Sept. 14: South County Rising potluck picnic in Ninigret

Sue Sosnowski honored by RI Food Policy Council

Rep. McGaw, Sen. Sosnowski honored as ‘Changemakers’ by R.I. Food Policy Council

From left, Rep. Michelle McGaw, R.I. Food Policy Council
President Diane Lynch, Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski and
RIFPC Executive Director Nessa Richman

Sen. V Susan Sosnowski and Rep. Michelle McGaw were honored today by the Rhode Island Food Policy Council for their work to protect the local food system.

The organization presented the legislators with its Changemaker award at its annual policy retreat, held today at the Providence Public Library.

According to Rhode Island Food Policy Council Executive Director Nessa Richman, the organization selected Senator Sosnowski (D-Dist. 37, South Kingstown) for the honor because of her longstanding support for Rhode Island’s farms, fisheries and local food system. 

She was an early leader in the creation of the state Local Agriculture and Seafood Act (LASA) Grant program. She is a farmer herself, and her support for the state’s farmers and fishers has never wavered.

Ultra-processed foods vs minimally processed foods: how can you tell the difference?

Hint: count the ingredients

Aisling Pigott, Cardiff Metropolitan University

If you’ve ever tried to lose weight, you’ve probably been told that cooking your own meals is the way to go. This has been backed up by a recent study, which found that people who ate home-cooked, minimally processed foods lost twice the weight to those who ate mainly ultra-processed, ready-made foods.

The recent study, which was published in Nature Medicine, involved 50 adults who were randomly assigned to eat either a diet high in ultra-processed foods or one with mostly minimally-processed foods. Both diets were designed to meet the UK’s national dietary guidelines.

Both groups lost weight, which makes sense as they consumed fewer calories than they usually did. However, the group that consumed mostly minimally processed foods ultimately consumed fewer calories overall – thereby losing more weight. They also saw slightly greater improvements to other measures of their health, such as having lower fat mass, reduced triglyceride levels (linked to heart health) and fewer cravings for unhealthy foods at the end of the study.

The ultra-processed foods group still lost weight and saw some improvements in blood lipids (fat) and blood glucose (sugar), but these changes were generally smaller than those seen in the minimally processed foods group.

As a dietitian, this is both an interesting and important piece of research – even though the results are not entirely surprising. In fact, a surprising result is that the consumption of ultra-processed food still resulted in weight loss.

The minimally processed diet group consumed fewer calories overall, which would explain why this group lost more weight. But the fact that this group saw greater improvements in other areas of their health highlights how health encompasses far more than calories or a number on the scales.

Why processing matters

Despite the bad press, food processing plays an essential role in food safety and preservation.

But how much processing a food has undergone seems to be the factor associated with worse health outcomes. These foods tend to have less fiber, more added fats, sugars and salt. This is because they’re designed to be tasty and long-lasting.

The most common definition of an ultra-processed foods are foods which are industrially produced and which contain extracts of original foods alongside additives and industrial ingredients. Think crisps or frozen ready meals.

The food system in much of the world has become increasingly reliant on ultra-processed foods, with these foods contributing to about half of food intake in the UK, Europe and the US. But there’s clear evidence that high intake of ultra-processed foods is linked with poorer health outcomes, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

The more calorie-rich, less nutritious foods we consume, the more our health will suffer – as this recent study has confirmed. But how can you work out which foods are classified as “ultra-processed” and which are only “minimally processed”? In short, this depends on how much processing a food product has undergone to be ready for consumption.

Ultra-processed foods are industrially formulated products made mostly from ingredients extracted from foods (such as oils, starches and proteins) and additives.

Examples include sugary breakfast cereals, flavored yoghurts with sweeteners and thickeners, soft drinks, instant noodles, packaged biscuits and cakes, mass-produced bread with emulsifiers and reconstituted meat products – such as chicken nuggets.

Minimally processed foods are whole foods that are altered only to make them safer or easier to prepare. Importantly, this processing doesn’t change their nutritional value.

Examples include fresh, frozen or bagged vegetables and fruit, plain yoghurt or milk, whole grains (such as oats or brown rice), eggs, fresh or frozen fish, and tinned beans or tomatoes without added sugar or salt.

Including minimally processed foods

It can sometimes feel overwhelming to work out whether a food is ultra-processed or minimally processed.

Some advice that is often suggested for working out whether a food is ultra-processed include checking to see if a product contains more than five to ten ingredients and considering if it contains ingredients you wouldn’t use at home.

In addition to the number of ingredients, it’s also the type of ingredients that matter. Ultra-processed foods often contain added sugars, refined starches, emulsifiers, stabilizers and flavorings that serve cosmetic purposes (such as improving color, texture or taste), rather than preserving the food’s freshness or safety.

Minimally processed foods will not contain these types of ingredients, nor will they have as many ingredients on their label.

It’s also important to be aware of smoked meats. While this is a common preservation method, most commercially available smoked meats – such as bacon, ham or sausages – are considered ultra-processed because of the curing agents and other additives they contain. While plain smoked fish (such as smoked salmon) is still classed as a processed food, it uses fewer curing agents and additives than other smoked meat products.

A diet rich in minimally processed foods usually means more fiber, more nutrients and fewer calories – all of which can support weight and long-term health, as this recent study showed. So if you’re keen to include more minimally processed foods in your diet, here are a few tips to help you get more onto your plate:

• build meals around vegetables, whole grains and pulses
• use tinned or frozen products for convenience and to save time while cooking
• choose plain dairy products without sugar or fruit purees, then add your own fruits, nuts and seeds for flavor
• healthy meals don’t have to be complicated. Aim to include a protein source, a wholegrain carbohydrate and plenty of veggies or fruits at each meal
• batch cook meals when you have time and freeze them if possible.

As a dietitian, it’s important to point out that there’s a distinction between the potential harms of excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods and the essential role processing can play in ensuring food safety, preservation and accessibility.

It’s also important not to panic about enjoying the occasional biscuit or ready meal, and we should avoid demonizing convenience foods – especially for those who face barriers such as limited mobility or lack of cooking facilities. Because remember, the group that ate a diet high in ultra-processed foods but met dietary guidelines still lost weight and saw health benefits in the study.

Eating well doesn’t mean that you need to completely eliminate ultra-processed foods. But shifting the balance towards eating more minimally processed foods, with more home-cooked meals where possible, is a step in the right direction.

Aisling Pigott, Lecturer, Dietetics, Cardiff Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Where Are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and What’s RFK’s Beef With Beans?

Bobby is too busy destroying America's public health system

By Seth Millstein

Where are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said earlier in the year that the document, which guides millions of dollars in federal spending every year, would be released before August. 

But it’s now almost September, and there’s no sign of the new dietary guidelines, only remarks from the HHS Secretary at a meeting of state governors that “we’re probably going to get them out at the end of October.” Probably.

Christopher Gardner, a member of the committee that drafts the DGA, tells Sentient that he and his team were “completely ghosted” by the Department of Health and Human Services after handing over their recommendations, and that the agency hasn’t communicated anything about its process to committee members.

“No one will tell us the name of a person who's working on it,” says Gardner, who also serves as the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. “It’s a black box. We have no idea.”

Sentient has reached out to the USDA and HHS for comment on this article, but neither agency has replied.

The dietary guidelines are issued jointly by the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services. Federal law requires the government to release an updated version every five years, and it serves a dual purpose: To advise everyday Americans on how to adopt a healthy diet, and to guide the federal government’s various food programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and SNAP. In total, the guidelines influence over $40 billion in federal spending every year.

Bobby Junior finds another way to kill Americans

CDC cuts back foodborne illness surveillance program

Chris Dall, MA

This clown, Jim O'Neill, is Bobby Junior's pick as acting
CDC director after RFK drove out all the qualified
department heads

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scaled back a federal-state surveillance program for foodborne pathogens.

As of July 1, the CDC's Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), which works with the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, and 10 state health departments to track infections commonly transmitted through food, has reduced required surveillance to two pathogens: Salmonella and Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC). 

Reporting of illnesses caused by Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia is now optional, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The story was first reported by NBC News, which cited a set of CDC talking points that suggested reduced federal funding for FoodNet was the reason for the move. 

Grocery Chains Are Passing Trump' National Sales Tax on to US Consumers With Higher Prices

Tariffs are hitting grocery shelves while Trump is in denial

Stephen Prager for Common Dreams

As leading grocery chains increase prices on essentials, they are blaming Donald Trump's tariffs for raising the cost of living for households across the country.

According to the Consumer Price Index, the price of food has increased by 3% in the past year, with meats, poultry, fish, and eggs getting 5.6% more expensive from June 2024 to June 2025.

In a poll published this month by the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center, 90% of Americans reported that they considered the cost of groceries a source of stress, with 53% describing it as a "major" source of stress.

In earnings calls and public statements, executives of many of America's largest and most profitable grocery retailers are citing Trump's tariffs as justification for passing on the costs to consumers, according to a new report released on Tuesday by Accountable.US.

From that radical left-wing magazine Forbes

In a first-quarter earnings call in May, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said that while the company was better positioned than others to absorb the cost of tariffs, they would still "result in higher prices" for consumers. 

Since then, some grocery items at America's largest retailer have shown 40% hikes that have outraged consumers, fueling calls for a boycott.

On another call, McMillon said, "We've continued to see our costs increase each week, which we expect will continue into the third and fourth quarters."

"Trump's tariffs are making groceries more expensive," said Accountable.US. "Everyday Americans pay the cost while corporations and the wealthy profit."

Costco's chief financial officer, Gary Millerchip, told shareholders in May that the company "saw inflation as a result of tariffs because we import certain fresh items from Central and South America."

What scientists discovered about french fries and diabetes

Similar amounts of boiled, baked and mashed potatoes are not associated with a substantially increased risk

BMJ Group

French fries may be more than just a guilty pleasure—they could raise your risk of type 2 diabetes by 20% if eaten three times a week, while the same amount of boiled, baked, or mashed potatoes doesn’t appear to have the same effect.

Eating three servings of French fries a week is associated with a 20% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but eating similar amounts of potatoes cooked in other ways -- boiled, baked or mashed -- does not substantially increase the risk, finds a study published by The BMJ on August 6.

What's more, replacing any form of potatoes with whole grains was associated with a lower type 2 diabetes risk, but swapping them for white rice was linked to an increased risk, the results show.

Potatoes contain several nutrients including fiber, vitamin C, and magnesium, but they also have a high starch content and therefore a high glycemic index, so have been linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

But neither the preparation method for potatoes nor specific foods that potatoes would replace have been considered, both of which are key to evaluating the overall health impact of potatoes.

To address this, researchers investigated the association between intake of potatoes prepared by different methods (boiled, baked, or mashed versus French fries) and risk of type 2 diabetes. They also looked at the impact on health of replacing potatoes with other major carbohydrates, such as whole grains and rice.

Here is a good example of what all health and science research will look like under Donald Trump

“Surprising” Study – funded by the meat industry - finds meat may protect against cancer

By McMaster University

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has made it clear that “facts” will now be molded to fit his view of reality. Whether it’s the economy, climate science, vaccinations, health, American history, foreign policy, etc., Trump’s opinions, not data or fact or science, will determine the outcome of research.

This week, we saw Trump go after the Smithsonian Institute for portraying the horrors of slavery and fire the Defense Intelligence Agency official who contradicted Trump’s claim that US air strikes completely destroyed Iran’s bomb-making capacity.

Trump fired the head of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics because he didn’t like their job numbers. He is threatening to “fire” the Mayor of Washington DC because he doesn’t believe DC’s crime statistics. He issued a stop-work order against the wind farm being built off the coast of Rhode Island because he believes “windmills” cause cancer. Hundreds more researchers have lost their jobs or their funding because their works doesn't fit with Trump's looney views.

In the future, expect research to look more like this study from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association that in this case makes the “surprise” claim that beef can actually fight cancer. This is as believable as Trump’s belief that you should drink bleach to fight COVID.  – Will Collette

Eating foods that contain animal protein is not connected to a higher chance of death and may even provide some protection against cancer-related mortality, according to new research.

The findings, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, are based on an analysis of data from nearly 16,000 adults aged 19 and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHAMES III).

Researchers looked at how much animal and plant protein participants consumed and compared those patterns with their risk of dying from cancer, heart disease, or any cause. The results revealed no elevated risk of death linked to greater animal protein intake. Instead, the data pointed to a small but meaningful decrease in cancer-related deaths among people who consumed more animal protein.

“There’s a lot of confusion around protein – how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, which is important for anyone trying to make informed, evidence-based decisions about what they eat,” explains Stuart Phillips, Professor and Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, who supervised the research.

Ensuring Reliable Results

To ensure reliable results, the team employed advanced statistical methods, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method and multivariate Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modelling, to estimate long-term dietary intake and minimize measurement error.

“It was imperative that our analysis used the most rigorous, gold standard methods to assess usual intake and mortality risk. These methods allowed us to account for fluctuations in daily protein intake and provide a more accurate picture of long-term eating habits,” says Phillips.

The researchers found no associations between total protein, animal protein, or plant protein and risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer. When both plant and animal protein were included in the analysis, the results remained consistent, suggesting that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may offer a small protective effect.

Broader Implications

Observational studies like this one cannot prove cause and effect; however, they are valuable for identifying patterns and associations in large populations. Combined with decades of clinical trial evidence, the findings support the inclusion of animal proteins as part of a healthy dietary pattern.

“When both observational data like this and clinical research are considered, it’s clear both animal and plant protein foods promote health and longevity,” says lead researcher Yanni Papanikolaou, MPH, president, Nutritional Strategies.

Reference: “Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis” by Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips and Victor L. Fulgoni III, 16 July 2025, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism.
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.

Here are USDA food and farming programs whose funding has been canceled or frozen

King Donald bites the hands that feed us

Ayurella Horn-Muller & Lyndsey Gilpin

In the first seven months of Donald Trump’s second administration, the federal funding landscape has been radically changed — especially for the people who grow, harvest, and distribute food. Thousands of government staffers were terminated; entire programs have been stripped down; and a grant freeze has immobilized state, regional, and local food systems that rely on federal funding. 

In all of the turmoil, the communication from the Department of Agriculture itself has lacked transparency and comprehensiveness. 

We’ve heard over and over from our sources — farmers, food organizations, agricultural networks, and advocates across the country — that they remain confused and in search of reliable information. 

Folks need clarity about what is happening, support during a difficult moment, and alternatives to the current faltering system.

So, in response to those needs, we’ve put together this information guide. Below you’ll find more details about the status of various USDA programs; resources for those struggling with financial and/or mental health hardships; and some conversation starters to help you envision a more resilient food economy.  

The information below is based on Grist’s previous reporting on cuts to federal programs run by the departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies; and compiled from sources including congressional documents and third-party funding trackers, in addition to reporting published by Civil Eats and Politico.  This information guide was first published on August 6, 2025, and the lists of cancelled and frozen grants will be updated as the status of policies and funding programs change.

If you have information or tips regarding funding changes at the USDA, please contact ahornmuller@grist.org. 

Cancelled USDA food and farming funding 

The grants and programs below have been cancelled — in part or whole — by the Trump administration. 

Chronically Ill? In Bobby Junior’s View, It Might Be Your Own Fault

How can you doubt a guy who swims in raw sewage?

Stephanie Armour 

On a recent weekday evening, Ashly Richards helped her 13-year-old son, Case, with homework. He did math problems and some reading, underscoring how much he’s accomplished at his school for children with autism.

Richards has heard Trump administration officials suggest that food dyes and pediatric vaccines cause autism and ADHD. That stance, she said, unfairly blames parents.

“There’s no evidence to support it,” said Richards, 44, a marketing director in Richmond, Virginia. “As a parent, it’s infuriating.”

In their zeal to “Make America Healthy Again,” Trump administration officials are making statements that some advocacy and medical groups say depict patients and the doctors who treat them as partly responsible for whatever ails them.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and agency leaders have attributed a panoply of chronic diseases and other medical issues — such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, diabetes, and obesity — to consumers and their lifestyle choices, according to a review of 15 hours of recorded interviews, social media statements, and federal reports.

He said at a news conference on April 16 that autism is preventable and that rates are rising because of toxic substances in the environment, despite a lack of evidence there is any link.

“These are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date,” he said. “Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.”

The vast majority of people on the spectrum do not have those severe challenges.

The statements are more than rhetoric. These attitudes, ranging from judgments about individual behaviors to criticism of the chronically poor, are shaping policies that affect millions of people. 

The sentiments have been a factor behind decisions to cut Medicaid, keep federal insurance programs from covering anti-obesity drugs, and impose new barriers to covid vaccines for healthy people, say public health leaders and doctors. 

GOP lawmakers and federal health officials, they say, hold a reproachful stance toward chronic illnesses and the estimated 129 million people in the U.S. affected by them.

Celebrate ecoRI's birthday!

Celebrate our Sweet 16 at our Zero-Trash Birthday Bash! Sept. 18 @ Machines with Magnets in Pawtucket, R.I. 5:30-8 p.m. Everything at this ultra-green party will be eaten, imbibed, recycled, reused, or composted. All proceeds from the event will be upcycled to support ecoRI News and our environmental journalism. Get early-bird tickets today and SAVE $15 Schmooze with ecoRI News staff, board, and other ecoRI News fans. Soften the blow of tariffs and inflation by entering for a chance to win cold hard cash from the 50/50 cash raffle. Party and leave no trace. Zero-waste event management provided by Epic Renewal. Enjoy tasty food from Amos House More Than a Meal Catering. Dull climate anxiety with a free drink (beer, wine, or nonalcoholic beverage) at the bar. Be automatically entered to win a door-prize. Thanks to our Sponsors LEAD OMBUDSMAN-LEVEL SPONSOR The Green Grocer Reporter-level sponsors Berger Recycling The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island Chace Ruttenberg & Freedman, LLP Ecologic Insulation RI Chapter 94 Retirees, AFSCME Correspondent-level sponsors BETA | Buxton Hollow Farm | CET | Conservation Law Foundation | Earth Care Farm | Green Energy Consumers Alliance | Keane’s Wood Fired Catering | NEC Solar In-kind sponsors Long Live Beerworks | Epic Renewal To learn how your business can become a sponsor, email jo@ecoRI.org or visit our website. Can’t make it but want to send a gift? Donate here.

Our mailing address is: ecoRI News 10 Davol Sq Ste 100 Providence, RI 02903-4752 USA