The full list is here.

Nestlé (no relation) is the clear winner.

Among the top 10, only Danone and Tyson report lower sales in 2026 than in 2025. I can only speculate about the reasons, but am guessing problems in the beef supply and reduced consumer demand as factors for Tyson, and maybe the infant formula recalls affected Danone?

It’s interesting that only four of these brands are in the U.S.  Actually, only three U.S. companies are involved since both Lay’s and Doritos are owned by PepsiCo.  Two companies are Swiss and two are Chinese.

Of special interest: Both Yili and Mengniu sell dairy products: milk, yogurt, ice cream, and cheese.  But almost all Chinese people have problems digesting lactose.

When I was in Beijing in 2019, I was told that the Chinese government wants its people to consume these foods in the belief that dairy products promote growth in children’s height.

If this list just looked at the U.S., Walmart would head the list.

The post What are the top food brands? appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Big Food vs. The People: lawsuits against public health measures
• Our current investment system does not work for food companies or us
• A national scandal: millions of U.S. workers rely on Medicaid and SNAP

 

To quote the late Gloria Steinem, this is what 90 looks like.

Photo taken at Autumn Leaves Books, Ithaca, July 2026

As should be obvious, I have had a hugely fortunate life.

I was born into a poor family but came of age during the now-understood-to-be-unique period between the end of World War II and the election of Ronald Reagan.  Then, a university education was essentially free; I paid $32 per semester in fees to the University of California Berkeley.  Housing was affordable; the first house I bought cost $14,500.  Anyone with a modest academic salary could expect to lead a solid middle-class life.  And for women, doors were beginning to open.

I was in graduate school in the early 1960s, a time when we thought we were changing the world.  We were going to end the war in Vietnam, end poverty, obtain civil rights, get equity for women, protect the environment, end injustice, curb corporate power.  We could see these changes happening.  The future was going to be better, and for everyone.

That was my normal.  I had no idea how unusual that 30-year period would turn out to be, or how powerful the backlash against it.

I was lucky enough to find work—teaching, writing, speaking—that I found deeply engrossing, stimulating, and rewarding.  I still do.

As for my ability to continue to do these things?  Good nutrition, of course,  And even more luck.

My book, Food Politics, turns 25 next year and I recently submitted a new Preface and Afterword for its 25th anniversary edition (forthcoming, February 2027).

Here is how I ended the Afterword:

I am often asked how I remain hopeful in the light of the food industry’s power to control and corrupt government. My answer: the food movement. I see its effects everywhere. Healthier foods are more widely available than when Food Politics first appeared. Increasing numbers of people, old and young, care about food issues and want to improve the food system. Every place I travel, I see more schools serving healthier and better-tasting meals, more farmers’ markets, more young people wanting to farm, more concern about humane farm animal production, more backyard chickens and urban gardens, and more attention to local, seasonal, and sustainable food. Most gratifying, more people understand the politics. A quarter century ago, I could not use the word “capitalism” in class or lectures without turning off the room. Now when I talk about food system problems, someone invariably challenges me: “but aren’t you talking about capitalism?” Yes, I am, and late-stage capitalism at that.

When my NYU department started food studies programs in 1996, we were virtually alone.[i] Today, colleges and universities host food programs and courses in practically every department and unit, all teaching students how to think critically about—and engage in—the country’s most pressing economic, political, social, and health problems. Food issues are a lens into those problems. They are high on the agendas of local, state, national, and international governments. The media cover agriculture, food, and nutrition extensively and, as a reporter once told me, command so much national attention that food issues constitute a Full Employment Act.

I especially see hope at the grassroots level. Many communities are engaged in efforts to improve school meals, reduce childhood obesity, align agricultural production with health goals, and make healthier food more available and affordable for all. Advocates are increasingly learning and following well-established strategies for achieving social change. To the extent they do, they have a good chance at success.[ii]

Today’s challenge is to take advocacy to the national level. If I could wave a magic wand, here is what I would do to make healthy food choices more available, accessible, affordable, and desirable—the default—and not only in the United States.

• Conduct ongoing national education campaigns to promote healthful choices.
• Refocus agricultural production subsidies on food for people rather than feed for livestock animals and ethanol and diesel fuel for cars and airplanes.
• Increase taxes on unhealthful foods and support lower prices for healthful foods.
• Restrict marketing of unhealthful foods and promote marketing of healthful foods.
• Enact a universal basic income program so everyone can afford to eat healthfully.
• Enact a universal school meals program—with adequate funding—so all children have access to healthful breakfasts and lunches.
• Overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics.
• Reform Wall Street to require corporations to provide benefits to their workers, communities, and society as well as to stockholders.

These ideas may sound like pie in the sky, but I deeply believe that setting goals—even those that seem highly unattainable—is a useful public health strategy. Unrealistic goals can educate, expand expectations, promote critical thinking, motivate action, attract resources, and encourage accountability. Sometimes, with skill and luck, they can even be achieved.[iii] Efforts to create better and more equitable food systems are prime expressions of democracy in action—of the people, by the people, for the people. They are well worth engagement, advocacy, and activism, and deserve everyone’s support.

Notes

[i] Bentley A, Parasecoli F, Ray K, eds. Practicing Food Studies. New York: NYU Press, 2024.

[ii] Bobo KA, Max S, Bobo K, et al. Organizing for Social Change: Midwest Academy Manual for Activists. New York: Seven Locks Press, 2001.

[iii] Eyal N, Sjöstrand M. On knowingly setting unrealistic goals in public health. Am J Public Health 2020;110(4):480–484. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305428.

The post Reflections on my 90th birthday—and food politics appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Sugar-Coated: published today!
• Weekend Reading: Teaching Food Studies
• Weekend reading: a deep dive into prison food

 

The report

• Reviews the history of food processing
• Defines ultra-processed foods
• Reviews their health risks
• Explain how they affect health
• Describes the food system that produces them
• Explains how to identify them and make better choices

The report is beautifully illustrated, especially with examples of the marketing of ultra-processed foods and drinks to children.

The illustrations also illustrate the major concepts, ingredient extraction, in this case.

As for how to tell the difference between a processed and an ultra-processed food, try this:

The report is written clearly and covers the territory.  If you want to understand ultra-processed foods, here’s the best way to do it that I’ve seen.  High marks to the authors, Yuka’s Julie Chapon, CEO and Co-Founder Gabriela Mourad Vicenssuto.

The post Yuka’s report on ultra-processed foods: Don’t miss it. appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Annals of food marketing: weird, wonderful, and profitable
• Ultra-processed foods are not increasing sales as much as unprocessed foods
• American Journal of Public Health series on Ultraprocessed Foods: My Editorial

 

My co-author, Lisa Sutherland, is a former vice president of Kellogg.  We had a great time writing this.

Information about the book is here.

For a 30% discount at that site, use code UCPSAVE30.

Here’s the official launch invitation

Please come to the celebration and launch for my new book, Tuesday, September 8 | 6:00–8:00 p.m. | NYU Bobst Library.  Registration and further information are here.

The post Sugar-Coated: published today! appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Sugar Coated: Now Available for Pre-Order (at a discount!)
• Official announcement: Sugar Coated
• Reflections on my 90th birthday—and food politics

 

On this Labor Day, let’s honor the people who do the hard agricultural work that brings food to our tables.

Image from Vecteezy.

The post Labor Day: a food politics reminder appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Concentration in agriculture: a big problem getting bigger
• Farmers get short-changed in our current food system

 

Gloria Steinem, Padma Lakshmi, Ruth Reichl, and me in 2021.

This was a meeting at Gloria’s house to discuss menopause, of all things.  I could not figure out why I was invited—I’m a little late for that discussion.  It turned out that one of the women there, a donor to Gloria’s foundation apparently,  had developed a line of menopause products and wanted us to know about them.

Whatever.  I was thrilled to be there and have the chance to meet her.

We are the same generation.  We came of age at a time when women opportunities for women to work, let alone have careers, were limited.

We did cross paths.  We were at the same youth festival in Vienna in 1959.  She was funded by the CIA; I was not.  We did not meet.

But I knew about her work from early on.  I loved her account of posing as a Playboy bunny.  I could see how MS magazine provided an intellectual basis for the women’s movement.

It even provoked new thoughts about the food movement.  My all-time favorite article (I am mentioned in it) is The Feminist Food Revolution.  It asked a question I had never thought of: Why do men keep getting all the credit for the food movement?

She was a tireless advocate for better opportunities for women, and an inspiration to keep on advocating.

I wish I had known her better.

Here’s The New York Times obituary.  It’s on the top of the front page of the print copy, as well it should.

The post RIP Gloria Steinem, 1934-2026 appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• RIP Wendell Berry, 1934 – 2026
• RIP Carlo Petrini: a huge loss to the food world and to humanity

 

So here is Washington Post writer, Tamar Haspel, asking Why we should stop eating lettuce, cyclospora or not.  

“Lettuce,” she says, “makes us sick, wastes resources and has minimal nutritional value. Why are we still consuming it?”

Her arguments:

• Waste: “The Agriculture Department estimates that we waste as much lettuce as we eat. Roughly, we eat 3 billion pounds and we toss 3 billion pounds every year.
• Low nutrient value: Lettuce is mainly water. You have to eat a lot of lettuce to get nutritional value.
• Carbon emissions: “CarbonCloud estimates that lettuce’s carbon cost is 0.56 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of lettuce, a number that’s right in line with Our World in Data’s estimate of the “other vegetables” category. That means our 6 billion pounds of lettuce generate 3 billion pounds of carbon dioxide. That’s 2.7 million metric tons, more than half a million cars’ worth.”
• Land use: “The U.S. generates all that carbon dioxide by growing lettuce on 375,000 acres. (We also import lettuce.) That’s an area bigger than Cape Cod….”
• Cost/Benefit: “So, on one side of the ledger we have 1.7 million annual cases of food poisoning, $3.7 billion and 3 billion pounds of rotting lettuce. On the other we have, basically, an excuse to kid yourself into eating blue cheese dressing….”

Well, the Cyclospora outbreak has caused lots of people to follow this advice.  As food safety lawyer Bill Marler writes: Six and a Half Million Households Quit Buying Salad in a Single Month. Eighty-Two Percent Say They Will Come Back When This Is Contained. The Industry Cannot Message Its Way to Contained.

More than 6.5 million American households stopped buying salad mixes and kits in the month ending July 26, against the month before. Eighty-seven percent of produce shoppers know about the Cyclospora outbreak. More than a quarter of households say they have quit salads and fresh greens entirely and another one in ten has cut back, which Numerator puts at roughly $280 million in consumer produce spending at risk for every month this continues…Salad trips at quick-service restaurants fell more than 16 percent.

He also points to the irony: We are not substituting other vegetables for lettuce; we are eating fewer vegetables overall—at the same time the government is urging us to Eat Real Food.

As he puts it today, Shoppers Are Walking Past the Produce Aisle. Telling Them We Have the Safest Food Supply in the World Will Not Bring Them Back (check out the New Yorker cartoon, if nothing else).

Comment

So I’m not opposed to eating lettuce.  Haspel’s arguments can be made for any vegetable.  I like it in salads and sandwiches and just about anything else.  I grow it, buy it at farmers markets, and buy whole heads at grocery stores.  I just avoid bagged salads.

Here’s what I think are the real issues raised by the Cyclospora outbreak.  We need:

• Better oversight and enforcement of existing food safety rules
• Pending food safety rules (traceability!) to be implemented, despite industry lobbying.
• Vegetable growers to insist on better standards (an outbreak like this hurts all vegetable growers, not just those growing lettuce in Mexico)
• Consumers to insist on our right to safe food
• Food safety to be taken seriously—by government, industry, and eaters.

Food safety is a major, major issue in food politics.

The post Should we be eating lettuce? appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• The root cause of the massive Cyclospora outbreak: industry consolidation
• FDA’s new rules on produce safety
• Update on the Cyclospora outbreak: What to do?

 

His very existence was enough for hope that a decent food system might some day be possible in the United States.

When I think of his writings—his many books, essays, and poems—the words “decency” and “values” leap to mind.

He believed so deeply in the inherent worth of agrarian life—the idea that small-scale, sustainable, organic, regenerative agriculture, plant and animal, is the bedrock of a healthy, moral, and ethical life.  He lived that life.

He also believed that agrarian values are fundamental to healthy, moral, and ethical societies. 

Ethics.  Imagine that.

I was honored to meet him for the first time at his home in Port Royal, Kentucky in 2007.  I have had this photo on the wall of my NYU office ever since.

He was a constant source of inspiration.

What a loss.

I’ve collected a few memorial items recently posted.

• The obituary in the New York Times
• Berry’s 1981 Schumacher lecture: “People, Land, and Community.”
• His Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front.  It ends:

The post RIP Wendell Berry, 1934 – 2026 appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• RIP Gloria Steinem, 1934-2026
• RIP Carlo Petrini: a huge loss to the food world and to humanity

 

MAHA has announced a big win.

A study of purchase data from states with SNAP food restriction waivers, “Short-Run Impacts of SNAP Restriction Waivers on Beverage Purchases,” finds a 13% decrease in soda purchases within the first two months, with even larger decreases in the poorest households (18.5%).  Yes, 13%, not 12% as the MAHA win poster says.

The study: Frisvold DE, Rojas FL.  Short-run impacts of SNAP restriction waivers on beverage purchases.  National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2026.  doi: 10.3386/w35613.

Background: Just published USDA data from 2023 show households participating in SNAP to consume more sugar-sweetened beverages than non-participating households.  A USDA study in 2016 showed similar results.

Attempts to restrict sodas on SNAP have been rejected by the USDA for years, but under the Trump administration, it has approved SNAP food restriction waivers for 23 states.  At the moment, 8 states have banned sugary drinks, 10 are in the process of implementing bans, and the policy in 5 states is under litigation.

Some economists have argued that SNAP participants would just use their own money to buy sugary drinks.  This study found that they did not.

According to the New York Times,

Fetch, a rewards app, found similar results in its data. Fetch users upload grocery and other receipts to receive coupons, allowing the company to track payment methods, including SNAP. In the company’s sample, SNAP households spent about 12 percent less on soda in the first three months of 2026 compared with the same period the year before. Water, coffee and juice purchases did not decline.

But some analysts say SNAP Food Restrictions May Help or Hurt—But We Will Probably Never Know.  They are particularly concerned about the lack of appropriate data sources for evaluation of the policy, and the potentially negative impacts of the policies—especially a decline in SNAP participation.

The Trump administration’s tightened rules for SNAP eligibility has already resulted in 5.6 million fewer enrollees compared with last year.

Declines in enrollment can be tracked here and here.

Comment

I’ve long supported restrictions on sugary beverages on SNAP, something intended from the time the program first started by blocked by the soda industry and retailers (the principal beneficiaries of SNAP).  But I wanted USDA waivers to come with rigorous evaluations plans that included not only purchase data, but also how participants felt about the bans and dealt with them.

The current waivers appear to me to be punitive, in line with the Trump administration’s other efforts to reduce SNAP enrollment—something it is achieving quite well.

So here’s another MAHA win: a big decline in SNAP enrollment.  They aren’t boasting about that one though, at least not publicly.

The post SNAP waivers are associated with short-term decreases in soda purchases appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• A national scandal: millions of U.S. workers rely on Medicaid and SNAP
• Closing the GRAS loophole? It’s about time, but is that all?
• MAHA’s one achievement so far: voluntary elimination of artificial food colors

 

Bingo.

This is a classic example of an industry-funded study producing the desired result.

• The study: LeBeau K, Segovia-Siapco G, Heskey C …  The Effect of Including 1 Avocado Daily in a Habitual Diet on the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load in Free-Living Adults with Overweight/Obesity. Current Developments in Nutrition, 2026; 10
• Methods: This secondary analysis used data from the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial, a multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm study involving 1008 adults with elevated waist circumference. Participants were randomly assigned to either an avocado-supplemented group, instructed to consume 1 large avocado daily with their usual diet, or a control group who maintained their habitual diet and avoided avocados.
• Results: Among 961 participants with complete data (73% females, mean age 50.5 y), the avocado-supplemented group showed a reduction in dietary GL by 13.7 points (95% confidence interval: 17.0, 10.4; P < 0.001) compared with the control. Food groups contributed similar amounts to the overall GL, except for avocado.
• Conclusions: Daily consumption of 1 avocado within the habitual diet significantly reduced GL by almost 14 points, without requiring significant dietary changes. This suggests that incorporating a single nutrient-dense food like avocado can effectively improve the GL simply and sustainably.
• Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Funding: The study was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which had no role in data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or writing the manuscript.

Comment

This also is a classic demonstration of failure to recognize conflicted interests when they exist.  Funding research automatically generates conflicted interests, whether the authors recognize it or not, as these authors do not.  The Hass Board does not have to be involved in data collection, interpretation, or writing.  The mere fact of its funding the study trial establishes its vested interest in the outcome.

The post Industry-funded study of the week: avocados again appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Industry-funded study of the week: dog food
• Industry-funded study of the week: Ashwagandha supplements
• Industry-funded study of the week: plant v. animal proteins