrably misleading.  The NCBA does not fund research unlikely to produce results in its interests.  The influence is there from the get go.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

Protein is the #1 food marketing trend for 2026 and is expected to be a big issue in the forthcoming 2025-2030 dietary guidelines.

The main drivers of the trend:

• Aging 
• Weight management
• Fitness.
• GLP-1 drugs
• Marketing!!!

I put exclamation points after marketing because average protein intake among anyone who eats enough calories is already way above minimum requirements  (also see this).  Adding more is unlikely to do any good.  And current evidence is insufficient to change existing recommendations for protein intakes. 

That’s why the protein trend is really about marketing.

And that’s why protein is now added to everything.

One other point: although protein is in most foods (exceptions: sugar and fats), people commonly understand protein as a euphemism for meat (plant-based sources of protein seem healthier).

If advice to eat more protein gets translated to eat more meat, this will not be good for the health of people or the planet.

• IFT’s Food Technology Hunger for Protein Fuels Meat Mania: Consumer meat/poultry consumption has increased as shoppers seek out protein and fewer say they are avoiding meat.  Read More

Here are a few items from industry publications about taking advantage of the protein trend.

• How protein turned from trend to necessity:  Protein fortification continues to dominate the food and beverage space – but how is ingredient innovation evolving to meet the need for more protein?… Read more
•  Why is there a whey shortage?  High demand and limited supply, in part due to its use with GLP-1 prescriptions, are leading to shortages of the protein… Read more
• Why collagen is set to dominate 2026: Collagen is transforming food, drink and confectionery. Discover why this powerhouse ingredient is set to dominate innovation in 2026… Read more
• How protein powers CPG majors’ expansion plans:  Protein remains a cornerstone of innovation for food and beverage brands. Here’s how Danone, PepsiCo and General Mills are exploring the global megatrend… Read more