Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. There’s a new episode of American Dish out this week: What we still don’t know about ultra-processed foods, a conversation with award-winning health journalist Julia Belluz and renowned nutrition researcher Kevin Hall. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Around town: Next month there are two great events that I sadly can’t attend, but you should if you’re in the Washington area:
On April 13, the North American Agricultural Journalists will host their annual reception and awards ceremony at the Cosmos Club. Writer Bryan Burrough, co-author of the Wall Street classic “Barbarians at the Gate,” about the dramatic leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco, will speak at the event, which raises money for agricultural journalism scholarships at the University of Missouri. This is always a great networking event — and if you’re really lucky Jerry Hagstrom, the dean of agriculture reporting, might regale you with some Cosmos Club history. Register here.
On April 15, the Food & Environment Reporting Network will host a live-taping of Forked, the podcast I co-host with Theodore Ross, at George Washington University for the Planet Forward Summit. Ted will be in conversation with James Beard Award-winning chef and best-selling author Sean Sherman (known as The Sioux Chef) as well as Reuters reporter (and scoop machine) Leah Douglas. I’m bummed I can’t be there for this, but I’m sure it will be great! Register here.
Avoid FOMO: The best way to make sure you don’t miss a beat in the food policy world is to upgrade to a paid subscription and get Food Fix in your inbox twice per week. Almost everyone who upgrades keeps renewing year after year.
As always, I truly welcome your feedback. Send me your thoughts by replying to this email, or drop me a line: helena@foodfix.co.
Alright, let’s get to it –
Helena
***
We are one year into Operation Stork Speed. Where do things stand?
When HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Operation Stork Speed — an initiative to revamp infant formula — a year ago this week, the response was largely positive.
At that point, Kennedy hadn’t been on the job very long, and even his sharpest critics (and critics of the Trump administration writ large) acknowledged that it had been too long since the government had taken a hard look at the nutrients required in infant formula (three decades).
Between the cracks: The 2022 infant formula crisis sparked a ton of fresh congressional (and press) attention to the sector during the Biden administration, but that attention proved fleeting. In the end, Washington didn’t really change infant formula policy. The regulations remained the same. The industry remained highly consolidated — and is likely even more consolidated today.
So when the Trump administration announced “modernizing” infant formula as a priority early on, most everyone I talked to in this space was cautiously optimistic. I certainly heard concerns about whether this administration would stick to strong scientific evidence, but those concerns were quelled when the FDA convened an expert panel on the topic back in June.
Slow roll: The experts the agency convened were highly-qualified, the discussion was substantive and evidence-based and everyone seemed to agree that thoughtful updates could be made — the vibes were good. Around the same time, FDA opened up what’s known as a Request for Information seeking input from stakeholders on how to move forward. The agency received 446 comments. Since then, though, it’s been crickets. Months ago, I started to hear experts privately worry that things were not actually moving forward with any urgency. Where was the momentum? Where was the plan?
One year in, we still haven’t seen much action, and we do not have a timeline for Operation Stork Speed, either.
“It hasn’t delivered anything meaningful, unless a redesigned website is considered a significant accomplishment,” Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, told me this week.
Regulations of any kind take a long time — years. As it stands now, there’s nothing related to infant formula on FDA’s regulatory agenda (this is basically the agency’s short-term to-do list). As far as I can tell, FDA isn’t sharing much about Operation Stork Speed behind the scenes, either (not to the industry, nor consumer advocates).
I recently asked FDA Commissioner Marty Makary about infant formula, specifically about the timeline and plan going forward but didn’t get specifics.
“This is a big priority for us,” Makary told me. “The entire field has been stagnant really because of a failure of government.” The commissioner blamed archaic nutrient requirements for a lack of innovation in the industry even though our understanding of infant nutrition has advanced.
He also noted that some parents want infant formula without seed oils (this has been a particular tension point). “Can we deliver that for them?” FDA regulations currently require seed oils to be included in infant formula to mimic the fatty acid profile of breast milk (this is true in other countries, too, by the way). “Why not give parents more options? … We want to unleash more options,” he said.
Update coming soon? When I asked HHS for an update on Operation Stork Speed this week, I was referred to government websites (which I’d of course already read) and given a recycled statement:
“As the Secretary has previously said, FDA testing of infant formula is ongoing as part of Operation Stork Speed and results will be released as soon as this spring,” said Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for HHS. “As part of the MAHA Strategy, the FDA was tasked with modernizing nutrient requirements for formula, increase testing for heavy metals and other contaminants to help ensure access to high-quality and healthy infant formula sold in the United States, and encourage companies to develop new infant formulas.”
Indeed, Kennedy has said in recent months that FDA will release infant formula contaminant test results in April or May. The agency is looking at heavy metals like lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic, as well as PFAS, Kennedy has said.
Parental panic: Releasing test results is good for industry accountability and transparency, no question, but I am not sure how the agency will do this without also causing panic among parents. The U.S. doesn’t have limits set for heavy metals or PFAS in infant formula, so communicating these findings will be extra tricky. The FDA could refer to European or other international limits to give parents context. Still, I think American consumers are likely to land right back at: Why don’t we have our own limits and why aren’t they enforced?
Political context: Whatever the administration announces on infant formula this spring, you can bet there will be plenty of rah-rah around it. The MAHA faction within the administration is eager for MAHA wins as many grassroots supporters remain furious over the White House’s steadfast support for glyphosate (and by proxy German chemical giant Bayer).
Don’t forget about micro: While we’re likely to hear more about chemical contaminants in formula in the coming weeks and months, one thing that’s gotten far less attention is pathogens, even in the wake of an awful botulism outbreak linked to formula that hospitalized nearly 50 babies last year. Food safety advocates have urged more focus on microbiological safety as part of the infant formula revamp (if we actually do get one).
“I was very skeptical of Operation Stork Speed when it was announced, in part because it omitted any reference to pathogen testing,” Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America told me this week. Gremillion, though, gives credit to FDA because the agency has said it plans to test certain formula ingredients like milk powder for Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that causes botulism. Still, Gremillion remains skeptical of the overall initiative: “The Administration’s express unwillingness to regulate industry makes me wonder how effective their efforts can be.”
***
What I’m reading
RFK Jr. makes food sound like a miracle drug. Researchers say he often overstates the science (AP News). “In the Trump administration’s campaign to promote healthy eating, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has not stopped at his slogan urging people to ‘eat real food’ to prevent disease,” Ali Swenson and Jonel Aleccia write. “In recent speeches and podcast appearances, the nation’s health secretary also has claimed that diet can ‘cure’ schizophrenia and diabetes and allow people to rid themselves of bipolar disorder diagnoses. The talking point aligns with an idea from Kennedy’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ allies that has gotten some bipartisan support: The role of food in health deserves more attention. Scientists agree that diet can contribute to some diseases and also can be valuable in treating them. But public health advocates say Kennedy’s exaggerations are part of a pattern in which he cherry-picks and misrepresents scientific research, a tendency that he has regularly applied to vaccine science, enraging doctors.”
Can the keto diet really improve mental health? (New York Times). “In recent years, some limited studies have started to suggest that the keto diet may help reduce symptoms of mental illnesses like depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia,” report Alice Callahan and Christina Caron. “In February, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even claimed that it could ‘cure’ some of these conditions. Experts say that there is no evidence to support his statement and that the diet should not replace proven treatments like therapy or psychiatric medications. But some people — especially those who haven’t had much success with the medications or who have experienced severe side effects — say they are desperate for other solutions. Now, doctors and patients have started to experiment with keto for mental illness treatment.”
Republicans are squandering their MAHA moment (Bloomberg). “Roughly four in 10 parents (38%) identify as supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement, according to a KFF/Washington Post poll. I think this underestimates the movement’s political reach. For example, I wouldn’t put myself under the MAHA label, but I have my moments,” writes Abby McCloskey. “According to KFF, six in 10 Republican parents (62%) identify as MAHA, compared to about one in six (17%) Democratic parents and one in three independent parents (34%). This suggests the potential for a very big movement, and one firmly nested within the GOP, which historically has not had the advantage on health-related issues relative to Democrats. [Kennedy] deserves some credit for identifying and cultivating this group of voters and for bringing more of them into the GOP fold. The question is: How much will Republicans work to retain them? Thus far, the answer seems to be ‘not much.’”
Kill animals faster to cut food costs, Trump administration says (USA Today). “Federal limits on how fast slaughterhouses are allowed to kill chickens, turkeys and pigs could soon be raised under new proposals by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” report Jeanine Santucci and N’dea Yancey-Bragg. “It’s a plan the Trump administration says will reduce rising grocery costs but critics say compromises on safety. The proposals lay out a higher cap on the number of animals per minute or hour allowed to be killed at facilities in the United States and estimate the dollar amount that could be saved per pound of meat produced. But increasing line speeds could lead to less safe food and less safe conditions for workers, said Jerold Mande, former deputy undersecretary for food safety at the USDA. Mande told USA TODAY it’s unlikely the changes will lead to lower costs at the supermarket, and predicted that if anything, food production companies will pocket savings themselves.”
What happened when a MAHA activist and a Yale scientist worked together (New York Times). “Three years ago, a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic chemicals derailed and caught fire in East Palestine, Ohio,” write Brinda Adhikari and Tom W. Johnson, hosts of the podcast Why Should I Trust You? “In February, a new federally funded research initiative started looking into the health effects of the disaster. The wide-ranging suspicions being voiced in East Palestine mirror what we hear as hosts of a podcast that explores the breakdown in Americans’ trust in public health, medicine, science and one another. Alongside a doctor and virologist, we convene discussions among public health veterans, scientists and populist critics of traditional health institutions. Very often, these critics are supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement. Yet even in our polarized time, we are seeing increasing collaboration between MAHA and veterans of public health, especially on issues of nutrition and toxic exposures. Some of the scientists and doctors we talk to acknowledge that the anti-establishment forces fueling MAHA are not going away. They see value in understanding the movement’s origins and harnessing some of its energy, despite profound differences.”
Synthetic chemicals are widespread in marine ecosystems, study finds (ABC News). “Scientists have detected a substantial amount of synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, in the ocean, according to new research,” reports Julia Jacobo. “The distribution of human-made chemicals in the ocean is widespread but especially abundant in coastal areas, a paper published Monday in Nature Geoscience found. Researchers studying carbon cycling in the ocean were consistently observing datasets that identified the presence of manmade chemicals in Earth’s oceans, which sparked the initial interest in the study, Daniel Petras, a biochemist at the University of California, Riverside, and lead author of the paper, told ABC News. The findings made clear that synthetic chemicals produced for agricultural, industrial and medical applications are ending up in the ocean, according to researchers. Pesticides and pharmaceuticals were not the most common chemicals found but rather compounds from everyday products such as hygiene products.”
USDA proposes delaying poultry industry rule (Civil Eats). “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) yesterday proposed delaying a set of regulations that were set to change how chicken companies pay contract farmers and how they communicate with farmers around required infrastructure investments,” reports Lisa Held. “The rule was the third in a series finalized under former President Joe Biden to enforce the more than 100-year-old Packers and Stockyards Act, a law intended to ensure farmers are protected from potential meatpacker abuses. The new rule prohibits companies from reducing pay to farmers based on rankings that compare them to others—a practice that has been common within the industry’s ‘tournament system.’ It also requires companies to provide more-detailed paperwork about capital investments that farmers are required to make. In the past, many farmers have struggled with expensive, unexpected barn upgrades that companies require. The rule was set to go into effect in July.”
***
Why you should upgrade to a paid Food Fix subscription
Become a paid subscriber to unlock access to two newsletters each week, packed with insight, analysis and exclusive reporting on what’s happening in food, in Washington and beyond. You’ll also get full access to the Food Fix archive — a great way to get smart on all things food policy.
Expense it: Most paid subscribers expense their subscriptions through work. It’s worth asking!
Discounts: We also offer discounts for government, academia and students. See our subscription options. Individuals who participate in SNAP or other federal nutrition programs qualify for a free Food Fix subscription — just email info@foodfix.co.
Get the Friday newsletter: If someone forwarded you this email, sign yourself up for the free Friday edition of Food Fix. You can also follow Food Fix on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn.
See you next week!
