Search results: american journal of clinical nutrition

I’m in London and today’s tabloid Daily Express has a headline in type two inches high: “ORGANIC FOOD NO HEALTHIER.”  The article begins, “Eating organic food in the belief that it is good for your health is a waste of money, new research shows.”

Really?  This surprising statement is based on the conclusions of a lengthy report just released from the British Food Standards Agency, Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature.  This report, done by excellent researchers at the prestigious London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, looked at the results of 162 studies comparing organic to conventionally grown foods for their content of nutrients and other substances.  Although it found higher amounts of some nutrients in organic crops, it found higher amounts of others in conventional crops, and no difference in others.  On this basis, the report concludes:

There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.

In a statement accompanying release of the report, the Food Standards Agency says:

The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.

Fine, but do animal welfare and environmental concerns not matter?  The authors of the report summarize their findings in a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The paper concludes:

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

Oh?  I thought that’s what organic foods were about – production methods: no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge.  I thought better production methods were the precise point of organic foods.

But these authors did not compare amounts of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge.  They did not look at any of those things.  They only looked at nutrients.  This is an example of nutritionism in action: looking at foods as if their nutrient content is all that matters – not production methods, not effects on the environment, and not even taste.

I’m surprised that investigators of this caliber would focus so narrowly on nutrient content.  There is no reason to think that organic foods would have fewer nutrients than industrially produced foods, and there are many reasons to think that organics have greater benefits for the environment, for pesticide reduction, and for taste, all of which affect human health at least as much — or more — than minor differences in nutritional content.   I buy organics because I want foods to be produced more naturally, more humanely, and more sustainably.  I see plenty of good reasons to buy organics and this study does not even begin to address them.

[Posted from London]

Here are a few of the questions I get asked most often. I will be adding to this section as more come up. Enjoy!

Questions

1. I’m really interested in nutrition. How do I study it?
2. I want to study about food. Can I get a degree in Food Studies?
3. I want to do something to improve the food system, nutritional status, and health. How do I get started?
4. I want to work in food policy. How do I get started?
5. I’m a lawyer. I want to work on food issues. How do I get started?
6. I want to find out what Americans eat. What are the best sources?
7. Do trans fats have anything to do with obesity?
8. Are organics worth it?
9. Which is better: organic or locally grown?
10. What’s the deal on soy? Is it good or bad for me?
11. Is high fructose corn syrup good, bad, or indifferent to health?
12. Whose nutrition advice can I trust?

Answers

1. I’m really interested in nutrition. How do I study it?

My first question for anyone who asks me this is what, exactly, do you want to end up doing? There are many approaches to nutrition and you have choices among rather separate fields of study, each with different requirements and training, and each with its own professional journal. An easy way to start figuring this out is to look at the journals and see which one covers work or advertises jobs that might interest you. Here are the most obvious options that lead to professional credentials or degrees:

Clinical Nutritionist: If you would like to work in a hospital or counsel patients about diet and disease, you will need to be credentialed as a Registered Dietitian (RD) and must meet course, degree, and practice requirements of the American Dietetic Association (Journal of the American Dietetic Association).

Nutritionist: If you would like to counsel clients about diet and health, and are quite sure you do not want to work in a hospital or qualify for a state license, you can get a master’s or doctoral degree in nutrition education, nutrition science, clinical nutrition, or any other field (Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior)

Nutrition scientist: If you want to do research, you will need a science degree of some type. Look for a university with a department of nutrition science or epidemiology and apply for masters or doctoral degree programs (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition).

Public health nutritionist: If you want to work with community groups, government agencies, or international agencies, look for degree programs accredited by or affiliated with the American Public Health Association (Journal of the American Public Health Association, Public Health Nutrition). A privately run website makes this easy for you; it describes accredited programs on one site.

Nutrition is a controversial field and credibility is essential. Anyone can claim to be a nutritionist, but to be credible, the more you know about nutrition, the better. Degrees help. I think it’s good to understand as much as you can of the science and its implications for dietary choices. Get a degree of some kind but also read as much and as deeply as you can and form your own conclusions about what you are reading and being told.

2. I want to study about food. Can I get a degree in Food Studies?

As recently as ten years ago, I would have had to answer no, but today students who want to learn more about food have several options. New York University, for example, hosts undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs in Food Studies with a choice of two areas of focus: Food Culture, which examines the social, economic, cultural, and psychological factors that influence food consumption now and in the past, and a brand new program in Food Systems, which traces commodities and agricultural production from farm to table. Boston University has a master’s program in Gastronomy. So does the University of Adelaide in Australia. And if you want to go to Italy, you can study at the University of Gastronomic Sciences, which grew out of the Slow Food movement. I was responsible for starting the NYU program in 1996 so I am prejudiced in its favor but I have talked to graduates of all of the others and they all have great things to say about whichever one they went to. My conclusion: studying about food is so much fun and so useful that anyplace you can do it will be great.

3. I want to do something to improve the food system, nutritional status, and health. How do I get started?

Start by reading a post I did on this topic in 2011. The easiest starting point is to join an organization working on an issue that interests you. In 2011, I posted a list of groups and websites. In August 2012, I posted about such groups and provided a spreadsheet of organizations by category.

In June 2012, the Harvard Food Law Society produced a career guide to relevant organizations, also by category.

I always recommend joining the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) because this group has been at it so long, is so extraordinarily good at taking on the major issues, and is independent of food industry funding. At the very least, subscribe to Nutrition Action Healthletter.

4. I want to work in food policy. How do I get started?

The easiest way to get involved in food policy is to start doing it. If you want to work locally, find a group in your area that is working on the food policy issue that most interests you. There are groups working constantly on food assistance programs, farmers’ markets, food deserts, school food, community gardens, school gardens, urban agriculture, community food security, locally grown food, agricultural sustainability, organic production, the Farm Bill (see list in 2011 blog post). You can usually identify such groups by an Internet search for “food advocacy” in your area. Or read the Edible magazine published closest to where you live. If you want to work on national food policy issues, you might try an internship at a Washington DC-based advocacy group working in your area of interest. For preparation, it helps to know as much as you can—depth and breadth–about the history of food and nutrition policy in the United States, have a firm grounding in how food policy works at the federal agency level (which agency does what), and how Congress and agencies work to implement policies. Much of this can be learned on the ground if you are working with a group engaged in challenging activities. You can also start by writing well researched letters, op-eds, and position papers since these will force you to know what you are talking about and to think clearly about them. What’s stopping you? Just do it!
Michele Simon has similar advice, with some more specifics.

Food Safety News provides a list of private organizations working on food safety issues, as well as public.

5. I’m a lawyer. I want to work on food issues. How do I get started?

Lawyers have important roles in promoting healthy food policies, and the more they know about food culture, history, politics, and even taste, the better. Michele Simon discusses career issues on her website in two posts, one for food policy careers in general and one for lawyers in particular. Go for it!

6. I want to find out what Americans eat. What are the best sources?

My favorite sources of information about the American food supply come from the USDA. The USDA provides data on the availability (“consumption”) of specific foods and food groups in the food supply from 1909 to the present. These figures are reported as pounds of whatever food it is per capita per day. They represent the amount of that food produced in the U.S for an entire year, less exports, plus imports, divided by the number of people in the population on a given day such as July 1. These are the data that used to say that the per capita availability of calories is about 4,000 per day.  USDA now adjusts that figure for waste, which is closer to actual consumption levels.

Actual data on dietary intake are reported at the site of What We Eat in America. These figures are self reports by individuals interviewed in dietary intake surveys. Because people tend to lie about (OK, can’t accurately remember) what they eat, these data underestimate actual intake. Self reports say that people eat about 1,800 to 2,200 calories per day, figures much lower than 3,900. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between.

And in case you would like to know the nutrient composition of foods, the USDA provides that information at yet another site.

7. Do trans fats have anything to do with obesity?

Trans fats raise the risk of heart disease, and that’s why it’s good to have them out of the food supply. Their association with obesity is indirect. They are used in a lot of junk foods because hydrogenation prevents fats from turning rancid. But whatever fats get used to replace trans fats will have the same number of calories. That’s why I wish the FDA would not allow food companies to put “no trans fats” on their package labels. “No trans fats” is a calorie distractor. It makes you think the food is a diet food when, in fact, it has the same amount of calories.

One more point on trans fats: if the Nutrition Facts label says zero for trans fats, but the ingredient list mentions partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, it means that the amount of trans fat present is less than one-half gram per serving. Unless you are a big eater of junk food, that shouldn’t matter much.

8. Are organics worth it?

I think so. In doing the research for What to Eat, I spent a lot of time asking questions about whether the USDA Certified Organic seal meant anything. I concluded that is most definitely does. It means the producer of the food followed rules established by the USDA Organic Standards Board, and was inspected to make sure the rules were followed. The rules say that fruits and vegetables must not be treated with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers and cannot be genetically modified, irradiated, or fertilized with sewage sludge. Food animals must be fed organic feed, may not be treated with antibiotics or hormones, and must be permitted access to the outdoors. When you choose organics, you are voting with your fork for a planet with fewer pesticides, richer soil, and cleaner water supplies—all better in the long run. With that said, the quality of the rules themselves is highly debatable and there is much political jockeying about whether they are too lax or too stringent. I think they can’t be too stringent if anyone is going to trust them and that much vigilance is required to maintain the highest possible standards for organic production. To stay on top of the issues, consult the Organic Consumers Association (and see the chapters on organics in What to Eat).

9. Which is better: organic or locally grown?

My preference is both. When you choose locally grown, you are voting for conservation of fuel resources and the economic viability of local communities, along with freshness and better taste. Whenever I have the choice, my personal priority order is (1) organic and locally grown, (2) either organic or conventional and locally grown, depending on the season, and (3) Conventional (and see the chapters on produce issues in What to Eat).

10. What’s the deal on soy? Is it good or bad for me?

I would put it this way: if you are not confused about soy foods, you must not be reading product advertisements or newspaper accounts of research. For every study in my files demonstrating health benefits of soy foods, I have another disputing those benefits. Soybeans are high in good quality protein (meaning that their proteins are similar in amino acid content to those of meat and dairy foods), contain a good balance of carbohydrate and fat, and are loaded with minerals. Enthusiasts say that soy foods protect against practically any disease you can think of. No one food can possibly be that good. Overall, I find the science to be painfully inconsistent. Some studies find benefits, some find none, and others actually suggest that soy foods might cause the very health problems they are believed to prevent. Soybeans contain proteins found to reduce blood cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease. They also contain isoflavones that behave in the body like weak estrogen (“phytoestrogens”). Although isoflavones work with soy proteins to reduce blood cholesterol levels, they also act like estrogens–and estrogens are known to increase the risk of breast and other cancers in women. As I explain in the soy chapter of What to Eat, the research is so inconsistent that it is difficult to draw conclusions. I can’t make sense of the health debates about soy foods, not least because so much of the research is sponsored by industries with a vested interest in its outcome. My feeling at this point is that soy is a food, not an essential nutrient. Like any food, you can eat it if you like it, but you don’t have to if you don’t.

11. Is high fructose corn syrup good, bad, or indifferent to health?

You are probably thinking that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the new trans fat— something to be avoided at all costs. But HFCS is not poison. It is just sugar in liquid form, differing from common table sugar (sucrose) mainly in how it affects the texture of foods. HFCS, however, is a marker for junk foods. Cheaper than sucrose, it turns up in all kinds of processed foods, particularly soft drinks. And there is nearly as much of it in the food supply as sucrose — 68 pounds per year per person versus 62 pounds for table sugar. Sucrose is a double sugar made of two single sugars — glucose (50 percent) and fructose (50 percent) — stuck together. HFCS also contains glucose and fructose, but the sugars are already separated and their percentages differ slightly. Because sucrose is quickly split by digestive enzymes, the body can hardly tell the two kinds apart. Glucose, by the way, is blood sugar, fructose is fruit sugar, and honey contains both. Fructose — unlike glucose — does not stimulate the release of insulin, and in small amounts can be a useful sweetener for people with diabetes. But fructose is preferentially metabolized to fat, raising the possibility that HFCS — or any other source of fructose (but we won’t worry about fruit) — could have something to do with current obesity trends. Both HFCS and sucrose give us more fructose than we need and for both the advice is the same: eat less.

11.Whose nutrition advice can I trust?

I’m always tempted to answer this question with “mine, of course.” I answered it more seriously in a column I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle (October 11, 2009). I wrote What to Eat to inspire readers to think about nutrition and to figure out for themselves whose advice makes sense and not. I think some healthy skepticism is useful in interpreting anyone’s advice, even mine. Does the expert have a vested interest that might influence opinion? Does the conclusion of a research study completely contradict everything you’ve heard before? Does it announce a breakthrough? If so, you should be seeing caution signs everywhere. A lot of nutrition is plain common sense. Use it!

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

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.
• 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

• 2016: Williams SN, Nestle M, eds.  BIG FOOD: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE GLOBAL GROWTH OF THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY. Routledge. 2017: Paperback.
• 2004: Nestle M, Dixon LB, eds. TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN NUTRITION AND FOOD, McGraw Hill/Dushkin.
• 1988: Nestle M, managing ed.  THE SURGEON GENERAL’S REPORT ON NUTRITION AND HEALTH. Department of Health and Human Services.

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.

• Columns in the San Francisco Chronicle
• Let’s Ask Marion Q and A (with Kerry Trueman)
• Q and A in NYU’s Washington Square News, Spring 2012
  

2024

• Nestle M.  Food Politics and Policy.  In: Goldstein D, Ed.  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Food Studies.  Oxford University Press, 2024.
• Nestle M.  Food for thought [Excerpt from Food Politics]. Promarket, May 23, 2024.
• Nestle M.  Foreword: Interdisciplinarity and the Making of a Public Intellectual. In: Bentley A, Parasecoli F, Ray K, eds.  Practicing Food Studies.  NYU Press, 2024:vii-xix.
• Bentley A, Berg J, Dimitri C, Nestle M, Parasecoli F, Ray K.  Chapter 13. Action Research and Social Engagement: Food Studies in Practice [my excerpt].  In: Bentley A, Parasecoli F, Ray K, eds.  Practicing Food Studies.  NYU Press, 2024:182-201.

2023

• Nestle M.  Regulating the food industry: an aspirational agenda.  In: Bittman M, ed.  The Best American Food Writing 2023: 143-150. Mariner Books, 2023.
• Nestle M.  The USDA’s MyPlate should not be your plate.  Bottom Line.  2023;4(Nos. 17 & 18, September 1):22.
• Eric Crosbie, Laura Schmidt, Jim Krieger, Marion Nestle.  Chapter 14. Sugar Sweetened Beverages.  In Maani N, Petticrew M, Galea S, eds.  The Commercial Determinants of Health.  Oxford University Press, 2022:131-140.
• Nestle M.  Guest editor.  Policies and Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Family Nutrition.  American Journal of Public Health, 2023;113(53 Suppl 3): 163-247. 
• Nestle M. Equitable access to the USDA’s food assistance programs: policies needed to reduce barriers and increase accessibility. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(53 Suppl 3):S167–S170.  doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2023.307480.

2022

• Nestle M.  First Opinion: FDA’s plan to define ‘healthy’ for food packaging: Better than the existing labeling anarchy, but do we really need it? STAT News, October 7, 2022.
• Nestle M.  Preventing Obesity: It Is Time for Multiple Policy Strategies. JAMA Intern Med. 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.3039
• Nestle M.  Regulating the food industry: an aspirational agenda.  Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):853–858.
• Nestle M.  Bottom Line on the News: Ultra-Processed Foods.  November 1, 2022:11

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

• Nestle M.  Book review: Jessica Harris, Vintage Postcards from the African World: In the Dignity of Their Work and the Joy of Their Play.  Food, Culture, and Society [published online July 23, 2020, Scheduled for print November 2021].
• Nestle M.  Conflicts of Interest in Food and Nutrition Research.  In: Goldberg AM, ed.  Feeding the World Well: A Framework for Ethical Food Systems.  Johns Hopkins Press, 2020:89-97.
• Nestle M.  A call for food system change.  Review of Tim Lang’s Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them.  Lancet. 2020;395:1685-1686.
• Nestle M.  Link food supplies to public health.  Lilith, Summer 2020;45(2):33-34.
• Nestle M.  What needs to change in the food system?  Food and Environment Reporting Network, April 29, 2020.
• Freudenberg N, Nestle M. A Call for a National Agenda for a Healthy, Equitable, and Sustainable Food System.  American Journal of Public Health. 2020;110(11):1671-1673.
• Nestle M.  These women are just as clueless as men.  Interview in: Presidential: Elizabeth Warren and the Changing Face of Politics.  Regan Arts: 105-109.
• Nestle M.  Forward to McMaster and Jayaraman.  Bite Back: People Taking on Corporate Food and Winning.  University of California Press, 2020:ix-x.
• Bragg MA, Elbel B, Nestle M. Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: : A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17:1624-1639.

2019

• Nestle M. Comment: Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort. PracticeUpdate.com, December 31, 2019.
• Nestle M.  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications. Am J Public Health 2019;109(12):1631-1635.
• Nestle M.  The Trump Administration’s destruction of the Economic Research Service: An American Tragedy.  World Nutrition 2019;10(2):87-91.
• Nestle M.  Letter to a young food studies scholar.  Gastronomica 2019;19(2):2.
• Nestle M.  Primer on US food and nutrition policy and public health: Marion Nestle comments.  Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):985-986.
• Nestle M.  A food lover’s love of nutrition science, policy, and politics.  European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2019;73:1551–1555.  Published online April 24, 2019.
• Nestle M.  How neoliberalism ruins traditional diets and health [book reviews].  Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology [book review].  Published online, April 18, 2019.
• Nestle M.  Tribute to Elisabet Helsing.  World Nutrition 2019;10(1):151-156.
• Nestle M.  Comment: Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. PracticeUpdate.com, March 28, 2019. 
• Nestle M. Preface to the Tenth Anniversary Edition of Food Politics.  In: Carole Counihan, Penny Van Esterik, Alice Julier.  Food and Culture: A Reader, 4th Ed.  Routledge, 2019:439-442.
• Nestle M.  Foreword. To Krimsky S.  GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic’s View of Genetically Modified Foods.  MIT Press 2019: x-xii.
• Nestle M.  Foreword to Imhoff D.  The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide.  Island Press, 2019: xi-xii.
• Nestle M.  “Becoming” [Letter].  New York Times Book Review, January 18, 2019.

2018

• Nestle M.  The edible is political [Letter].  The Nation.com, Dec 31, 2018.
• Nestle M.  Managing conflicts in nutrition research: a historical perspective.  In: For whom? Questioning the food and farming research agenda .  Food Ethics Council [London], 2018:9-10.
• Nestle M.  Superfoods are a marketing ploy.  The Atlantic, October 23, 2018 (excerpt from Unsavory Truth).
• Fleury C, Dion C, Besançon S, Giraud G, Salignon P, Dain K, Nestle M, Berran D, Milleliri JM, Hacquin D, Mary C.  La “lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles” une urgence sanitaire mondial.  Le Monde, September 18, 2018.  In English translation.
• Nestle M. Comment on: Effects of replacing diet beverages with water on weight loss and weight maintenance: 18-month follow-up, randomized clinical trial. Practice Update website, June 26, 2018.
• Nestle M.  Perspective: Challenges and Controversial Issues in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1980 to 2015.  Advances in Nutrition, 2018;9:148-150.
• Nestle M.  Public Health Implications of Front-of-Package Labels.  American Journal of Public Health 2018;108(3):320-321.
• Nestle M.  Invited expert comment: Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Cohort Studies.  PracticeUpdate website, Jan 18.
• Nestle M.  Food advocacy for discouraging times.  Edible Boston, Winter 2018:19.
• Nestle M.  Go beyond potatoes—and tomatoes on pizza.  In: Dreisbach S.  Let’s do this!  Eating Well, Jan/Feb 2018:55.
• Nestle M.  Managing Conflicts in Nutrition Research: A Historical Perspective.  Food Ethics Council, 2018:9-10.

2017

• Nestle M.  Foreword to Eric Holt-Giménez, A Foodie’s Guide to Capitalism: Understanding the Political Economy of What We Eat.  Monthly Review Press, 2017.
• Nestle M.  Why the Soda Industry Is the Big Tobacco of Our Times.  Alternet, October 11, 2017.
• Nestle, Marion. “Centering Capitalism in a World of Foodie-ism” Fall 2017 Food First Backgrounder.  Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy.  2017;23(3).
• Nestle M.  Dear Colleagues. Letter on President Trump’s nominee for CDC director and her connection to Coca-Cola.  Dean’s Weekly Update, NYU College of Global Public Health. 2017;48(3): July 28.
• Nestle M. Should nutrition scientists take food-industry funding?  ASN Early Career Nutrition Interest Group Newsletter, Spring/Summer:9-11.
• Nestle M.  Letter: Incorrect impressions concerning industry-sponsored research—reply.  JAMA Internal Medicine 2007;177(3):449.
• Nestle M.  Where to from here? The local food movement 15 years later.  Edible Communities, March 6, 2017.
• Nestle M. Are national food policies helping or hurting obesity prevention? Chapter 95 in Brownell KD, Walsh BT, eds.  Eating Disorders and Obesity: A Comprehensive Handbook.  Guidford Press, 2017:585-590.
• Nestle M. Marion Nestle.  In: Hodgkins M, ed.  Letters to a Young Farmer: On Food, Farming, and Our Future.  Princeton Architectural Press, 2017:154-55.
• Bragg M, Nestle M. The Politics of Government Dietary Advice: The Influence of Big Food. In: Germov, J., Williams, L., eds.  Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 4rd ed.  Australia & New Zealand: Oxford University Press, 2017:75-85.
• Nestle M. Foreword.  Clapp S.  Fixing the Food System.  Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2017:vii-x.

2016

• Nestle M. Food Politics, the Food Movement, and Public Health.  In: Shiva V., ed.  Seed Sovereignty, Food Security: Women in the Vanguard of the Fight Against GMOs and Corporate Agriculture.  North Atlantic Books, 2016:65-75.
• Nestle M.  Foreword to Joy Santlofer’s Food City: Four Centuries of Food Making in New York City.  WW Norton, 2016:ix-x.
• Delisle H, Nestle M, Besançon S.  Rethinking nutritional policies in developing countries taking into account the double burden of malnutrition.  Ideas for Development, October 18, 2016.
• Delisle H, Nestle M, Besançon S.  Il faut repenser les politiques de nutrition dans les pays en développement en prenant en compte le double fardeau nutritionnel.  Huffington Post (France), October 14, 2016.
• Nestle M.  Food industry funding of nutrition Research: the relevance of history for current debates. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(11):1685-1686.
• Nestle M. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Update.  In: Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, Tyler Doggett, eds.  Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings.  Oxford, 2016:346-347.
• Nestle M. The politics of food choice.  In: Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, Tyler Doggett, eds.  Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings, eds.  Oxford, 2016:596-601.  
• Nestle M.  We are still confused about what calories are.  Time Magazine, June 21, 2016.
• Nestle M.  8 Books on Farming and Food That Deserve More Attention.  Eco Watch, May 10, 2016.
• Nestle M.  Discussion: Dietary nudges for obesity prevention: they work, but additional policies are also needed.  J Assoc Consumer Res 2016;1(3):473-475.
• Nestle M.  Reply to John Peters and James O.Hill.  Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2016;1(3):474.  
• Nestle M. Students are the future of food system transformation.  New Food Economy, June 9, 2016.
• Nestle M.  The FDA’s new rules for food labeling are finally here.  Scientific American guest blog, May 24, 2016.
• Nestle M. Corporate funding of nutrition research and unjustified conclusions–reply [letter in response to letter from Richard Kahn].  JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(5):717-718.
• Nestle M.  No amount of “free from” labelling will make processed food good for you.  The Guardian, April 2, 2016.
• Nestle M. Utopian dream: a new farm bill (reprint of article in Dissent, 2012).  In Goldthwaite MA, ed.  Norton Reader: an Anthology of Nonfiction, 14th edition.  WW Norton & Co, 2016:274-280.
• Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry.  Routledge, 2016.
• Nestle M.  The farm bill drove me insane.  Politico, The Agenda, March 17, 2016.  Reprinted in Bill Moyers & Co, March 23.
• Nestle M.  Op-Ed.  The Long Island City Pepsi-Cola sign: hazard, not landmark.  Daily News, March 10, 2016.
• Nestle M. Corporate funding of food and nutrition research: science or marketing.  JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176:13-14.
• Haspel T, Nestle M.  Forget government guidelines.  Here’s how to eat better in 6 easy steps.  Washington Post, January 4, 2016.

2015

• Nestle M, Rosenberg T. The whole world is watching. Soda wars.  Sugar tax. US, Mexico [Big Food Watch] World Nutrition November-December 2015, 6, 11-12, 811-832.
• Barnoya J, Nestle M.  The food industry and conflicts of interest in nutrition research: A Latin American perspective. Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication, 29 October 2015:1-6; doi:10.1057/jphp.2015.37.  [Retracted]
• Nestle M.  The other benefit to eating less red meat.  CNN, October 26, 2015.
• Nestle M.  Big Soda politics: A call to advocacy.  Policy Innovations, Carnegie Council, October 14, 2015.
• Nestle M.  When soda companies target minorities, is it exploitation?  Washington Post, October 10, 2015.
• Nestle M.   Kerry Trueman: Let’s Ask Marion: Can Exercise Balance Out Soda Drinking?  Civil Eats, August 12, 2015.
• Nestle M.  Coca-Cola says its drinks don’t cause obesity.  Science says otherwise.  The Guardian, August 11, 2015.
• Nestle M. Soda “ban.” In: Smith AF, ed.  Savoring Gotham.  Oxford University Press, 2015:545-546.
• Nestle M. Menu labeling.  In: Smith AF, ed.  Savoring Gotham.  Oxford University Press, 2015:381-382.
• Caley D, Nestle M. Botulism.  In: Albala K, ed.  The Sage Encyclopedia of Food Issues. Sage 2015: 141- 143.
• Caley D, Nestle M. Aflatoxins.  In: Albala K, ed.  The Sage Encyclopedia of Food Issues. Sage 2015: 10-12.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. The internationalization of the obesity epidemic: the case of sugar-sweetened sodas.  In: Sahn DE, ed.  The Fight against Hunger and Malnutrition: The Role of Food, Agriculture, and Targeted Policies.  Oxford University Press, 2015:89-106.
• Nestle M.  Eating made simple: How do you cope with a mountain of conflicting diet advice?  Scientific American, Special Collector’s Edition, The Science of Food. Summer 2015:38-45.
• Nestle M.  It’s time to require labels for GMOs.  Time, May 14, 2015.
• Simon DB, Nestle M.  Sugar lobbies.  In: Goldstein D.  The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets.  Oxford University Press, 2015:681-682.
• Nestle M.  Soda.  In: Goldstein D.  The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets.  Oxford University Press, 2015:623-624.
• Nestle M.  Is a Paleo Diet Healthy?  NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits.  Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2015.
• Williams SN, Nestle M.  Editorial: ‘Big Food’: taking a critical perspective on a global public health problem.  In: Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry. Critical Public Health 2015;25:245-247.
• Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry. Critical Public Health 2015;25:245-372.
• Nestle M.  The Plain Truth.   New Scientist, March 14, 2015:24-25.  (The online version)
• Nestle M.  Goodbye to artificial colors?  CNN, March 4, 2015.

2014

• Nestle M.  Günümüzün ´daha fazla ye´ ortamı – Gida sanayisinin rolü (in Turkish).   Yemek ve Kültür 2014;Fall:80-90.
• Nestle M.  Regulation does change eating behavior.  In: Brain Food: Hastings College’s Introduction to the Liberal Arts, 2014-2015.  Hastings College Press, 2014:155-158.
• Nestle M.  The Soda Industry’s Promises Mean Nothing.  Time Magazine, September 30, 2014.
• Nestle M.  No, Cal does not forbid faculty  to express opinions about the soda tax.  Berkeley Times, September 25, 2014:3,15 (reprint of September 23 blog post).
• Nestle M.  How U.S. Citizens can hold their government accountable for preventing and reversing malnutrition.  World Nutrition Report, August 28, 2014.
• Nestle M.  Foreword.  Cognard-Black J, Goldthwaite MA, eds.  Books That Cook: The Making of a Literary Meal.  New York University Press, 2014:xv-xviii.
• Nestle M. Foreword. Poppendieck J. Breadline Knee-Deep in Wheat: Food Assistance in the Great Depression. University of California Press, 2014:ix-xii.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. Advice for fish consumption: challenging dilemmas. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014;99:973-974.
• Nestle M, Baron RB. Nutrition in Medical Education: From Counting Hours to Measuring Competence. JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 14, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.440.
• Nestle M. Next, Cut the Soda and Junk Food. New York Times, Room for debate: What other unhealthy products should CVS stop selling? February 7, 2014

2013

• Blumenthal SJ, Hoffnagle EE, Leung CW, Lofink H, Jensen HH, Foerster SB, Cheung LWY, Nestle M, Willett WC. Strategies to improve the dietary quality of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) beneficiaries: An assessment of stakeholder opinions. Public Health Nutrition 2013. doi:10.1017/S1368980013002942.
• Nestle M. A push for policies for sustainable foods systems. Perspectives, FAO, October 9, 2010.
• Nestle M. Conflict of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity. JAMA Internal Medicine 2013; Online: doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9158.
• Nestle M. Mediterranean diet month memory—day 26: Marion Nestle remembers a lasting legacy. Oldways, May 26, 2013.
• Nestle M, Cohen L, Waters R. Twinkie insanity hits the House. Politico, May 3, 2013.
• Nestle M. Food is a political issue. World Nutrition May 2013, 4,5, 270-295.
• Nestle M. Doctors should stress food variety, minimal processing, and moderation. In: Hunnicutt S, ed. At Issue: Is the Western Diet Making the World Sick? Greenhaven Press, 2013:71-75.
• Gussow J, Kirschenmann F, Uauy R, Schell O, Nestle M, Popkin B, Cannon G, Monteiro C.
  The American genius. [Appraisals]. World Nutrition 2013;4:150-170.
• Nestle M. School meals: A starting point for countering childhood obesity. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;():1-2. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.404
• Nestle M. Liberty from big soda. New York Daily News, March 10, 2013.
• Leung C, Blumenthal S, Hoffnagle E, Jensen H, Foerster S, Nestle M, Cheung L, Mozaffarian D, Willett W. Associations of Food Stamp Participation with Obesity and Dietary Quality among Low-income Children. Pediatrics 2013;131:463–472.
• Nestle M, Nesheim MC. To Supplement or Not to Supplement: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Calcium and Vitamin D. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(9):701-702.
• Nestle M. Today’s “eat more” environment: the role of the food industry. In: Pringle P, ed. A Place at the Table: The Crisis of 49 Million Hungry Americans and How to Solve It. PublicAffairs, 2013;95-106.
• Nestle M. Food safety and food security: a matter of public health. In: Estes CL, et al, eds. Health Policy: Crisis and Reform, 6^th ed. Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2013:125-130.
• Nestle M. Politics. In: Smith AF, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Vol 3, Pike-Zomb. Oxford University Press, 2013:28-37.

2012

• Nestle M. Foreword to Fairfax SK et al. California Cuisine and Just Food. MIT Press, 2012:xii-xiv.
• Nestle M. Waistline or bottom line. New Scientist, November 24, 2012:28-29.
• Young LR, Nestle M. Reducing portion sizes to prevent obesity: A call to action. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012;43(5):565-68.
• Nestle M. Marion Nestle on the Early Nutritionists. In: Taylor MJ, Wolf C, eds. 100 Classic Cookbooks, 501 Classic Recipes. Rizzoli, 2012:46-47.
• Nestle M. Cookbooks and food studies canons. Foreword to Taylor MJ, Wolf C, eds. 100 Classic Cookbooks, 501 Classic Recipes. Rizzoli, 2012:8-9.
• Nesheim M, Nestle M. Is a calorie a calorie? Nova ScienceNow, September 20, 2012.
• Nestle M. Online debate: What role should government play in combating obesity? Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2012.
• Nestle M. Online debate: Buying organics is a personal choice. New York Times, September 10, 2012.
• Temple N, Nestle M. Population Nutrition and Health Promotion. In: Temple NJ, Wilson T, Jacobs DR, eds. Nutritional Health: Strategies for Disease Prevention, 3^rd ed. Humana Press, 212:373-450.
• Nestle M, Wilson T. Food Industry and Political Influences on American Nutrition. In: Temple NJ, Wilson T, Jacobs DR, eds. Nutritional Health: Strategies for Disease Prevention, 3^rd ed. Humana Press, 2012:477-490.
• Stuckler D, Nestle M. Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Medicine 2012;9(6):e1001242 (4 pages).
• Nestle M. Nanotechnology: No One Is Evaluating the Risks! Mother Earth News, April/May 2012:18.
• Nestle M. Better Information and Better Options. Room for Debate: Do We Need More Advice About Eating Well? New York Times online, April 16, 2012.
• Nestle M. Utopian Dream: A New Farm Bill. Dissent 2012:Spring:15-19.
• Joseph M, Nestle M. Food and Politics in the Modern Age: 1920 – 2012. In: Bentley A, ed. A Cultural History of Food in the Modern Age, Vol. 6. Berg, 2112:87-110.
• Isoldi KK, Dalton S, Rodriguez DP, Nestle M. Classroom “cupcake” celebrations: observations of foods offered and consumed. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2012;44:71-75.

2011

• Nestle M. World’s first “fat tax”: what will it achieve? New Scientist, October 23, 2011:30-31 (Obesity’s Match).
• Nestle M. Food stamps for fast food? No: what the poor need is healthy food. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinal, September 24, 2011.
• Nestle M. School food, public policy, and strategies for change. In: Robert SA, Weaver-Hightower MB, eds. School Food Politics: The Complex Ecology of Hunger and Feeding in Schools Around the World. New York: Peter Lang, 2011:143-46.
• Robbins A, Nestle M. Obesity as collateral damage: a call for papers on the obesity epidemic [editorial]. Journal of Public Health Policy 2011;32:143-45.
  
• Csete J, Nestle M. Global nutrition: complex aetiology demands social as well as nutrient-based solutions. In: Parker R, Sommer M, eds. Routledge Handbook in Global Public Health, Routledge, 2011:303-13.

2010

• Nestle M.  Ultra-processing: This is important work. World Nutrition 2010;1(8):306-309.
• Nestle M. Doctor’s orders: What should doctors tell patients about nutrition? San Francisco Medicine 2010;83 (November):10,14.
• Nestle M, Ludwig DS. Banning front-of-package food labels. Response to Lytton. Letter to editor Public Health Nutrition online December 1, 2010.
• Nestle M. Why are so many Americans overweight? YOU Asked. America.gov (U.S. State Department Bureau of International Information).
• Nestle M, Wansink B, Heber D, Skelton JA, Sothern MS, Cohen DA, Kibler C. Industry Watch: Will private sector companies “step up to the plate” to protect children’s health? Childhood Obesity 2010;6:247.
• Warren C, Nestle M. Big food, big agra, and the research university. Academe 2010;Nov-Dec:47-49. Also available at Academe Online.
• Nestle M. Strategies to Prevent Childhood Obesity Must Extend Beyond School Environments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010;39:380-81.
• Nestle M. Health care reform in action: calorie labeling goes national [Perspective]. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;362:2343-2345.
• Nestle M. Writing the food studies revolution. Food, Culture & Society 2010;13(2):159-16811.
• Nestle M. New York’s calorie counts: a good national model. Newsweek, April 30, 2010online, May 10, 2010.
• Nestle M, Ludwig D. Front of package food labels: public health or propaganda [Commentary]. JAMA 2010:303:771-772 (scroll down to get to the paper).
• Nestle M. Give the “fair sex” a fair shake [letter]. Science 2010;327:523 (scroll to next page to get to the letter).
  

2009

• Joseph M, Nestle M. The ethics of food. Lahey Clinic Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;16(1):1-7. Online at RealitySandwich.com.
• Nestle M. What Obama can do in the USA [invited commentary]. Public Health Nutrition 2009;12(3):433-435.
• Nestle M. Reading the Food Social Movement. World Literature Today 2009; January-February:37-39.
• Nestle M. A ration of gruel. New York Times [Letter], January 6, 2009: D4.
• Nestle M. Foreword to Jenkins NH, The New Mediterranean Diet Cookbook. New York: Bantam Books, 2009: xi-xiii.

2008

• Ludwig D, Nestle M. Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? JAMA 2008;300;1808-1811.
• Woolf SH, Nestle M. Do dietary guidelines explain the obesity epidemic? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;34(3):263-265.
• Nestle M. Cookie grumbles [letter]. New York Times, July 16, 2008.
• Nestle M. Open forum: The politics of food safety [op-ed]. San Francisco Chronicle, December 16, 2008:B5.
• Falbe JL, Nestle M. The politics of government dietary advice. In: Germov J, Williams L, eds. A Sociology of Food & Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 3rd ed. Oxford, 2008:127-146.

2007

• Nestle M. Eating made simple. Scientific American, September 2007:60-69
• Young L, Nestle M. Portion sizes and obesity: response of fast food companies. Journal of Public Health Policy 2007 28:238-242.
• Nestle M. Nutrition In public health and preventive medicine. Chapter 72 in Wallace RB, ed. Wallace/Maxcy-Rosenau-Last, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, 15^th ed, McGraw Hill Medical, 2007:1195-1203.
• Nestle M, Nesheim MC. Additional information on melamine in pet food [letter]. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2007;231:1647.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. Pet Food. In: Allen G, Albala K, eds. The Business of Food: Encyclopedia of the Food and Drink Industries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007:297-301.

2006

• Nestle M. Food marketing and childhood obesity—a matter of policy [Perspective]. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;354:2527-2528.
• Nestle M. Trans fat nation. New York Times [op-ed], October 1, 2006:WK-11.
• Nestle M. One thing to do about food: a forum. The Nation September 11, 2006:14.
• Nestle M. Food industry and health: mostly promises, little action. Lancet 2006; 368:564-565.
• Nestle M. Trans fat nation. New York Times [op-ed], October 1, 2006:WK-11.
• Nestle M. The spinach fallout: restoring trust in California produce. San Jose Mercury News (Perspectives), October 22, 2006.
• Lewin A, Lindstrom L, Nestle M. Food industry promises to address childhood obesity: preliminary evaluation. Journal of Public Health Policy 2006;27:327-348.
• Marion Nestle’s 10 books to read about food. Amazon.com, March 10, 2006.
• Nestle M.  Health, diet, and the politics of dietary guidelines: commentary.  In: Remillard G, ed.  Understanding and Overcoming Obesity: The Need for Action.   Montreal: Decision Media: 2006: 21-38.

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

• Nestle M, Jacobson MF. Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. Public Health Reports 2000;115:12-24.
• Nestle M. Soft drink “pouring rights:” marketing empty calories. Public Health Reports 2000;115:308-319.
• Nestle M.  Paleolithic diets: a sceptical view. Nutrition Bulletin 2000; 25:43-47.
• Nestle M. Ethical dilemmas in choosing a healthful diet: Vote with your fork! Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (UK) 2000;59:619-629.
• Nestle M. Gene-altered food [letter]. New York Times [Science Times], December 19, 2000:F3.

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

• Young LR, Nestle M. Variation in perceptions of a “medium” food portion: implications for dietary guidance. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998;98:458-459.

• Nestle M. Food biotechnology: labeling will benefit industry as well as consumers. Nutrition Today 1998;33(1):6-12.

• Nestle M, Wing R, Birch L, et al. Behavioral and social influences on food choice. Nutrition Reviews 1998;56:s50-s64.

• Singer AJ, Werther K, Nestle M. Improvements are needed in hospital diets to meet dietary guidelines for health promotion and disease prevention. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998;98:639-641.

• Nestle M. Toward more healthful dietary patterns—a matter of policy. Public Health Reports 1998;113:420-423.

• Nestle M. In defense of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Nutrition Today 1998;33(5):189-197.

• Nestle M. The selling of olestra. Public Health Reports s 1998;113:508-520.

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. Allergies to transgenic foods–questions of policy [editorial]. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:726-728 (Note: it’s the 3rd one in the pdf).

• Young LR, Nestle M. Portion sizes in dietary assessment: issues and policy implications.Nutrition Reviews 1995;53:149-158.

• Young LR, Nestle M. Food labels consistently underestimate the actual weights of single-serving baked products.Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1995;95:1150-1151.

• Nestle M. Mediterranean diets: historical and research overview. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1995;61 (suppl):1313s-1320s.

• Nestle M. Folate fortification and neural tube defects: policy implications. Journal of Nutrition Education 1994;26(6):287-293.

• Nestle M. Traditional models of healthy eating: alternatives to “techno-food.” Journal of Nutrition Education 1994;26(5):241-245.
• Nestle M. Nutrition data require high research priority. CNI Nutrition Week, December 16, 1994:6-7.
• Nestle M.  Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy.   International Journal of Health Services, 1993;23:483-496.
• Nestle M. Dietary advice for the 1990s: the political history of the food guide pyramid.Caduceus: A Humanities Journal for Medicine and the Health Sciences 1993:9:136-153.
• Nestle M.  A missed opportunity? The ICN & U.S. food policy. Nutrition Week 1992;22(28):4-5.
• Nestle M.  USDA’s dietary guidelines: health goals meet politics.   Nutrition Week 1992;22(31):4-5.

• 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.

 

 

The soft drink industry is using the latest research findings to argue that vending machines in schools are not the problem in childhood obesity, and it’s what kids drink at home that matters. The research in question finds that adolescents get 10% to 15% of their calories from sugary beverages. Average intake among 2 to 5 year olds is 176 calories per day; among 12 to 19 year olds it is 356. Overall average intake rose from 240 calories/day in 1988 to 270 in 2004. Doesn’t what kids drink in school influence what they drink at home, and vice versa? Never mind. Try this one: a new meta-analysis – coincidentally (?) sponsored by the American Beverage Association–finds no relationship between consumption of sweetened beverages and body mass index. High marks to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for printing a rather tough sponsorship note: “The research proposal to the sponsor was approved as submitted, but the sponsor requested that an independent expert on meta-analysis—to be chosen by the authors—review the manuscript…One author (MLS) accepted a position with the sponsor after the first decision letter regarding the manuscript was received.” Could this cozy relationship have anything to do with the way the study was designed and conducted? Just asking.

A new analysis of all kinds of studies on the use of calcium to prevent fractures is just out in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The results? “calcium intake is not significantly associated with hip fracture risk in women or men…[results] show no reduction in hip fracture risk with calcium supplementation, and an increased risk is possible.” It sure would be nice if it were that easy to prevent fractures but bone strength requires a good diet containing ALL nutrients, not just calcium (with or without vitamin D), as well as plenty of physical activity, so these results should not come as a surprise. The bottom line: eat healthfully and move!

While I am on the subject of food company sponsorship of nutrition and medical professionals, I might as well say something about sponsored research. Analyses of the phenomenon show that when research is sponsored by food companies, it almost always produces results that favor the sponsor’s products. Two recent examples from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: a study comparing the effects of soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup or sugar (sucrose) finds no difference in perceived sweetness, hunger, or calorie intake. I wouldn’t expect it to, but the study was funded by a grant from the American Beverage Association, which has a vested interest in proving that soft drinks have no effect on obesity. This next one is even better: here is a study showing that if you eat corn or tortilla chips fried in corn oils, which are largely polyunsaturated, your blood cholesterol will be healthier than if you eat chips fried in saturated and trans fats. I thought we knew that already. But doing a study like this gives the sponsor a usable conclusion: “Therefore, if chosen wisely, even snack foods that are often considered to be ‘junk food’ can contribute to a heart-healthy diet.” Would it surprise you to learn that the study was funded in part by Frito-Lay/PepsiCo? I wonder how long it will take to see this research celebrated in Frito-Lay ads.

A reader, Effie Schultz, sent this one, with a comment that it comes with the longest conflict of interest statement she had ever seen (I’ve noted one that was two pages long in the first item in a post in 2015).

Association of Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages as a Replacement for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Body Weight and Cardiometabolic Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.  McGlynn ND, and 20 other authors.  JAMA Network Open, March 14, 2022. 2022;5(3):e222092.  doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2092

The research question: Are low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages (LNCSBs) as the intended substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) associated with improved body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors similar to water replacement?

The conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that using LNCSBs as an intended substitute for SSBs was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm and had a similar direction of benefit as water substitution. The evidence supports the use of LNCSBs as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs over the moderate term in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes.

Comment: Research on artificial sweeteners remains controversial.  I think we will be arguing forever about their safety and efficacy in helping people lose weight.  Studies with conflict of interest disclosures like the excessively extensive one here do not help resolve the research questions.

I strongly support revealing conflicted interests that might influence any aspect of research design, conduct, and interpretation.  For this study, I would be interested in financial ties or arrangements with companies that might either gain or lose sales or marketing advantages from results showing artificial sweeteners or diet drinks to be harmless or beneficial, as these do.  At issue here is whether financial ties to companies with corporate interests in the outcome of such research bias results or interpretation, consciously or unconsciously.

You have to search through this mess of unnecessary and distracting disclosures to find the ones that matter.  They are there.  You have to search for them.

Much of what is disclosed is irrelevant and, therefore, not helpful.

You may well disagree with that assessment.  Judge for yourself.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms McGlynn reported receiving a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-Masters Award during the conduct of the study and being a former employee of Loblaws Companies Limited outside the submitted work. Dr Khan reported receiving grants from CIHR, International Life Science Institute, and National Honey Board outside the submitted work. Dr Chiavaroli reported being a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellow and receiving joint funding from the Government of Canada and the Canadian Sugar Institute. Mr Au-Yeung reported receiving personal fees from Inquis Clinical Research outside the submitted work. Ms Lee reported receiving graduate scholarship from CIHR and the Banting & Best Diabetes Centre at the University of Toronto outside the submitted work. Dr Comelli reported being the Lawson Family Chair in Microbiome Nutrition Research at the Joannah and Brian Lawson Centre for Child Nutrition, University of Toronto, during the conduct of the study and receiving nonfinancial support from Lallemand Health Solutions, donation to research program from Lallemand Health Solutions, personal fees from Danone, sponsored research and collaboration agreement from Ocean Spray, and nonfinancial support from Ocean Spray outside the submitted work. Ms Ahmed reported receiving scholarship from the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) outside the submitted work. Dr Malik reported receiving personal fees from the City and County of San Francisco, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and World Health Organization outside the submitted work and support from the Canada Research Chairs Program. Dr Hill reported receiving personal fees from General Mills and McCormick Science Institute. Dr Rahelić reported receiving personal fees from the International Sweeteners Association, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, MSD, Salvus, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr Salas-Salvadó reported receiving personal fees from Instituto Danone Spain, nonfinancial support from Danone Institute International, personal fees as director of the World Forum for Nutrition Research and Dissemination from the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, financial support to the institution from Fundación Eroski, and financial support to the institution from Danone outside the submitted work. Dr Kendall reported receiving grants and/or in-kind support from Advanced Food Materials Network, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CIHR, Almond Board of California, Barilla, Canola Council of Canada, International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, Peanut Institute, Pulse Canada, Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, and Unilever; receiving nonfinancial support from General Mills, Kellogg, Loblaw Brands Limited, Oldways Preservation Trust, Quaker Oats (Pepsi-Co), Sun-Maid, White Wave Foods/Danone, International Pasta Organization, California Walnut Commission, Primo, Unico, International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), and Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) outside the submitted work; receiving personal fees from McCormick Science Institute and Lantmannen; and being a member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) Executive Board and Dietary Guidelines, a member of the expert committee of the DNSG Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy, a member of the scientific advisory board of the McCormick Science Institute, a scientific advisor for the International Pasta Organization and Oldways Preservation Trust, a member of the ICQC, an executive board member of the DNSG, and being the director of the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Foundation. Dr Sievenpiper reported receiving nonfinancial support from DNSG of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), grants from CIHR through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network (NTN), PSI Graham Farquharson Knowledge Translation Fellowship, Diabetes Canada Clinician Scientist Award, CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and the Canadian Nutrition Society (INMD/CNS) New Investigator Partnership Prize, and Banting & Best Diabetes Centre Sun Life Financial New Investigator Award during the conduct of the study; receiving grants from American Society for Nutrition, International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, National Honey Board (the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey checkoff program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS; formerly ILSI North America), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, United Soybean Board (the USDA soy checkoff program), Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), and Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council); receiving personal fees from Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, International Sweeteners Association, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, American Society for Nutrition, INC Nutrition Research and Education Foundation, European Food Safety Authority, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council, Calorie Control Council, Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre, International Glutamate Technical Committee, Perkins Coie LLP, Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, Danone, Inquis Clinical Research, Soy Nutrition Institute, and European Fruit Juice Association outside the submitted work; serving on the clinical practice guidelines expert committees of Diabetes Canada, EASD, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons; being an unpaid scientific advisor for the Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program and the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of IAFNS; being a member of the ICQC, executive board member of the DNSG of the EASD, and director of the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Foundation; his spouse is an employee of AB InBev. No other disclosures were reported.

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observations that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and that recipients of industry funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

I am indebted to David Ludwig for passing along this bit of nutritional history.

The study: PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY FUNCTION AND KETOSIS.*
BY WALTERS. McCLELLAN AND EUGENE F. Du BOIS.  Journal of Biological Chemistry Volume 87, Issue 3, 1 July 1930, Pages 651-668
Method:  Several men agreed to eat nothing but meat for a year.  The meats included beef, lamb, veal, pork, and chicken, in various parts.  This was a high-fat, low-carb diet.  The men lived at home mostly.

Conclusion: In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

Funder: These studies were supported in part by a research grant from the Institute of American Meat Packers.

Comment: I did not realize that industry sponsorship of favorable studies went back that far.  I’ll bet there are lots more.  Researchers: start digging!