Latest news with #andHumanServices
Time Magazine
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time Magazine
Trump Says He Convinced Coca-Cola to Use Cane Sugar
President Donald Trump has long been a fan of Diet Coke, the zero-calorie beverage that is artificially sweetened with aspartame. During his first term, the President reportedly guzzled 12 Diet Cokes a day, and he has a dedicated button in the Oval Office to call for the soda. Now, he wants Coca-Cola to use cane sugar. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday afternoon. 'This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' Trump's announcement did not offer further details, though his Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pledged to crack down on ultra-processed foods that include sugary beverages and sweeteners as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Coca-Cola has used corn syrup to sweeten most of its U.S. products since 1980 to reduce production costs against rising sugar prices. The syrup is also more shelf stable than regular sugar. The Coca-Cola Company neither confirmed nor denied Trump's announcement but said in a statement that it appreciates 'President Trump's enthusiasm' for the brand and that more details on 'new innovative offerings' will be shared soon. TIME has reached out for comment. Here's what to know about Coca-Cola's product line, cane sugar, and what it could mean for prices. What sweeteners does Coca-Cola use? The company's original U.S. line of Coca-Cola (and its flavored versions) use corn syrup but Diet Coke and Coke Zero (and their flavored versions) use aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. But Coca-Cola already has several offerings that use cane sugar, including Mexican Coke, or MexiCoke, which has developed a cult following. Coca-Cola began importing MexiCoke from Mexico in 2005—before that unauthorized independent dealers had brought it in across the border to sell. The company also makes a yellow-capped Kosher-for-Passover Coke and a 'local tastes' line, which includes a Georgia peach flavor and a California raspberry flavor, that use cane sugar. Coca-Cola has versions of its product in different countries that use more or less cane sugar and artificial sweeteners based on price and availability. Is cane sugar healthier for you? Kennedy has blamed high fructose corn syrup for the country's obesity epidemic, describing it as 'just a formula for making you obese and diabetic.' 'American kids did not suddenly get gluttonous and lazy,' he said during his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 30. 'Something is poisoning them.' Kennedy has proposed barring people from using food stamps to purchase soda and candy under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). He also plans to release new dietary guidelines before August that will encourage Americans to 'eat whole food; eat the food that's good for you.' High fructose corn syrup has documented links to health issues, including obesity, but it isn't necessarily worse for you than sugar, according to a study published in food science journal Frontiers in Nutrition. 'Sugar is just sugar,' Lisa Sasson, a clinical professor at New York University's Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, told TIME in 2014, when PepsiCo unveiled a 'Made With Real Sugar' version in the U.S. While many of Kennedy's moves have been controversial, including his anti-vaccine stance, his views on high fructose corn syrup and ultra-processed foods are shared by some scientists and physicians. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already fallen steadily in the last two decades, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Even so, North America accounts for around 40% of the global market, which stands at almost $10 billion. Could Coke become more expensive? Swapping corn syrup for cane sugar would likely increase costs. One estimate in January by Investopedia using aggregated research suggests that switching from high fructose corn syrup to other sweeteners could cause the cost of certain products to increase by 10 to 15%. Moreover, Trump's tariffs on the rest of the world, including a threatened 30% tariff on Mexico and 50% one on Brazil, might contribute further to higher prices, as both export cane and beet sugars to the U.S. Higher production costs could be passed on to consumers, and products like MexiCoke that already use cane sugar are typically more expensive. 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit,' said Corn Refiners Association President John Bode in a statement following Trump's announcement.
IOL News
15 hours ago
- Business
- IOL News
Trump wants his Coca-Cola made in Mexico
Coca Cola in Mexico is made with cane sugar rather than corn starch. Now trump wants in available in the US too Image: Supplied Emily Heil Mexican Coke, which is made with real sugar, unlike the US version sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, has many fans - and American soda drinkers might soon have more options for getting their sweet cola fix. President Donald Trump on Wednesday wrote on Truth Social that he had been in touch with Coca-Cola executives, who he wrote had agreed to produce the nation's top-selling soft drink domestically using cane sugar, as it is done south of the border. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' Trump wrote. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola.' He put in a personal plug for the product, even though the president famously drinks Diet Coke, which is made with the sugar substitute aspartame. 'This will be a very good move by them - You'll see,' he wrote. 'It's just better!' Coca-Cola did not confirm any details, but the company suggested in a statement Wednesday that any changes were still in the pipeline. 'We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca-Cola brand,' the company said. 'More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range will be shared soon.' The move bore classic Trump earmarks: leaning on a private company to bend to his will, and announcing changes with more hype than details. It follows the tack taken by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has championed a 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda that includes pushing food companies to remove artificial dyes and other additives from their products. A report by the 'MAHA Commission' in May pointed out high-fructose corn syrup as a factor in obesity and related diseases. Scientists have said there is minimal nutritional difference between sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Coca-Cola introduced high-fructose corn syrup into its signature cola in the mid-1980s, spurred by low prices for U.S. corn that were bolstered by federal subsidies to corn farmers. Trump's announcement proved immediately unpopular with the makers of corn syrup, who suggested that importing cane sugar would be more expensive than utilizing a domestic product - and run counter to Trump's stated agenda of boosting American products and manufacturers. 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn't make sense,' Corn Refiners Association President and CEO John Bode said in a statement on Wednesday night. 'President Trump stands for American manufacturing jobs, American farmers, and reducing the trade deficit. Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit.' Soda aficionados have long sought out Coke made in Mexico, which its devotees say tastes crisper and less saccharine than its American counterpart.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
The White House praised In-N-Out for switching to beef tallow. It hasn't
The White House touted in a Monday press release examples of prominent food companies that had made changes aligned with President Donald Trump's promises to 'Make America Healthy Again' — including California's In-N-Out Burger, which, the announcement claimed, had switched to only using beef tallow. But in fact, the burger chain continues to use sunflower oil to cook its French fries, the company's customer service line confirmed. The White House press release linked to a viral April 1 X post appearing to announce the company was 'transitioning to 100% pure beef tallow.' The post was from a In-N-Out fan account that quickly clarified it was an April Fool's joke. 'Just delete it bruh,' responded political commentator Dominic Michael Tripi. 'Everyone thinks it's real.' In-N-Out did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the confusion. The burger chain did announce last month that it would remove artificial dyes from two of its drinks and change to a ketchup made with real sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup. In-N-Out president Lynsi Snyder said in a May 15 Facebook post that the company is 'researching an even better-quality oil for our fries' but did not mention beef tallow. Cardiologists believe that vegetable oils are healthier than animal fats, citing decades of research. Still, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed tallow over seed oils, and some Bay Area restaurants have made the switch. Critics claim without medical evidence that seed oils like canola, soybean and sunflower oil cause inflammation and worsen health problems such as obesity and heart disease. Steak 'n Shake, a burger chain in the Midwest, has announced it's moving away from seed oils, and is now cooking fries, onion rings and chicken tenders in beef tallow. In-N-Out operates more than 400 locations in California and beyond. A privately held company, its family-owners have drawn criticism from some customers in liberal-leaning California for their donations to Republicans. And on social media, some customers have indeed pressed In-N-Out to move to beef tallow. But as of now, In-N-Out's website confirms its fries are cooked in 100% sunflower oil.
NBC News
18-06-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Kennedy's picks for vaccine advisory panel raise concerns about anti-vaccine bias
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s unprecedented shake-up of a key federal vaccine advisory panel ushered in appointees who have expressed skepticism about the value and safety of vaccines — raising concerns about the group's objectivity. The eight new members Kennedy appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about who should get certain vaccines, include three people who have testified as expert witnesses against vaccine makers, NBC News found in a review of the members' professional backgrounds. One of the new members has published articles questioning the safety of Covid vaccines and received thousands of dollars from a libertarian think tank that opposed pandemic-era restrictions. A few have promoted misinformation about vaccines and public health. The group's first meeting, scheduled for June 25-27, is set to include votes on recommendations for Covid, HPV, influenza, meningococcal and RSV vaccines. Kennedy billed his firing of the entire 17-member panel as a way to restore public trust in vaccines and eliminate conflicts of interest, but three health policy experts said his new slate brings fewer qualifications and more anti-vaccine views compared with the previous one. 'This is an attempt to replace one of the most powerful and important vaccine advisory groups in perhaps the world with folks who are anti-vaccine,' said Matt Motta, an assistant professor of health law and policy at Boston University's School of Public Health. Motta said he is concerned that the group, as it stands, would choose not to recommend future lifesaving mRNA vaccines even if the data supported it. Most of the members, he said, 'are folks who may have scientific credentials, but they are at the fringes of their field.' As founder of the country's largest anti-vaccine nonprofit group, Children's Health Defense, Kennedy's skeptical views about vaccines are well-documented. As health and human services secretary, he has downplayed the importance of the measles vaccine amid a major outbreak, instead touting unproven treatments like cod liver oil and an inhaled steroid. Under his leadership, the CDC also stopped recommending Covid vaccines for healthy children, and the Food and Drug Administration has said it will limit the approval of updated Covid shots to older adults and younger people with underlying medical conditions. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement that the new panel 'includes highly credentialed scientists, leading public-health experts, and some of America's most accomplished physicians. All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.' While the group includes some doctors, epidemiologists and medical researchers, an NBC News review found many lack specific expertise in vaccine science or policy. 'I see way more conflict with Kennedy and with the new appointees than I do anything even remotely close with the old group,' said Arthur Caplan, head of the medical ethics division at NYU Langone Medical Center. Several new members have been outspoken critics of vaccines for years. During the pandemic, physician and scientist Robert Malone, who was involved in some early research into mRNA technology, spread false allegations of widespread dangers and deaths from the Covid vaccines, leading Twitter to suspend his account. Most recently, Malone published misinformation about the Texas measles outbreak, suggesting that measles-mumps-rubella vaccines, which the federal government has approved for decades, might be to blame and saying the vaccines carry 'similar risks as the wild measles virus,' which is untrue. Malone's advocacy has led to speaking engagements, a Substack newsletter with more than 350,000 followers — some paying $6 a month — and a private consulting business that charges $500 for 15-minute 'health and wellness' consultations. He has also been an expert witness in multiple vaccine-related lawsuits, including a case in which he testified that Merck misrepresented trial data and lacked evidence that its mumps vaccines provided protection. A judge found in favor of Merck, and the opinion was upheld on appeal. In addition, Malone testified in challenges by service members fighting Covid vaccination requirements, in which he said all the available Covid vaccines were 'experimental medical products' and therefore not FDA-approved. Both of those cases were dismissed after the Defense Department rescinded its vaccination mandate. Court filings show he charged $350 an hour in one case. 'I have no bias against Merck,' Malone said by email, referring additional questions to HHS. An HHS spokesperson said Malone's 'role as an expert witness in these cases reflects the appropriate application of his scientific expertise in legal and regulatory settings: an entirely standard practice for subject matter experts in modern medicine. Similarly, his work in the biotech industry, published writings, and consulting engagements reflect both professional credibility and a commitment to public dialogue.' Another new appointee to ACIP, Vicky Pebsworth, has worked for anti-vaccine groups for about 20 years. Pebsworth, a registered nurse with a doctorate in public health and nursing from the University of Michigan, is a board member and the volunteer director of research and public safety for the National Vaccine Information Center, which researchers consider a leading source of misinformation about vaccines. She has been a consumer representative on several federal vaccine panels and working groups. In bios and conference speeches, Pebsworth says her activism was sparked by her only child's autism diagnosis, which she attributes to vaccines he received at his 15-month well-baby visit. She became a prominent voice for the debunked claim that thimerosal — a preservative removed from childhood vaccines in 2001 — triggers conditions like autism. She also was an expert witness in a failed federal lawsuit brought by activists who sought to outlaw childhood vaccination mandates, claiming they prevented meaningful safety comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children — a view espoused by Kennedy. A judge dismissed the case in 2021 for lack of standing. In a public comment letter to the FDA in May, Pebsworth wrote that regulators 'should not make vaccine use recommendations for anyone' about Covid shots. She did not respond to requests for comment. Dr. Walter Orenstein, who directed the CDC's National Immunization Program from 1988 to 2004, reviewed the list of the eight appointees and said he is aware of only one — Dr. Cody Meissner, a Dartmouth University professor of pediatrics and a previous ACIP member — who has relevant expertise. 'I'm not aware of qualifications for any of the other people that would normally be used in selecting' ACIP members, said Orenstein, who is now a professor emeritus of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine. The committee typically looks for people with backgrounds in vaccine research or policy, he said, who publish frequently in respected scientific journals. Many of those experts should be physicians who see patients and are familiar with the infectious diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent, he added. Historically, ACIP membership follows a yearslong vetting process in which nominees are screened for conflicts of interest. Experts who are employed by vaccine manufacturers, own significant stock in vaccine companies or hold patents on vaccine products or vaccine-related technology generally cannot serve on the committee, per ACIP policy. To become members, experts must also agree to give up any advisory or consulting roles for vaccine manufacturers, except for roles in clinical trials or on data monitoring boards. Once appointed, members file annual financial reports with the Office of Government Ethics and must disclose any vaccine-related activities before every meeting. When conflicts do arise — which happens, given that vaccine expertise often comes with professional ties to manufacturers — CDC waivers may allow members to join discussions while barring them from voting on the matters. Past members have received grants from manufacturers for trials or had previous work experience with pharmaceutical companies. Out of 17 voting members last year, only two declared conflicts that prevented them from voting at a meeting, according to the CDC's website. Contrary to Kennedy's claim that the previous ACIP members were not properly vetted for conflicts, 'there are many steps and many safeguards, and they're serious about it,' Caplan said. 'Some people have complained over the years who were turned down that the screening for conflict of interest is too strict. No one has ever said it's not strict enough.' It is unclear what vetting process went into selecting the eight replacements for ACIP, though Nixon told NBC News last week that the review was thorough. Another ACIP appointee, Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician, is one of three co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely criticized memo that decried pandemic-era lockdowns and advocated for letting people at minimal risk of dying get exposed to Covid. Kulldorff, who did not respond to requests for comment, says he was fired from Harvard for refusing to get a Covid vaccination. He is senior scientific director at the Brownstone Institute, a libertarian think tank that paid him $108,333 in 2022 and publishes his articles criticizing public health measures. In a deposition last year, Kulldorff estimated that he earned $49,000 as a $400-an-hour expert for plaintiffs who claimed Merck's Gardasil vaccine, which protects against HPV, caused injuries. In a written report, Kulldorff criticized what he said were flaws in the company's safety analyses. The lawsuit was dismissed in favor of Merck, which denied the claims. The new ACIP member with the strongest industry connections is Dr. Michael Ross, an obstetrician-gynecologist, who earns a living on the investment side of health care. Ross is listed on the company website as an operating partner at Havencrest Capital Management, a Dallas private-equity fund that has raised roughly $600 million and has invested in clinical trials of vaccines and autism services. Ross' LinkedIn account lists board or advisory seats at a half-dozen biotech startups and a previous role as CEO of the contact lens maker Euclid Systems Corp. During the pandemic, he co-signed an open letter criticizing a study that found no benefit from ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became a cause célèbre among Covid deniers despite a lack of evidence of its efficacy. Ross declined requests for comment. Kennedy's other ACIP picks do not have the same clear industry or advocacy ties. MIT operations management professor Retsef Levi posted a viral video in 2023 that urged an 'immediate suspension' of mRNA shots and co-authored two papers linking Covid vaccines to negative health effects and 'significantly higher risk' of death, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary; one was not peer-reviewed, and the other had multiple corrections. Meissner, the Dartmouth professor, signed the Great Barrington Declaration and has questioned Covid vaccinations for healthy children. Retired California emergency physician James Pagano does not have any published vaccine research and has shared incendiary views online about Islam. And Dr. Joseph Hibbeln is a longtime nutrition scientist and seafood industry adviser without apparent vaccine expertise. Hibbeln said by email that he has 'no conflicts of interest of any kind' and has 'received no funds or anything else that may be considered a conflict of interest.' Levi referred NBC News' inquiry to HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard, who said that his 'expertise in decision science, risk-benefit tradeoffs, and data integrity is highly relevant to the work of ACIP' and that 'any attempt to reduce his qualifications ignores the breadth and substance of his contributions to public health and safety.' Meissner and Pagano did not respond to requests for comment. Health policy experts said they are hopeful the new ACIP members will disclose their conflicts before meetings and recuse themselves from voting when appropriate. But they shared reservations about whether the standard ACIP policies will be enforced under Kennedy's leadership, given his own anti-vaccine sentiments and decision to fire qualified ACIP members. 'Ultimately, the person who's going to hold those individuals accountable for reporting conflicts of interest is Secretary Kennedy,' said Motta of Boston University.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Joining national efforts, Wisconsin Republicans support ‘junk food' bans
Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) looks at the root beer float made by Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly Public Benefit Reform Committee. Clancy made it as he was arguing the definitions in the bill were arbitrary and unclear. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Republican lawmakers are seeking to implement a pair of bills that would prevent low-income Wisconsinites from buying 'junk' food and ban certain ingredients in school meals, taking inspiration from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), the lead author on both of the bills, has said he wants to help ensure the food children and others are eating is healthy. AB 180 would bar participants in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — or, as it's known in Wisconsin, FoodShare — from purchasing soda and candy with their benefits. Under the bill, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) would need to submit a waiver to the federal government for approval to make the change to the program. Kennedy wants a similar policy implemented nationwide, and so far several states, including Arkansas and Indiana, have asked the Trump administration for a waiver that would remove soda and candy from SNAP eligibility. Moses said at a hearing on the proposal earlier this month that by allowing people to purchase those items with FoodShare, Wisconsin is 'facilitating consumption of harmful, additive-filled foods' and that 'instead, we should be supporting healthy, sustainable food choices for [people's] overall health of individuals, the health of our society as a whole.' Moses argued the restrictions wouldn't be a novel idea, since people already can't use their SNAP benefits to purchase alcohol, pet food and other items. SNAP currently also can't be used for hot foods (such as a meal at a restaurant), supplements and vitamins and nonfood items. He also compared it to the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) program, the assistance program that provides free healthy foods, breastfeeding support, nutrition education and referrals to other services to income-eligible pregnant and postpartum women, breastfeeding moms and children under 5. 'Most government money has strings attached to what that money can be used for,' Moses told the Assembly Public Benefits Reform Committee. 'Adding this provision is no different than the special supplemental nutrition program for the WIC program… WIC basically includes a list of good items or essentials that people can buy that does not include any of this other stuff.' UW-Madison food insecurity expert Judith Bartfeld says, however, that the programs are fundamentally different. WIC serves as a narrowly targeted nutrition program that provides specific foods for a defined group of nutritionally at-risk people. The SNAP program, meanwhile, is designed to serve as a 'supplement to existing income' and 'to fill the gap between a USDA estimate of what is needed to meet a household's food needs and the amount a given household is assumed to be able to spend on food out of current income,' Bartfeld wrote in an email to the Examiner. She said periodic state and federal attempts to restrict SNAP have been unsuccessful in the past, in part because of a 'reluctance to upset the balance for a program that is a backbone of the safety net.' According to DHS, the SNAP program helps nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites put food on their tables annually. A USDA study from 2016, the most recent year, found that 'there were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized,' and that similar to other families, SNAP recipients spend about 20 cents of every dollar on sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar. 'It's intended to provide extra resources to support buying food at the store — and its effectiveness in reducing food insecurity is well documented,' Bartfeld said. 'There have long been concerns that restricting how benefits can be used would make things more complicated for retailers, more stigmatizing for participants, unlikely to translate into meaningful health improvements, and would risk reducing participation and jeopardizing the well-documented benefits of SNAP on food security.' In addition, she said, 'identifying specific foods that are healthy or unhealthy is much more complicated in practice than it sounds.' Bartfeld said SNAP combats food insecurity because it provides additional resources to low income people and has become 'less stigmatizing and easier to use.' Restrictions, she said, could end up having a negative effect. 'If putting restrictions on SNAP ends up making it stigmatizing for participants, more complicated for retailers or opens the door to an increasingly constrained program, there are real concerns it may become less effective as an anti-hunger program — which of course would have negative health outcomes; this is why the anti-hunger community has long opposed bans such as this, and considered food bans as a line better not crossed,' Bartfeld said. FoodShare cuts would cost Wisconsin $314 million a year, state health department reports Bartfeld said it's also unclear if a ban would improve health. Despite attempts to model health effects of a SNAP soda ban, she said, there is no empirical evidence proposed bans would meaningfully change diets or improve health outcomes. 'In contrast, there is real-world evidence that incentivizing healthy food purchases can modestly impact food choices,' Bartfeld said. 'And SNAP has a nutrition education program (SNAP-Ed, which goes by FoodWise in Wisconsin), that appears to increase healthy eating — even as, ironically, that funding is currently at risk.' The GOP-bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday included 'some of the largest cuts in the program's history' the SNAP program, according to CNBC. The bill would expand work requirements to qualify for benefits, likely leading to reduced participation, cut federal funding and leave it up to states to fill in the gaps and it would entirely eliminate funding for the education program. According to Wisconsin DHS, the cuts would cost the state approximately $314 million every year and would put 90,000 people at risk of losing benefits. The bill now goes to the Senate. Bartfeld said this is one of the challenges with some of the recent 'health-focused' SNAP proposals across the county as the other proposed cuts and restrictions to the program are unrelated or 'often run counter to health.' 'That interest in benefit cuts is happening in tandem with increasing attention to food choices does mean that food programs are at the center of the action, and it can make it challenging to differentiate proposals that are really about health from those that are more fundamentally about regulating the low income [population] and paring back assistance,' Bartfeld said. Moses during his testimony described the proposal as part of a 'national movement basically to really make our food supply healthier.' He said it shouldn't be partisan and noted former First Lady Michelle Obama's campaign to improve school meals. 'I expect to receive full support from not just the Legislature but the governor as well,' Moses said. Democrats on the committee didn't appear on board with the legislation. Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) expressed concerns about the legislation focusing on low-income Wisconsinites and including unclear, arbitrary definitions. Clancy asked Moses about low-income families using benefits to celebrate Halloween and special occasions. Moses replied that 'if their kids really want candy, they can go into the neighbor's house then they could trick or treat, and they'd probably get all the candy they want, but the benefit would be that the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for it.' 'People that are on SNAP… they are taxpayers as well,' Clancy said, 'so I don't want to categorize folks who are experiencing, hopefully, temporary poverty from being taxpayers. They're chipping in for, you know, health care benefits and everything else.' He added, 'We're, I think, just targeting low-income people with this.' Clancy demonstrated his point by pulling out a bottle of Snickers-flavored iced coffee, a seltzer water and, at one point, a cup of ice cream and a bottle of root beer. He poured the root beer into the ice cream, saying the milk in it would make it acceptable to purchase under the definitions in the bill. The definition for 'soft drink' is 'a beverage that contains less than 0.5 percent of alcohol and that contains natural or artificial sweeteners' and 'does not include a beverage that contains milk or milk products; soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes; or more than 50 percent vegetable or fruit juice by volume.' 'A root beer float is totally fine right? By taking this sugary thing, adding it to another sugary thing, this is now legal for somebody to use their FoodShare benefits,' Clancy said. Committee Chair Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) told Clancy to stop, saying that the hearing 'isn't a cooking show.' Another bill — AB 226 — would target 'ultraprocessed' foods in schools by banning certain ingredients from meals, 'Ultraprocessed foods' were one of the top concerns recently outlined by Kennedy and a report the Trump administration commissioned, and Kennedy has expressed interest in banning other additives as well. Among the additives the bill identifies are brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, azodicarbonamide and red dye No. 3, which can be found in candy, fruit juices, cookies and other products. Moses told lawmakers on the Assembly Education Committee that additives named in the bill are either in the process of being banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or have been subject of peer-reviewed studies that found links to adverse side effects if consumed in significant enough amounts. For example, Red No. 3 and brominated vegetable oil are both no longer approved for use in food by the FDA. 'Our school lunches should not be filled with substances that negatively affect our students' health, even including their mental health,' Moses told the committee. Moses said the bill would 'bypass the need for federal action while not forcing schools to risk loss of federal funds to pay for existing school lunch programs.' He also noted that other states, including California, are also working to ban the ingredients. The bill would go into effect on July 1, 2027. An earlier version of the bill only included free- and reduced-price meals, but it was amended after concerns from the Department of Public Instruction and the School Nutrition Association of Wisconsin. Both now support the bill. The Department of Public Instruction said the legislation aligns with positive trends in nutrition. 'With an increased focus on farm-to-school programs and the use of local food, school nutrition programs are helping to improve the nutritional value of meals,' Kim Vercauteren, policy initiatives advisor for the DPI Division for Finance and Management, said in testimony. 'Many schools and school nutrition vendors are already committed to providing meals that utilize unprocessed foods, which can be enjoyed without harmful, nutritionally useless additives. These programs not only encourage the use of healthy food, but educate students on healthy lifelong choices.' Members of the Healthy School Meals For All Coalition told the Wisconsin Examiner that they support the proposal, but also they hope it isn't the only thing that lawmakers do to help improve school meals. The coalition of school food stakeholders has been advocating for free school meals for all Wisconsin students and for improving the quality of food served to students. 'We appreciate the fact that they're looking out for the well-being of our students and see the work that we do,' School Nutrition Association of Wisconsin President Kaitlin Tauriainen said in an interview. 'We're hoping that some of these steps will allow us to build more of a bridge so we can understand each other's point of view — whether that means taking steps to grant more access to food for kids or jumping right into the full meals for all free meals for all, which is something you know we certainly want.' Tauriainen said that school nutrition professionals are focused on feeding students the healthiest food possible, although the ingredients listed in the bill already aren't common in school meals. 'I would say the majority of our manufacturers that we've talked to don't have those additives in their food,' Tauriainen, who is the child nutrition coordinator for the Ashwaubenon School District, said. 'So it's really kind of a non-issue.' Allison Pfaff Harris, farm to school director with REAP Food Group, a Madison-based nonprofit, said she appreciates that the bill is trying to address the school food 'supply side.' She said, however, that school nutrition programs need support in moving away from other processed ingredients not mentioned in the bill. Operating on limited budgets, school nutrition programs 'turn to those quicker ingredients, which are going to be more processed foods,' Pfaff Harris said, adding that 'not all processed foods have those food additive ingredients.' Pfaff Harris suggested pairing Moses' bill with other improvements. She said the 'big ask' for the coalition is no-cost school meals, but smaller steps would also be significant. Guaranteeing that the breakfast reimbursement for schools is 15 cents per meal could improve the supply chain and nutrition programs, she said. DPI prorates payments because it lacks funding to pay the full cost; Pfaff Harris said the current reimbursement rate is about 7 cents. 'This is one piece of the puzzle, but it's a small piece in the giant puzzle,' Pfaff Harris said. Pfaff Harris said the discussion about healthy meals is also challenging because there have been recent federal decisions cutting resources that help schools serve fresh ingredients. Wisconsin was set to receive $11 million in funding for 'Local Food for Schools' programs, but it was cut by the Trump administration. 'You're having these bills introduced, which is a good thing, but … from my perspective, if we really wanted to make a difference in school nutrition programs and help them to be able to do more scratch cooking and semi-scratch and fresh ingredients, it's getting that funding back,' Pfaff Harris said. Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) asked Moses about free school meals and other proposals, saying it could improve his bill. Moses said her suggestions seemed like a completely different bill altogether. 'It doesn't matter to me if it's reduced or people are paying for it. I want [the meals] to be safe …' Moses said. 'Essentially, it's not the intent of this bill.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
