👏
06.03.2026 23:39
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
👏
Some better resources than my rantings are www.bbc.co.uk/food/article... and www.theguardian.com/society/2023...
Who killed the pedestrian? Was it someone who held her up at gunpoint after the car happened to crash?
Great piece by @naomioreskes.bsky.social. I've personally had more success with philanthropic funding than gov grants, but I work in an (unnecessarily) controversial area of researching food and climate. When public funding dwindles, we all lose. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
This is great news! I can't wait to explore the data once it's available.
When they don't realize the picture on the right actually has a greater carbon opportunity cost 😪💔
"While eating too many highly processed sugary and fatty foods is bad for you, research has also shown that many ultraprocessed foods, such as yogurt, whole-grain bread or...plant-based burgers, are not linked to worse health outcomes and may even be beneficial." www.nytimes.com/2026/02/08/o...
Great going @jandutkiewicz.bsky.social "the bagel’s cream cheese, made velvety with carob bean gum and shelf-stable & mold-free with potassium sorbate, is ultraprocessed. But the idea that ultraprocessed foods are categorically unhealthy is an oversimplification." www.nytimes.com/2026/02/08/o...
Nice to see some higher-profile coverage of what entomologists have been saying for years: if you're keeping honeybees, esp without sufficient plantings, you're outcompeting native bees, who are the pollinators that really need saving. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
Grateful you're sharing and spreading awareness! Much luck and strength to you as you continue the fight.
Ben Bikman is another one of the "Scientific Review Authors", the ad hoc committee behind our new Dietary Guidelines. Here's a video of him lying about vegetarians having smaller brains www.tiktok.com/@dr_idz/vide...
I have many thoughts on this paper but for starters, these proponents of the UPF concept have a lot of nerve basically arguing "it is the empirical evidence that's wrong for contradicting our theory," as though they have some long-accepted theory about the world like gravity or natural selection
The ultraprocessed food conversation has well and truly jumped the shark. Now its proponents are opposing fortification, urging us to ignore the nutritional properties of foods, & conflating the extent and purpose of processing. Put this schema out of its misery already.
www.bmj.com/content/392/...
Sadly, the authors call out plant-based meats in the first sentence of the paper. H/T to @mbolotnikova.bsky.social for showing me this, and the bad takes on it from Michael Pollan + the NOVA creator. 5/
Don't fall for it. Nutrients ofc won't tell you the relative healthiness of food groups; that's a strawman now. Neither will pet theories (hypotheses) or trendy labels like NOVA. We need *human health outcomes* and their well-established risk factors from actual experiments. 4/
But that is not what this paper is about. They're discarding entire domains of nutrition research. But it's fine to throw the baby out with the bathwater if the bubble bath was ultraprocessed. 3/
The authors say that nutrional science is overly concerned with nutrients. True, that may be the case, and we are indeed finding that the whole foods that those nutrients are wrapped up in actually substantively matter for outcomes. 2/
This paper, brought to you by the nutrition team who created the NOVA system & "ultraprocessed" foods, argues "don't worry about nutrients, bc even the idea of healthy processing food contradicts our narrative; any evidence that says otherwise is wrong". 1/ www.bmj.com/content/392/...
The "Clean Food Facts" campaign of the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is funded by the meat industry, is an #astroturfing effort targeting #plantbased meat alternatives thru manipulative strategies: the illusion of credibility, emotional #manipulation and… (1/2) doi.org/10.1108/978-...
Crucially, high income repeatedly offer consistent dietary guidance whether or not they quantitatively weigh GHGs & other enviro impacts. Here is Canada, which doesn't, next to Germany, which does. Little red meat, some low fat dairy, lots of plants, incl. plant protein sources, & water 4/
Based on direct health impacts alone, not environment, the DGAC reviewed all evidence & still found that red meat and animal fats should be reduced, and replaced with plant proteins. Read in Part E, Chapter 1 here 3/ www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2025-advisor...
I think it's at least legitimate to debate whether & to what extent climate & other environmental impacts should be factored. I personally think they warrant consideration. But since 2016, they has been excluded from the US Dietary Guidelines' remit 2/ hub.jhu.edu/2016/03/11/d...
The DGAC, the official, legitimate science behind Dietary Guidelines, which RFK rejected, came to an unambiguous conclusion:
"The systematic review findings emphasize the health benefits of increasing beans, peas, & lentils while reducing red & processed meats" 1/ www.nytimes.com/2026/01/10/o...
Proud to announce that I'll be the Inaugural Coordinator of NYU's new Food Impact Program! foodimpact.org/about/ Please register and come to our launch even on February 6, online or in-person at NYU foodimpact.org/fip-launch-e...
"To the extent the guidelines ... represent an agenda, it is not simply to facilitate a particular outcome favored by meat corporations but also to invert good governance liberalism."
@gnrosenberg.bsky.social & I on the new food pyramid for @newrepublic.com.
newrepublic.com/article/2051...
Ugh you’re so right 😩
The point I wish I'd made clearer in our coverage: It's not that the new guidelines happen get some stuff right & some stuff wrong, but rather they fundamentally lack methodological rigor, don't pre-register their questions or criteria for answering them, & therefore, as Matt says, cherry-pick 1/
This is a good take!
RFK retweeted a clip of it. They're proud.
So the new scientific committee rejected DGAC because they were compromised, political, unscientific. But they incorporated findings from DGAC when they were deemed trustworthy, with the methodological approach for rejection or acceptance remaining unclear. This is cherry-picking. 8/