Currently browsing posts about: Food-industry

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

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

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

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

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

They also want you to know that times are tough.

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

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

It turns out, the public doesn’t trust the food industry much.

Food industry trust in the dumps, but things are looking up: Consumer trust in the food industry is at dire levels. But there are modest reasons for positivity. What can the industry do to build on dwindling trust?… Read more

Why not?

This is affecting brand loyalty.  For this, price is also an issue.

Brand loyalty is declining, but the death knell isn’t ringing yet: The fight between branded and private label has never been so intense, yet it appears the former is losing significant ground. So what’s going on?… Read more

And, Americans don’t trust food and nutrition science either, especially if it comes from food industry scientists.

My advice?

If the food industry wants trust from the public, it should behave in a trustworthy manner.

As long as food companies put profits first, they are at high risk of compromising ethics, integrity, and trust.

The investment system would do better on trust if it valued social commitments.

This is an old story, but one worth retelling.  See this, for example.

A member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics forwarded this email sent to academy members.

From: PepsiCo Health & Nutrition Sciences <pepsiconutritionscience@pepsico.com>
Subject: Help combat nutrition misinformation 📢

We’re sure you’ve seen this firsthand with your patients and clients: Nutrition research has become increasingly complex for the general public to understand – and the volume of contradictory headlines and misinformation in the media doesn’t help. As a healthcare professional, you have the power to inspire trust and deepen the general public’s understanding through credible communication of balanced, high-quality, evidence-based nutrition science.

That’s why we hosted our most recent Lab & Learn webinar, Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively, on the topic. Whether you attended live or viewing on demand, we wanted to share an additional resource with you on this topic to enrich your practice even further.

Didn’t get a chance to tune in to the webinar live last week?
Watch on demand here and earn 1.25 free CPEUs!
Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively awards 1.25 CPEUs in accordance with the Commission on Dietetic Registration’s CPEU Prior Approval Program.

Download the handout here.

Comment

Who better than PepsiCo to counter nutrition misinformation?  The handout gives standard information about how to interpret scientific studies, and useful for that purpose.  Perhaps it is an oversight but it omits any mention of biases introduced by funding by food companies.

More important, it implies that science alone will be enough to counter misinformation.  It would be nice if erroneous beliefs about nutrition could be corrected by presenting facts, but beliefs, especially those that are deeply held, are not necessarily fact-dependent.  They often have more to do with faith in what trusted people say.

PepsiCo wants dietitians to trust PepsiCo and avoid advising clients to cut back on sugary beverages or salty snacks.

The dietitian who sent this to me was skeptical, as dietitians should be in situations like these.

Happy Valentine’s Day!  Since I’m talking about potatoes, try these!

I learned about this from a Tweet (X) from Dan Barber.

I went right to The Lever and signed on so I could read: The Rise Of Big Potato: Allegations of price collusions among the potato cartel reveal the new, sophisticated methods food corporations are using to keep prices high.

The four companies now stand accused of operating as a “cartel” and conspiring to hike prices, jacking up the cost of french fries and Tater Tots around the country. But they’re hardly alone. The case against Big Potato is a window into how consolidation has crept into every corner of the food industry — and how these firms are finding new, sophisticated methods to keep prices high.

After decades of consolidation, just four firms now control at least 97 percent of the $68 billion frozen potato market, the antitrust cases reveal. These four companies participate in the same trade associations and use a third-party data analytics platform — PotatoTrac — to share confidential business information. The lawsuits allege the firms’ collusion has driven french fries and hash browns to record-high prices.

All of this reminds me of:

• Get big or get out: the USDA’s advice to corn farmers in the 1970s
• Congressional overturning of school lunch standards restricting the number of times french fries could be served
• Health concerns about frequent consumption of french fries

This index, the fifth annual,  from the Access to Nutrition Initiative evaluates 30 food and beverage manufacturers on how well they are doing to improve access to nutritious foods.

Here’s what it finds about corporation’s share of portfolios from healthy foods.

ATNi finds some progress since it started doing this “but bolder action is needed from industry, policymakers, and investors to shift the needle towards the production of healthier foods and the promotion of healthier diets.”

Well, yes.

But how, given the prioritization of returns to investors.

ATNi resources 

I.  Darius Mozaffarian, a nutrition professor at Tufts University, has an editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:“The Dietary Guidelines for Americans—is the evidence bar too low or too high?”

He writes about an analysis of the systematic literature reviews SRs) that form the basis of science-based decisions in the guidelines.  His comments gives an insight into the Dietary Guidelines process worth seeing.

For the 2025–2030 DGAC, I served as a peer reviewer for the SR on UPFs…I felt that the SR’s question, design, and planned methods were appropriate, but that its implementation and conclusions were weakened by important deviations from these standards. For example, contradicting its stated eligibility criteria, the SR included numerous studies that did not appropriately or adequately define or assess UPF. Following inclusion of such heterogeneous studies, the SR concluded that the scientific evidence on UPF was limited due to many studies having serious concerns around exposure misclassification as well as evaluating dietary patterns not directly varying in amounts of UPF. This demonstrated a circular and dismaying reasoning: the SR included studies it should not have that had heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF, and then concluded that heterogeneous and poorly characterized assessments of UPF limited the strength of the evidence.

He observes:

Most importantly, the DGA and SR requirements make clear that guiding Americans toward a healthier diet is an unfair fight from the start. The food industry can do almost anything it wishes to our food, combining diverse ingredients, additives, and processing methods with virtually no oversight or required evidence for long-term safety  In contrast, the DGAs and other federal agencies can only make recommendations to avoid certain foods or limit certain manufacturing methods when there is extensive, robust, and consistent evidence for harm. In this severely imbalanced playing field, industry wins again and again.

II.  Senator Bernie Sanders posted on Facebook Sanders Statement on How to Make America Healthy Again.  Among other issues, he’s taking on the food industry.

Reform the food industry. Large food corporations should not make record-breaking profits addicting children to the processed foods which make them overweight and prone to diabetes and other diseases. As a start, we must ban junk food ads targeted to kids and put strong warning labels on products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Longer term, we can rebuild rural America with family farms that are producing healthy, nutritious food.

III.  California Governor Gavin Newsom “issues executive order to crack down on ultra-processed foods and further investigate food dyes.”

The food we eat shouldn’t make us sick with disease or lead to lifelong consequences. California has been a leader for years in creating healthy and delicious school meals, and removing harmful ingredients and chemicals from food. We’re going to work with the industry, consumers and experts to crack down on ultra-processed foods, and create a healthier future for every Californian.

Comment

Mozaffarian offers these opinions despite disclosing financial ties to food companies.  Sanders is a welcome addition to the handful of legislators concerned about food issues.  Newsom is making it easier for other states to take similar steps.

Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope for coalition building among advocates for healthier food systems.  Maybe this really is a movement!

How’s that for a cheery thought for 2025.  Happy new year everyone!

From the report’s introduction

THE UK’S FOOD SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING. It is unsustainable, unhealthy, and unfair. Deep rooted power imbalances mean that profits and power are concentrated in the middle of the food chain, leaving farmers and citizens feeling the squeeze. Among the poorest fifth of the population, households with children would need to spend 70% of their disposable income on food just to afford the government’s recommended healthy diet….

Diet, overweight and obesity are now the biggest risk factor for preventable death and disability in the UK…growing numbers of farmers and growers are struggling to make a living, with 61% of British farmers saying they are likely to give up their farm in the next 18 months….This is arguably an example of market failure – a predictable outcome of a food system where the governing rules mean there is currently little incentive for companies to sell healthy and sustainable foods.

It makes these points with  data.

I like this one too.

Resources

• Read the full report here
• Technical Report
• Annex

I spent a lot of time last week responding to reporters’ questions about Trump’s appointing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here’s what the president-elect said about the appointment on Twitter (X):

For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health…HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!

Trump has instructed Mr. Kennedy to end chronic disease and “Go wild on food.”

In various statements, Mr. Kennedy has said he wants to get rid of “poisons”

• Ultra-processed foods in schools
• Artificial colors in cereals
• Chemicals, pollutants, pesticides
• Mercury in fish
• Fast food

He also wants to

• Restrict sodas on SNAP
• Promote sustainable, regenerative farming by small farmers
• End conflicts of interest between government agencies and corporations: Corporate capture is the biggest threat to democracy.

These are the kinds of things I’ve been saying and writing about for decades!

[He also is pushing for some things that are much less well grounded in science: getting rid of grains for kids, seed oils, and fluoride in drinking water; deregulating raw milk; and firing all nutrition scientists on day 1].

If he really does do what he’s promising here, it means taking on the food industry, in a way that no government has ever done, and Trump showed no signs of doing in his first term.

What can we expect?  I have no idea, but thist sure will be interesting to watch.

Mother Jones calls Kennedy’s appointment “a genuine catastrophe.”

For charges of hypocrisy, click here.

Civil Eats asked a bunch of people to predict “The Path Forward for Food and Ag.”  Here’s what I said.

I wish I had a crystal ball to say how food and agriculture issues would play out over the next four years, but all I have to go on is what Trump and his followers say. If we take them at their word, then we must expect them to implement their Project 2025 plan, which replaces one deep state with another that favors conservative business interests and ideology. This calls for replacing staff in federal agencies with Trump loyalists and dismantling them, stopping the USDA from doing anything to prevent climate change, reforming farm subsidies (unclear how), splitting the farm bill to deal separately with agricultural supports and SNAP, reducing SNAP participation by reinstating work requirements and reducing the Thrifty Food Plan, and making it more difficult for kids to participate in school meals.

On the other hand, some of the plans make sense: eliminating checkoff programs and repealing the sugar program, for example. So do some of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s goals: Make America Healthy Again by focusing on chronic disease prevention, getting harmful chemicals out of kids’ foods, and getting rid of conflicts of interest among researchers and agency staff. It’s too early to know how much of this is just talk, but I’m planning to do what I can to oppose measures I view as harmful, but to strongly support the ones I think will be good for public health.