Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Official announcement: Sugar Coated

Marion — Fri, 08 May 2026 13:00:04 +0000

I just got my copy of the University of California Press catalog for Fall 2026.

The full catalog does not seem to be online yet (mine is hard copy), but the UC Press entry for Sugar Coated is here.

The publication date is September 8.

It can be pre-ordered:

As the catalog shows, this is my seventh (!) book with UC Press. I love working with them and this book was a particular pleasure, not least because of the 44 full-color, full-page illustrations of cereal boxes in whole or in part.

The post Official announcement: Sugar Coated appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Farmers get short-changed in our current food system

Marion — Thu, 07 May 2026 13:00:31 +0000

I saw this on AgWeb:

I knew this came from USDA’s Food Dollar series, which reports measurements of where the food dollar goes in the chain of production.

The USDA also illustrates the dollar in reports. The most recent, with figures from 2023, is here.

These USDA illustrations used to be easier to read, so I like the way AgWeb shows the current data.

But you get the idea: farmers don’t get much. The real money in food is in processing, retail, and service.

Note the incentive in processing.

No wonder the number of farms continues to decline.

What the Farm Bill (an apparently hopeless cause at the moment) really needs to do is to start from scratch and do two things: promote smaller scale organic and regenerative farming that will protect soil, mitigate climate change, and repopulate the Midwest, and make sure those farmers make an adequate living.

The post Farmers get short-changed in our current food system appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

FDA says infant formulas are free of toxic metals (mostly)

Marion — Wed, 06 May 2026 13:00:28 +0000

In the way this administration announces things, I saw this on X.

The FDA’s one-page summary says the agency had tested more than 300 samples of infant formulas with these results:

If there is a more detailed report, I can’t find it.

Food Safety News points out

The FDA did not say which brands it tested
The FDA has not set standards for contaminants in infant formula
It did not test for pathogens such as Cronobacter, Listeria, Salmonella, or E. coli

NOTUS points out

The FDA did not address seed oils or sugars in infant formula

The quality of infant formula is a big issue for the MAHA movement.

Its microbial safety is a bigger issue for me.

The Senate has just passed an infant formula bill to require manufacturers to test for Cronobacter and Salmonella and inform the FDA of positive results. That’s a good first step.

While all this is going on, I heard this from a reader who works with Rad Moms, a grassroots advocacy group calling on ByHeart, the company that makes infant formula recalled for potentially containing botulism bacteria, to stop running their influencer ads during the recall.

Despite 50+ babies contracting botulism, hundreds of ByHeart ads were still running for MONTHS while cans were still on the shelves (as recently as March 2026).

The bottom line: Breastfeed if you are able to. To avoid pathogens, buy pasteurized liquid formula. I don’t know what to say about the heavy metals and PFAS, except that less is better.

And here is food safety lawyer Bill Marler on what needs to be done to make infant formula safe from pathogens.

The post FDA says infant formulas are free of toxic metals (mostly) appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services

Marion — Tue, 05 May 2026 13:00:25 +0000

Last week, I wrote about what I consider to be a national tragedy: the splitting up and relocation of crucial USDA units.

The latest is USDA’s renaming, splitting up, and relocating the Food and Nutrition Service, the agency responsible for running SNAP and other food assistance programs.

USDA’s actions:

I. Rename the Food and Nutrition Service; it is now to be The Food and Nutrition Administration

Translation: Serving low-income Americans is no longer part of USDA’s mission; management is.

II. Split the FNA into multiple units.

Translation: Make sure food assistance is splintered and uncoordinated.

III. Relocate the units into widely separated areas. Child nutrition programs go to Dallas, TX; SNAP and safety go to Kansas City, MO; research goes to Raleigh, NC; emergency management goes to Denver, Co; retailer compliance goes to four cities–Atlanta, Los Angeles, Dallas, and New York.

Translation: Get rid of experts on food assistance who actually know how to make these programs work and who care about ending hunger in America, especially among women and young children.

IV. Keep the overall FNA administrator in Washington, DC.

Translation: Give the appearance of oversight, now impossible given the geographical dispersion.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted this announcement on X (formerly Twitter). Note her Trump-capitalized explanation:

We’re moving the NEW Food and Nutrition Administration out of DC and into the heartland where it belongs. Shifting staff CLOSER to those they support, makes us MORE efficient and responsive to the millions of families touched by USDA nutrition programs. Delivering faster, better service for families who need nutrition assistance and stronger support for American farmers who grow the food on their tables. We are laser focused on serving the American people with greater efficiency. And this reorganization will do just that.

Yeah, right.

My translation: USDAis systematically doing everything it can get away with to destroy SNAP, decrease participation, and make it impossibly difficult for eligible low-income Americans to enroll in food assistance.

You don’t agree? Watch what happens to SNAP enrollments.

Decreases are already happening, as shown by ProPublica’s data from Arizona.

If USDA doesn’t have staff who know how to do things, people will not be able to enroll. And that’s the whole point of the renaming, reorganization, and relocation.

Additional thoughts

Former USDA official Jerry Mande wrote in a post on X, “during Trump’s 1st term USDA spent about $18m to move FNS to Braddock Pl. USDA signed a 15 yr lease in 2020. Those $$ are being squandered.” His post also includes GAO data on the loss of experienced staff at USDA.
GAO report on the effects of moving USDA on staff expertise in the Economic Research Service.

An earlier 2022 GAO report on why relocating USDA units was not a good idea
Congressional Research Service report (2026) on authority for USDA’s reorganization

The post More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Industry-funded study of the week: Full-fat dairy and body weight

Marion — Mon, 04 May 2026 13:00:22 +0000

I spotted this one in the Journal of Nutrition, and took a guess at who must have paid for it.

The study: The Effect of Three Daily Servings of Full-Fat Dairy for 12 Weeks on Body Weight, Body Composition, Energy Metabolism, Blood Lipids, and Dietary Intake of Adults with Overweight and Obesity. J Nutr 2026 Apr;156(4):101373. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2026.101373. Epub 2026 Jan 22.

Objectives: This study aims to describe the effect of adding 3 daily servings of full-fat dairy to the diet of adults with overweight and obesity, counseled to follow Canada’s Food Guide (CFG).

Methods: participants were assigned to groups varying in energy restriction and amount of dairy.

Results: participants assigned to eating more dairy reduced weight and BMI and consumed more protein and calcium.

Conclusion: Frequent and daily consumption of full-fat dairy as part of a healthy diet is consistent with CFG [Canada’s Food Guide].

Funding: “This research was supported by Dairy Research Cluster 3 (Dairy Farmers of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership AgriScience Program, and the Mitacs Accelerate program. The supporting sources were not involved and presented no restrictions in the publication of this research.”

Conflict of interest: “The authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Comment: I’m always fascinated that authors do not think industry funding poses a conflict of interest. I think it does. Much research demonstrates that industry-funding studies tend to produce results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests. This phenomenon has its own name: “the funding effect.” Food companies are rarely interested in funding research that might risk yielding unfavorable results.

The post Industry-funded study of the week: Full-fat dairy and body weight appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Weekend reading: It’s all your fault

Marion — Fri, 01 May 2026 13:00:26 +0000

Nick Chater & George Loewenstein. It’s On You: How the Rich and Powerful have convinced us that we’re to blame for society’s deepest problems. WH Allen, 2026. 345 pages.

This book directly addresses an issue I’ve fussed about for ages: putting the blame for poor diets on individuals and ignoring the social and political forces that make eating healthfully so difficult and expensive.

As I like to put it, if you are trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment, you are fighting an entire food system on your own.

Chater and Loewenstein take on much more than diets; their book deals with such matters as pollution, climate change, health care, and inequality from the standpoint of how the issues are framed: i-frame (individual behavior is at fault) versus s-frame (the system makes healthy choices impossible).

As they put it,

Instead of making people fat and then providing them with expensive drugs to curb their appetites, clearly our first collective priority should be to tackle the root cause of obesity—and this means a radical overhaul of how the food industry is regulated, taxed, and subsidized, and reversing the trend toward energy-dense, high processed foods and drinks deliberately engineered to be as difficult to stop consuming as possible. This means forcing the food industry, through regulations or financial incentives, to create and market products that promote, rather than damage, human health. p. 76.

How can we do better?…We’ll see that the answer is not primariy about inventing new, innovative policies: For most of the problems we have discussed, there are examples of successful policies implemented in other countriesthat could provide almost off-the-shelf solutions. Social and environmental problems exist not because we can’t figure out how to solve them, but because powerful interests benefit from the status quo. So the key question is how to build support for, and to frame, those policies in ways that can attract the coalition of support required to drive change. p. 209.

We’ve seen throughout this book that rigged rules, not flawed individuals, lie at the heart of many of society’s most persisstent problems. But if this is right, a natural question arises: Why aren’t the rules reformed to work in the intersts of the many, not the few, given that in a democracy the many have, by definition, the majority of the votes? The answer, as we gave seebm us that the demoncratic process has been hacked by the powerful and wealthy. This corrupting influence of power and money on politics is an ever present threat…. p.259

We’ve argued in this book that many of our most pressing and persistent social and environmental problems remain unsolved not because we don’t collectively know how to solve them, but because powerful interests beneft from their not being solved. Indeed, the powerful typicallt do everything they can to ensure that the rules of the game are rigged in their favor….multinational food companies use their influence to expand their global markets for unhealthy ultraprocessed foods and to push back against legislative restrictions aimed at improving public health…. p. 271

This is an important argument, one that bears endless repeating—along with action to change the system.

Get money out of politics!

The post Weekend reading: It’s all your fault appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Cell-based chocolate? Oh, why not.

Marion — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 13:00:37 +0000

I am not usually a fan of techno foods, but I have to admit: this one might have possibilities.

World’s first cell-based chocolate bar developed with Mondelēz: The first-ever milk chocolate bars made with cell-cultivated cocoa butter have been produced… Read more

Here’s how this works:

Celleste Bio uses cell suspension culture technology to produce cocoa butter in the lab, generating enough chocolate‑grade ingredient from a single cocoa bean to make chocolate bars. To produce cell‑based cocoa butter, Celleste Bio takes a cocoa bean, opens it and places it in a Petri dish. Once cells begin to grow, they are extracted and fermented with water, sugar and vitamins, allowing biomass to develop. This biomass is then harvested and processed to create cocoa butter.

But if the taste and texture are good enough, this could address the problems currently faced by the chocolate industry in production, supply, human rights, labor, deforestation, and climate-change issues.

But alas, this intriguing technology is still in development. It can produce a few prototype chocolate bars but is nowhere near scaling up to commercialize.

If it works, I might have to change my mind about techno foods.

The post Cell-based chocolate? Oh, why not. appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Preempting the GRAS loophole: not a good idea

Marion — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:00:10 +0000

One of the reasons for Monday’s rally at the Supreme Court (see Monday’s post) is the food industry’s efforts to be able to continue to use whatever additives it chooses, without regulatory oversight.

A press release from the Environmental Working Group warns: ‘FRESH’ and Affordable Foods Act is rotten to the core.

This refers to a a draft bill introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) designed to preempt all state food chemical laws.

States have been passing inconvenient laws banning food dyes and chemicals. The industry want this to stop.

According to the EWG’s analysis, the bill would do things like this (and more):

Allow new food chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm to be considered “safe.”
Retroactively approve all food chemicals currently considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
Allow new chemicals to be added to food if the FDA does not respond to a GRAS notice within 90 days.
Allow new chemicals reviewed by industry-funded expert panels – including the flavor industry’s notorious “expert” panel – to be automatically GRAS and used in food immediately.

Under the “GRAS loophole,” which Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has vowed to close (this has not happened yet), chemical companies – not the FDA – decide whether a food chemical is safe. For new chemicals, companies submit a GRAS notice to the FDA, and the FDA responds with a “no questions” letter.

As an EWG analysis found, since 2000, almost all new chemicals – nearly 99% – have come onto the market through the GRAS loophole.

The system is already inadequate; this act would make it worse (here’s my contribution to this discussion from more than a decade ago).

Helena Bottemiller Evich says in Food Fix: Food industry quietly advances its preemption push in Washington

Right now, preemption is becoming even more critical for industry because MAHA groups and consumer advocates have been having a ton of success in state legislatures. In many cases, the industry is actually getting creamed outside of Washington.

She notes that the New York legislature has just required companies to publicly disclose any additivies they self-determine to be GRAS (it also bans Red 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate in the state).

This kind of action makes the food industry long for federal preemption.

Secretary Kennedy and the MAHA movement have promised to fix all this. Will they be able to?

Stay tuned.

The post Preempting the GRAS loophole: not a good idea appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

60 Minutes: RFK Jr on non-regulation of ultra-processed food

American tragedy redux: USDA is relocating more programs out of the DC area

Marion — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:00:31 +0000

It’s deja vu all over again.

During the Trump I administration, I wrote repeatedly about the tragic relocation of the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to Kansas. As I said, the Government Accountability Office confirmed my analysis.

Why tragic? I don’t have anything against Kansas, but expecting long-time residents of the Washington, DC area to uproot their families to move there seemed designed for only one purpose: to gut the ERS of its experts and to force it to stop producing sophisticated—and honest—analyses of inconvenient food issues.

In this, the move succeeded admirably. Many experts quit. Some were rehired to the DC area, but as far as I can tell, the ERS has never recovered. It continues to publish routine statistical data, but the analytic reports have stopped. This is an enormous loss to my work in particular, but also to society.

Now the USDA is doing it again, and finished the job on ERS.

Last week, the USDA issued two press releases on the relocations:

I. USDA Advances Reorganization and Restructuring of the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area to Improve Efficiency and Better Serve American Farmers

This effort refocuses REE’s structure on mission delivery—streamlining operations, strengthening leadership accountability, and positioning resources closer to the agricultural communities USDA serves. The updated structure will be guided by five core principles: strengthening leadership accountability, reducing organizational complexity, ensuring consistency across agencies where appropriate, leveraging emerging tools and technologies, and aligning clearly with USDA’s priorities.

II. USDA Announces Food Safety and Inspection Service Reorganization, Establishes National Food Safety Center in Iowa

This one says pretty much the same thing.

Let me translate what the USDA is really doing.

It is moving the hub of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to Urbandale, Iowa where it will establish a National Food Safety Center with about 200 employees relocated from Washington, DC (if they agree to move). It also is relocating employees to Fort Collins, Colorado, and to a Science Center in Georgia (ditto).

Ostensibly, this is to bring FSIS closer to its constituents to strengthen “its ability to protect public health and ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.”

In practice, the moves will gut the agency, destroy its expertise, and disable it for years to come.

That has to be the intent.

Add these to the 27,000 people who have already left USDA since Trump II, 37% of its staff. Surely, some of those people helped get the agency’s work done.

Who will be hired to replace the people who choose not to relocate? I’m guessing those who go along with the current administration’s ideological agenda.

As I said, tragedy.

The post American tragedy redux: USDA is relocating more programs out of the DC area appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Happening today: Rally against glyphosate at the Supreme Court: The People vs. Poison

Marion — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:00:48 +0000

Farm Action has joined Vani Hari (the Food Babe) and other groups in this People vs. Poison rally.

Livestream it here.

The “poison” here is glyphosate, the potentially carcinoenic weed killer manufactured by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) for use with genetically modified crops.

People vs. Poison says, “For decades they poisoned us for profit. Now the people are fighting back”.

The rally is to let the Supreme Court know that there is widespread opposition to Monsanto’s position in the case, Monsanto v. Durnell. The Court is hearing that case today. As People vs. Poison explains,

Bayer – the foreign corporation that bought Monsanto – has paid over $10 billion to cancer victims linked to their weed killer Roundup (glyphosate). And there are still tens of thousands of cases pending.

Now Bayer wants to make sure they never have to pay again.

As described in The New Lede,

Monsanto specifically is asking the Supreme Court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and not required such a warning. FIFRA preempts any state requirements for such a cancer warning, the company argues.

Hundreds of groups have filed briefs on both sides of this case.

Trump’s Department of Justice filed one in support of Monsanto/Bayer.

Farm Action says

Monsanto, owned by Bayer, has mounted an aggressive campaign to secure immunity, leveraging its outsized market power to influence policymakers. The company faces thousands of lawsuits alleging its flagship product, Roundup, causes cancer. As Farm Action has documented, threats to pull Roundup from the market are a strategic pressure tactic, not a sign of impending crisis for the food and farm system…The coalition’s brief urges the Court to reject Monsanto’s argument and preserve the right to hold companies accountable when their products cause harm.

The rally is set for 9:00 this morning. I will be interested to hear how it goes and whether the Supreme Court listens.

Commentary on what the rally is about

The post Happening today: Rally against glyphosate at the Supreme Court: The People vs. Poison appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Official announcement: Sugar Coated

Related Posts

Farmers get short-changed in our current food system

Related Posts

FDA says infant formulas are free of toxic metals (mostly)

Related Posts

More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services

Related Posts

Industry-funded study of the week: Full-fat dairy and body weight

Related Posts

Weekend reading: It’s all your fault

Related Posts

Cell-based chocolate? Oh, why not.

Related Posts

Preempting the GRAS loophole: not a good idea

Related Posts

American tragedy redux: USDA is relocating more programs out of the DC area

Related Posts

Happening today: Rally against glyphosate at the Supreme Court: The People vs. Poison

Related Posts