Search results: USDA meat

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

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.

As I noted last May, I get asked all the time about what they will say, but have no inside information.  But this may be a good time to go over the clues.

The process

• A scientific advisory committee reviews the research and writes a report.  This was released in December.
• Unspecified (to date) people in USDA and HHS write the guidelines.

The promises

• They will come out “hopefully early fall” (this did not happen)
• Now, according to Reuters, the new dietary guidelines will be released some time in December.

What they won’t say

• They will not continue the tradition of “leftist ideology”  [I think this must mean plant foods]
• They will not promote seed oils (RFK Jr prefers beef tallow).
• They will not promote sugar; RFK Jr says sugar is poison.  [But declared a MAHA Win for Coca’ Cola’s replacement of high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar]
• They won’t say anything about sustainability [anything about climate change is forbidden]

What they will be about

[According to Reuters] Kennedy said the new guidelines would change the kind of food served to military service members and children in schools, but gave no details on the new recommendations.

“If we want to solve the chronic disease crisis, we have to tackle obesity,” Kennedy said. “Obesity is the number one driver of chronic disease,” he said, adding that 50% of the adult U.S. population was obese or overweight, driving costs up for diabetes care and cardiac diseases.

What they might say

Beef

• In its Plan to Fortify the Beef Industry, the USDA says the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines will “encourage protein as the foundation for every meal.”
• In an announcement to ranchers, USDA quotes RFK Jr, “we are restoring whole foods as the foundation of the American diet and ending the decades-old stigma against natural saturated fat in beef and dairy products. We will strengthen America’s ranching industry so families can choose nutrient-dense, minimally processed foods.”

Dairy

In a news conference, officials gave some clues.

We are going to be there for the dairy industry…our agencies are about to release more dietary guidelines in the next several months that will elevate those products to where they ought to be…There’s a tremendous amount of emerging science that talks about the need for more protein in our diet, and more fats in our diet, and there’s no industry that does that better than this industry.

Speculation

When RFK Jr first talked about the new guidelines, he said they would ignore the scientific advisory committee report and would be simple, short (5 pages), easy to understand, and out by September.  I’m guessing that the conflict between the science and ideology is proving more difficult to resolve than anticipated.

The science continues to argue for a largely (but not necessarily exclusively) plant-based diet, reduced in meat and ultra-processed foods from current levels.  RFK Jr initially talked about the need to reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, but the second MAHA report merely asked for a definition.

This administration seems obsessed with protein, a nutrient already in excess in US diets.

If it wants to do something about obesity, it needs the guidelines to suggest ways to reduce calories.  Nobody has mentioned that word so far.

As I keep saying, I can’t wait to see what the new guidelines will look like.  Stay tuned.

CivilEats’ Lisa Held writes: The Industry Ties Within Trump’s Food and Ag Leadership: Many of the president’s top officials at the USDA, EPA, HHS, and FDA have connections to chemical, agribusiness, or fossil fuel interests.

Really?  Yes.  And the list is long.

As Lisa describes the situation,

The picture of influence is all the more noteworthy because no president has been louder about “draining the swamp” of corporate influence in D.C. Those calls have gotten even more strident around food issues as a result of Trump’s alignment with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a frequent critic of corporate influence on government policies…To begin to track the influence that industry may exert on the food system over the next four years, Civil Eats dug into the backgrounds of the most prominent individuals currently working on food and agriculture within federal agencies.

She then goes through the list, agency by agency.  Two examples :

I.  Mindy Brashears, USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety (nominated, not yet confirmed)

Brashears has consulted for Cargill, Perdue, and other meat industry giants. She held the same role during Trump’s first term, during which she played an essential role in keeping meatpacking plants running at the height of the pandemic. Congress later called her the “meat industry’s go-to fixer.” In her most recent ethics disclosure forms, she says she’ll resign from positions with Boar’s Head and the Meat Institute, the trade and lobby organization that represents the country’s biggest meatpackers, upon confirmation.

II. Calley Means, Special Advisor (to HHS Secretary RFK Jr)

Means often acts as Kennedy’s mouthpiece on MAHA priorities related to food and health. He is an outspoken member of the team, often accusing government employees of being beholden to industry. Because he’s a special government employee, Means does not have to fill out financial disclosure forms.

Means co-founded Truemed, a company that directs health savings account dollars toward wellness products and memberships that reportedly raised more than $32 million in venture capital earlier this year. Truemed has extensive partnerships with makers of supplements (an industry that wants HHS to loosen regulations), health technology, and other wellness products.

Comment

The list of food (and drug) officials with financial conflicts of interest is long and extensive.  This situation explains the non-regulatory approaches to food issues, and leaving such approaches to states.  If you are hoping that this administration will do anything to refocus production agriculture on food for people (rather than feed for animals and fuel for cars or planes), stop junk food marketing to children, improve school food, reduce ultra-processed food consumption, regulate the content and labeling of supplements, or anything else that might reduce food industry profits, it’s best to keep expectations low.

The EAT-Lancet Commission has released its updated report on “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.”

Let me point out immediately that the report was written by a great many authors (I could not easily count them), is 76 pages long, and is pretty much impenetrable without a lot of hard work.

As it did in its first report in 2019, the Commission’s report defines a Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which

represents a dietary pattern that supports optimal health outcomes and can be applied globally for different populations and different contexts, while also supporting cultural and regional variation…The PHD is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria….[It] emphasises a balanced dietary pattern that is predominantly plant-based, with moderate inclusion of animal-sourced foods and minimal consumption of added sugars, saturated fats, and salt.

The report offers “eight solutions and 23 actions to enable food systems transformation, which can be organised into coherent bundles of interventions that simultaneously advance health, environmental, and justice goals.”

the exercise of corporate power in ways that undermine public interests. The high degree of corporate concentration across food systems remains an intractable governance issue, which is partly due to the vast influence of large transnational food and beverage companies with considerable power.

Vox was kind enough to produce this explanatory chart.CNN quotes author Walter Willett:

“A diet good for both people and the planet focuses on fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains — a moderate amount of meat and dairy — and very little added sugar, saturated fat and salt…When it comes to meat and dairy, think one plus one, Willett said — one daily serving of dairy, such as milk or yogurt, along with one daily serving of an animal protein such as fish, poultry, eggs or meat. Red meat (beef, lamb and pork) should be limited to a 4-ounce serving only once a week, however, due to its impact on overall health.

The Guardian: ‘Planetary health diet’ could save 40,000 deaths a day, landmark report finds

The diet – which allows moderate meat consumption – and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water.

AP News:

About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year and agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets, according to the EAT-Lancet Commission, which brought together scientists worldwide to review the latest data on food’s role in human health, climate change, biodiversity and people’s working and living conditions.

Comment: The recommended diet for health—and also the planet and food justice—is extremely low in meat by U.S. standards.  It also directly opposes the MAHA movement’s emphasis on meat, beef tallow, and full-fat dairy, and its disapproval of seed oils and plant-based diets (these, according to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS, reflect “left-wing ideology”).

It breaks my heart to learn of the death of the great cookbook author and food politics writer, Marian Burros.

She was immensely important to me and to my work.

Marion Nestle and Marian Burros at NYU, 2018

Her obituary in the New York Times appeared on Saturday; I was interviewed for it some years ago and am quoted:

Marian was hugely ahead of her time in writing about the importance of food choices that not only improve health but also are sustainable and protect the environment…She was writing about the politics of food long before anyone dreamed that a food movement might exist.”

So true.  I first met her in the late 1980s when I was in DC working for Health and Human Services as managing editor of the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health.  Marian was writing for the Washington Post and interviewed me about the report a couple of times.  Soon after, she moved to the New York Times and I moved to NYU.

In 1991, when the USDA withdrew the long-researched, about-to-be-published Eating Right Pyramid, ostensibly because it had not been tested on low-income women and children, I was contacted by a USDA staff person with documents proving that the real reason was pressure from meat producers who did not like the position of meat at the top of the pyramid.  As I tell in detail in my book, Food Politics, a USDA Deep Throat asked if I could get those documents to the press.

I called Marian Burros and asked if she’d be interested.  She was.

Her first of many articles on the pyramid scandal: Are cattlemen now guarding the henhouse? (it quotes me).

She worked on that story for a year, eventually digging out enough leaked information that she could piece together what the USDA was going to do—a bowl!

Her article so embarrassed the USDA that it had to admit the pyramid was a better option, and finally issued it.

In 1996, my NYU Department created undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs in Food Studies.  Clark Wolf, a food consultant who was advising us, told Marian Burros about the programs.

As soon as we had New York State approval for the programs, she wrote about them: A New View on Training Food Experts,

We had prospective students in our office that very afternoon, holding copies of the clipping, and saying they’d waited all their lives for this program.  Thanks to that publicity, even though this was mid-summer, we had a full class that fall.

And here we all were, celebrating the Department’s new teaching kitchen.

Three Marions—Nestle, Cunningham, and Burros (with an a)—and Clark Wolf at NYU’s newly renovated teaching kitchen in 1996.

She was one tough reporter.  She asked hard questions and insisted on answers.  She knew the food politics scene better than anyone.

I was sorry when she retired from the Times.  It seemed like a great loss.

It is a great loss.