Currently browsing posts about: Meat

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.

I’m indebted to Elaine Watson of AgFunder for posting this on X (Twitter): “New report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate #greenwashing.’ @Danone and @Nestle hit back”

This seemed worth a look and I went right to it. “Danone and Nestlé hit back after new report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate greenwashing.’”

The 38-page report comes from the New Climate Institute: “Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025: Food and Agriculture Sector Deep Dive: Assessing the Transparency, Integrity and Progress of Corporate Climate Strategies.”

It compares the climate promises and actions of five companies—Danone, JBS, Mars, Nestlé, and PepsiCo—with respect to deforestation, transition from animal- to plant-based products, emissions from fertilizers, reduced waste, and other measures.

Here’s the summary:

Its conclusions:

• We find that agrifood companies present measures that are unlikely to lead to structural, deep emission reductions in the sector.
• We find that agrifood companies’ emission reduction targets are currently undermined by the undefined role for land-based carbon removals.
• Standard setters need to anchor the need for deep and structural emission reductions in their voluntary standards and guidelines, guided by key transitions for the sector, and need to call for separate targets for emission reduction and removal.

Danone and Nestlé argue that they are committed to reducing their environmental impact and making good progress.

Comment

It would be nice if they were.  But to point out the obvious: food companies have no market incentive to reduce their environmental impact if it is going to raise their costs.   Of course JBS comes across as Very Poor; it is a meat company and meat production releases much greater emissions than for any other food. It is much to the advantage of Big Food to pass the externalized costs of production onto taxpayers, which is what they now do.   This situation calls for regulation.  At the moment, regulation is an unlikely possibility, but we can always hope—and work toward that goal by holding corporations accountable for their greenwashing promises.

I’m indebted to a reader, Daniel Wiser, for sending me this item about how US Poultry is honoring Tyson Foods and Perdue Foods for “excellence in wastewater management.”

The US Poultry & Egg Association announces the recipients of the 2025 Clean Water Award: Tyson Foods in Danville, Va., and Perdue Foods in Lewiston, N.C. This annual award honors poultry facilities that demonstrate strong performance in wastewater treatment, water reuse and overall sustainability. Winners were selected by a committee of industry engineers and university experts and recognized at USPOULTRY’s annual Environmental Management Seminar.

He also sent links to these stories:

• PBS News: Wastewater from Tyson meat processing plants is polluting U.S. waterways, report says
• Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Investors Refile Water Pollution Resolution with Tyson Foods
• Environment America: Report: Tyson #1 water polluter among agribusinesses
• Investigate Midwest: Oklahoma’s loophole: How Tyson’s water use goes unchecked
• Department of Justice: Tyson Poultry Fined $2 Million for Violating the Clean Water Act

You can’t make these things up!

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

• Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
• All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
• All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
• Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

• Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

My inbox was flooded last week with messages alerting me to this study.  Thanks to Matthew Kadey, Matthew Stasiewicz, Christopher Gardner, and others who preferred anonymity.

The study: Askow, Andrew T.; Barnes, Takeshi M.; Zupancic, Zan; Deutz, Max T.; Paulussen, Kevin J.M.; McKenna, Colleen F.; Salvador, Amadeo F.; Ulanov, Alexander V.; Paluska, Scott A.; Willard, Jared W.; Petruzzello, Steven J.; Burd, Nicholas A. Impact of Vegan Diets on Resistance Exercise-Mediated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Healthy Young Males and Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ():10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725, April 4, 2025. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725

Conclusions: “Our results demonstrated that the anabolic action of animal vs. vegan dietary patterns are similar. Moreover, there is no regulatory influence of distribution between the two dietary patterns on the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young adults.”

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: “This study was funded by The Beef Checkoff…Beef Checkoff sponsor was only involved in financial support of the project, without involvement in design, data collection, and analysis, nor interpretation and dissemination of the report.”

Comment: The idea here was that meat protein would promote muscle synthesis better than vegetable protein, especially at relatively low levels of intake. Hence, the Beef Checkoff’s interest.  Not only did this sponsored study come to what must have been an unexpected conclusion, but the University of Illinois issued a press release announcing it:  Omnivorous? Vegan? Makes no difference to muscle building after weight training, study finds.  High marks to the researchers and to the university press office.  This is one instance where you can be sure the Beef Checkoff really did stay out of the study design and interpretation.  Exceptions that prove the rule do happen. Sometimes.  I wish they happened more often.

Washington Post: As egg prices soared at the supermarket, so did producer profits: A USDA program doled out hundreds of millions in relief payments to big egg companies, even as the largest earned record profits.

On Tuesday, the nation’s largest egg producer, Mississippi-based Cal-Maine, announced quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago. It caps three years of extraordinary earnings, which have surged since the avian flu outbreak began in 2022.

By wiping out millions of laying hens, the avian flu has slowed egg production for many companies. But the outbreak also has driven up prices enough for some companies to recoup losses and, for Cal-Maine, to record exceptional profits….At the same time, Cal-Maine and other large egg companies have received tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has been doling out relief payments to help egg companies restock after the virus strikes.

USDA and HHS have announced an update on the dietary guidelines process.

A quick recap: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee released its report last year.  The agencies are responsible for writing the actual guidelines, based on that report or not.

The USDA Secretary, Brooke Rollins, writes:

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.”

Leftist ideologies?  She has to be kidding.  Since when did leftist ideologies influence the dietary guidelines?

Oh.  Wait.  Silly me.  I get it.  She means meat. 

Plant-based = leftist ideology.

You don’t believe me?  See Nina Teicholz’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal:  Meat will make America Healthy Again.

Ms. Rollins and Mr. Kennedy should reject suggestions from an expert committee that the 2025-30 federal guidelines place an even greater emphasis on plant-based proteins and that they recommend “reducing intakes of red and processed meats.” As the Agriculture Department found in 2010, there is either “no relationship” or a “limited inconsistent” relationship between any protein type and chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Protein, sure.  But meat?  Consistent evidence for years indicates that people in industrialized countries would be healthier eating less meat and more plants.  Less does not necessarily mean none; it means less than currently consumed and a lot less in some cases.

If USDA and HHS are serious about Making Americans Healthier Again, they will revise the Dietary Guidelines according to the science.  In my view, that means advising eating less of ultra-processed foods, as well as meat.

At a glance across the country: Meatpacking plants closed at an unprecedented rate this year, accelerated by a number of factors such as rising livestock costs, workforce shortages, food safety violations and foodborne illnesses, and ongoing industry consolidation.

Here are some examples: of these and others:

• Tyson closes 3 meat plants, lays off 1K workers The food giant plans to shutter its 328,000-square-foot facility in Emporia, Kansas, as well as two cheesesteak factories in Philadelphia.
• Cargill cuts 5% of global workforce after profits decline The move, which will affect approximately 8,000 jobs, comes as the world’s largest private company plans to streamline operations in the face of lower crop prices and challenges in beef.
• Deere lays off more workers at Iowa tractor plant The cuts add to the thousands of jobs eliminated this year as the equipment maker reigns in production to offset a slowdown in demand.
• Butterball to shutter Arkansas turkey plant, lay off 180 workers: The closure adds to a wave of layoffs in the agriculture industry as weaker sales continue to hurt profits across the sector.

The last couple of years have seen lots of these.  It will be interesting to see what happens this year, especially with immigration “reform” looming on the horizon.  Pretty certain: food prices will rise. A lot.