The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

• Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
• Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
• Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

• Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
• Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
• Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

• Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
• More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
• Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, beans, or nuts.

But I think it’s useful to understand that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

The post Whole milk in schools: Will it make kids healthier? appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Meat industry consolidation: a national security issue?
• More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services
• Industry-funded study of the week: Full-fat dairy and body weight

 

The final four in the [meat] consolidation game are:

• JBS – This Brazil-based food giant is the world’s largest beef processor. It owns facilities that slaughter and pack over 20,000 cattle per day in the U.S.
• Tyson Foods – Known for chicken, Tyson is also the second largest U.S. beef processor. Their five beef plants process thousands of cattle daily.
• Cargill – This agribusiness conglomerate is the third largest U.S. beef packer and also owns one of the nation’s largest feedlot operations, Cargill Cattle Feeders.
• National Beef – Majority owned by Brazilian meatpacker Marfig, National Beef operates three U.S. packing facilities that process thousands of cattle per day.

Those are the four companies that control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef market, and there is no reason to believe that any of them are satisfied with their share. American consumers are paying some of the highest, inflation-adjusted prices for steaks and hamburgers than at any time in history.

The Trump administration says it is taking this on.  In a series of announcements on X (formerly Twitter), USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says:

We must work to address this to protect our ranchers and consumers. @POTUS  and this administration are focused on promoting fairness and competition — ensuring our producers have options and a level playing field.

Not only that, she adds,

Half of these meatpacking giants, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control, making them a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.

Here’s what she says they doing about it:

We’re putting forward short- and long-term solutions through the @USDA  Beef Plan and a major DOJ investigation into anti-competitive practices ordered by @POTUS.  Food security is national security.

And what is the USDA Beef Plan?  This will enhance disaster relief, increase grazing access, and build demand.

Anti-trust regulation?

Not a chance.

The post Meat industry consolidation: a national security issue? appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Whole milk in schools: Will it make kids healthier?
• More tragedy: USDA renames, splits up, relocates SNAP services
• American tragedy redux: USDA is relocating more programs out of the DC area

 

Here’s one sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey: “Marion, a rare industry funded study with results that likely did not please the sponsors.”

The study: Effects of one avocado a day for six months on cognitive performance in overweight adults: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of nutrition, health and aging. Volume 30, Issue 6, June 2026, 100847.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnha.2026.100847.

Objective: “To determine if consuming one avocado per day for 6 months has cognitive benefits in adults with central obesity, addressing cognitive health early in the aging trajectory.”

Conclusions: “The consumption of one avocado per day without any additional lifestyle modifications for six months did not significantly alter cognitive function in adults with central obesity across all age groups. Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Funding disclosure: “This study was funded by the Hass Avocado Board in Mission Viejo, California”

Competing interests: Nine of the eleven authors report financial support from the Hass Avocado Board Avocado Nutrition Center.

Comment: I could not imagine why anyone would do this study in the first place.  It is a rare example of one that produced negative result from an industry-funded study, but note the positive spin in the conclusions: “Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Really?  Why?  I can’t think of any reason why more studies like this would be needed, except to get more funding from the Hass Avocado Board, which seems willing to spend lots on research aimed at positioning avocados as superfoods.

Note:  All fruits and vegetables have nutritional benefits.  By these criteria, all are superfoods.

The post A rare exception: an industry-funded study with negative results appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle

    

Related Posts

• Industry-funded study of the week: Full-fat dairy and body weight
• Industry-funded study of the week: The Sweet Tooth Trial
• Industry-funded study of the week: a broccoli sprouts’ supplement

 

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:

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

    

Related Posts

• Weekend reading: It’s all your fault
• Announcing: Sugar Coated (September 2026)
• Weekend Reading: The Heart-Shaped Tin

 

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

    

Related Posts

• Weekend reading: The hidden cost of cheap food
• R.I.P. Ray Goldberg, “the father of agribusiness”
• What’s happening with prices at the grocery store?

 

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.

Later addition

The Guardian on criticisms of the FDA’s conclusions:  no levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals are safe

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

    

Related Posts

• What’s happening with infant formula?
• The infant formula scandals: will they ever stop?

 

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

    

Related Posts

• USDA is closing buildings, relocating staff, and downsizing—a lot.
• Whole milk in schools: Will it make kids healthier?
• Meat industry consolidation: a national security issue?

 

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

    

Related Posts

• Industry-funded study of the week: Whole Milk and weight loss
• A rare exception: an industry-funded study with negative results
• Industry-funded study of the week: The Sweet Tooth Trial

 

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

    

Related Posts

• Official announcement: Sugar Coated
• Announcing: Sugar Coated (September 2026)
• Weekend Reading: The Heart-Shaped Tin

 

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

    

Related Posts

• Whole milk in schools: Will it make kids healthier?
• Weekend reading: more on alternative meats
• Catching up with meat alternatives