Podcasts about food laws

In this episode, Diana and Michael are joined by Baylen Linnekin, the Deputy Director of the Food Integrity Campaign at the Government Accountability Project. Here, Baylen discusses his background in food policy, the history and work of the Government Accountability Project, and the role of strategic litigation in our food system.You can find Baylen's biography here.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find a link to Baylen's book, Biting the Hand that Feeds Us, here.  

This episode we are discussing food and drink regulations. A lawsuit that was recently settled involving Poppi, the pre-biotic soda brand, paid out to consumers on the basis that their claims around gut health were not founded in scientific evidence. Other than using science to help lawyers decide what can scientifically and legally be defined as a pancake, science influences many aspects of policy and laws, generally known as regulations. Today I talked with Neal Fortin, an attorney, the director of the Institute for Food Laws & Regulations, and a professor in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University, and Jeffery Glazer, who works at the UW Law & Entrepreneurship Clinic with a focus on food and beverage regulation. Both had some great insights into the world of food and drink laws. This episode was produced by Colin Hemme with music by John Leja. Thank you to Professors Neal Fortin and Jeffery Glazer for the interviews. This podcast is funded in part by an Associated Students of Madison viewpoint neutral grant. Contact request@asm.wisc.edu for accommodation information.

7 takeaways from this study Guard your heart more than your habits.External practices (like handwashing traditions) matter less than the thoughts, desires, and attitudes that flow from the heart (Mark 7:20–23). Focus on inner transformation, not just outward conformity. Use God's distinctions as training, not as weapons.The categories of kadosh/chol (holy/common) and tahor/tame (clean/unclean) are meant to train discernment, not to create pride or contempt. Let them teach you to ask, “Is this moving me toward God's presence or away from it?” Pay attention to what you allow into your life.Just as Israel learned daily through food choices (Leviticus 11), examine your inputs—media, relationships, habits. Ask whether they help or hinder your ability to draw near to God. Do not call unclean what God is cleansing.Peter's lesson in Acts 10–11 warns against writing people off. Someone who looks far from God may be a “foreigner” He is already drawing. Be slow to label; be quick to watch for the Spirit's work. Let Scripture sit above tradition.Traditions can be helpful, but when they contradict or overshadow God's commands, they must yield (Mark 7:8–13). Regularly test your religious habits and assumptions against the Word. See the mission: you are meant to be a magnet.Like the Temple in 1 Kings 8, your life and community should draw others toward God's presence, not push them away. Ask whether your tone, conduct, and priorities make Him attractive or seem common. Expect God to redeem even deep failure.Solomon's decline and possible later repentance, Saul's transformation, and former enemies turned witnesses all point to hope. Pray for those who oppose you and for your own blind spots, trusting God to bring good out of evil. How Scripture defines “holy” and “common,” “clean” and “unclean,” connects to the calling of Israel and the inclusion of people from all nations into the Kingdom. Torah's purity laws teach spiritual discernment. Yeshua's teaching in Mark 7 and the vision of Acts 10 do not abolish God's standard of that discernment. Instead, they clarify the true source of defilement and the scope of God's invitation. Solomon's dedication prayer and a ‘Declaration of Dependence’ Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple in 1Kings 8 marks a transition from a movable Tabernacle to a permanent House of the LORD. Israel’s dwelling place for the Most High moves from a tent in Shiloh to a private home to a fixed sanctuary in Jerusalem. Solomon's prayer is sort of a “declaration of dependence” on God, parallel to the U.S. Declaration of Independence that set out the reason for the nation’s being. “That He may maintain the cause of His servant and the cause of His people Israel, as each day requires, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no one else. Let your heart therefore be wholly devoted to the LORD our God, to walk in His statutes and to keep His commandments, as at this day.” 1Kings 8:59–61 NASB95 Israel exists so that “all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God.” The people rejoice at the dedication, offering many sacrifices and extending the Feast of Booths (Sukkot) in celebration. Their joy reflects relief after earlier sins, such as the golden calf (Exodus 32) and idolatry at Shiloh that led to its destruction (1Samuel 3:10–18). God has shown mercy. He has chosen again to dwell among them. Solomon's rise and decline Solomon's early and late life are contrasts. Early on, he seeks wisdom (1Kings 3:9–12). God grants him wisdom and honor. His fame spreads. Nations visit him. Later, Solomon multiplies wives and concubines. He builds high places and participates in idolatrous worship (1Kings 11:1–8). The Torah had warned kings not to multiply wives, horses, or gold (Deuteronomy 17:16–17). Solomon breaks all the cautions. His heart grows divided. Some connect this decline with the tone of the book of Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). The book speaks of “vanity” or “futility” (הֶבֶל hevel, vapor). It describes many pursuits as empty. It closes with a simple conclusion: The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. Ecclesiastes 12:13 NASB95 This arc illustrates a warning. One can begin with zeal and end in compromise. Solomon's story as a mirror. It urges self-examination regarding distraction, divided affections, and misplaced trust. The Temple as a magnet for the nations Solomon's prayer also reveals God's global purpose. The Temple is not only for Israel. It functions as a magnet for the nations. Solomon prays specifically about foreigners: “Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name's sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name.” 1Kings 8:41–43 NASB 1995 Here the Temple becomes a global focal point. Nations hear of God's “great name” and “mighty hand.” They come seeking Him. The prayer asks God to answer them. The result should be that all peoples know His name and fear Him. This aligns with the calling of Abraham. God promises that in Abraham “all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3 NASB 1995). Israel and its Temple exist as instruments of this wider mission. Types of foreigners One common Hebrew word for foreigner is גֵּר ger (resident alien/sojourner). Another word in some contexts is נָכְרִי nokhrí (foreigner/stranger). The root נכר, n-k-r, can mean “to recognize” or “to inspect.” This nuance suggests that some “foreigners” are not random passersby. They are people whom God “takes notice of.” They draw near because they have heard of God's reputation. They seek Him. God inspects them, in a positive sense. Therefore, commands not to oppress “the widow, the orphan, and the ger” carry weight (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:18–19). Israel must not push away those whom God is drawing near (Acts 15:10). If God is calling, His people must not block the path. The spectrum of holy and common Here is a key lesson from the judgment on priests Nadab and Abihu, and a prelude to the food laws in the following chapter: “…and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean” Leviticus 10:10 NASB95 Here we see a pair of axes: קָדוֹשׁ kadosh (holy, set apart) חֹל chol/khol (common, profane) and inside that: טָהוֹר tahor (“clean,” fit to approach) טָמֵא tamé (“unclean,” unfit to approach) Kadosh marks what God sets apart for Himself. Khol is ordinary, not specially dedicated. Tahor refers to a state that permits approach to God's presence. Tamé describes a state that temporarily prevents such approach. Tamé does not always mean “sinful.” Many causes of “uncleanness” arise from normal life events, such as childbirth or certain of men’s and women’s bodily discharges (Leviticus 12; 15). People move between tahor and tame states over time. Sin appears more at the extreme of khol. To move away from God's purposes toward what is merely common or even idolatrous reflects moral failure. The purity system trains people to discern movements along this spectrum which may happen too gradually to be perceived. Offerings and the journey toward God Leviticus 1–7 describes various offerings in the Tabernacle. The generic term is קָרְבָּן, qorbán (offering). It derives from the root קרב, karav (to come near/approach). Each offering type pictures some dimension of drawing near to God. The burnt offering (עֹלָה olah, that which goes up) expresses total surrender (Leviticus 1). The grain offering (מִנְחָה minkha) communicates thankfulness for all Heaven provides. The חַטָּאת chatat (sin offering) and אָשָׁם, asham (guilt offering) address the move away from God’s standards and liability for doing so, intentional or not (Leviticus 4–5). The שְׁלָמִים shelamim (peace/fellowship offerings) celebrates restored relationship after confession and restitution (Leviticus 3; 7:11–21). Priests must follow instructions precisely. The death of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, in Leviticus 10:1–2, shows the seriousness. Their “unauthorized fire” brings judgment. Moses then explains that priests must learn to distinguish and to teach these distinctions (Leviticus 10:8–11). This system as a long-term lesson. It trains Israel to understand approach to God, the cost of sin, and the joy of reconciliation. Leviticus 11: Food for life Leviticus 11 applies this logic to food. It lists animals that Israel may eat and those it must not eat. The categories mark some animals as טָהוֹר tahor (clean/fit), and others as טָמֵא tame (unclean/unfit). People can have limited control over many causes of uncleanness. Yet they do control what they eat. Thus, food becomes a daily training tool. By abstaining from certain creatures, Israel “fasts” from a category associated with death, predation or impurity. The chapter concludes with the purpose for these laws: “For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.” Leviticus 11:45 NASB95 Here God links food laws to His own holiness and to the exodus. He rescued Israel from bondage. He now calls them to be distinct. Mark 7: What did Yeshua declare clean? Mark 7 records a dispute over handwashing. Some Pharisees and scribes criticize Yeshua's disciples for eating without following the “tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:1–5). The tradition views the marketplace as a source of ritual contamination, defiling food that would be considered “clean” per Leviticus 11. Therefore, one must wash upon returning. Yeshua responds by quoting Isaiah 29:13: “’This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” Mark 7:6–7 NASB95 He accuses them of “neglecting the commandment of God” and holding to human tradition (Mark 7:8–13). He then states: “There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” Mark 7:15 NASB95 Later He explains to His disciples: “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” Mark 7:20–23 NASB95 First, Yeshua addresses ritual handwashing traditions, not the Torah's food distinctions in Leviticus 11. Second, He identifies the heart as the primary source of defilement. Third, He challenges a system that can label what God calls clean as unclean, simply due to contact with others. The statement about food passing into the stomach and out “into the latrine” (Mark 7:19) highlights the temporary nature of external intake. In contrast, corrupt thoughts and desires lodge in the heart and shape behavior. The issue is spiritual hygiene, not mere external contact. Acts 10 and Peter's vision Peter’s vision of a sheet descending from heaven (Acts 10) helps bring together the lesson of the food laws and the prophecies of a bigger tent for Israel. This passage also is pointed to along with Mark 7 by commentators who say the food laws are obsolete post-resurrection. The sheet in the vision contains “all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air” (Acts 10:12 NASB95). A voice says, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10:13 NASB95). Peter objects, saying he has never eaten anything “unholy” (κοινός koinós, literally, “common”) or “unclean” (ἀκάθαρτος akáthartos) (Acts 10:14; cp. Ezekiel 4:14, context Ezekiel 4:9–17). These Greek terms are how the Septuagint (LXX) translates חֹל khol (common, profane) and טָמֵא tamé (“unclean,” unfit to approach). The voice replies: “What God has cleansed (καθαρίζω katharı́zō), no longer consider unholy (koinós).” Acts 10:15 NASB95 In other words, what God has made tahor (fit to approach His presence), no longer consider far off from God. Soon after the vision, men from Cornelius, a Gentile centurion, arrive. The Spirit directs Peter to go with them “without misgivings” (Acts 10:20 NASB95). When Peter enters Cornelius's house, he explains the true meaning of the vision: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” Acts 10:28 NASB95 God has cleansed Gentiles who fear Him and seek Him. Put into the lesson of Leviticus 11, Heaven no longer sees a Gentile called-out believer as a tamé pig or bat but as a tahor bovine or chicken, because the Gentile has responded to Heaven’s call to come into the Kingdom. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household confirms this (Acts 10:44–48). Peter’s comment about associating with or visiting foreigners came to a head years later, as recorded by apostle Paul in Galatians 2. What’s behind Peter’s willingness to eat with Gentile believers in one case in Galatia but not when certain Jewish believers visited from Jerusalem is reflected in rabbinical disagreements over both practices in the centuries that followed. But at the Jewish table of the 1st Century, all of the laws (both those well confirmed as well as those emerging within the rabbinic debates) governing purities came into play as well. These involved the separation of clean and unclean animals, the laws of ritual slaughter to assure that the blood had been properly disposed of, and a separation from all things tainted by the common idolatry of the pagan society in which Israel lived. Taken together, these concerns gave plenty of motivation for “building fences,” the most obvious being avoiding the Gentiles all together. In this sense, remaining separate from the Gentiles was more a conscious effort to maintain the purity laws than it was to uphold any prejudiced view against non-Jews. What is more, at a time when national identity was being threatened by Hellenism in general, it is understandable how purity laws and the food laws that went along with them became identity markers for the Jewish community. Tim Hegg, Galatians Commentary, TorahResource, 2002, 2010. p. 62. The vision addresses social and ceremonial barriers between Jews and Gentiles, not the abolition of all food distinctions. The main point is that God now reveals clearly that people from the nations may be brought near on the same basis of faith and obedience. Tradition, discernment, and the Spirit's work The events of Acts 10 lead to debate in Acts 11 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Some argue that Gentile believers must fully convert to the Judaisms of the day, and circumcision was a key marker of that shift. Others observe that God has already given these Gentiles the Holy Spirit. The council concludes that Gentiles should not be “troubled” with an additional yoke of circumcision before acceptance into God’s covenant (Acts 15:19–20). They must, however, abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, and blood as the new believer learns God’s ways each Shabbat (Sabbath, Acts 15:21). These basic requirements align with core Torah principles (Leviticus 18–19). For established believers, the key issue is discernment. When God moves, His people must recognize it. They must avoid calling His work “unclean” (because it’s outside our traditions or extrabiblical expectations) or attributing those works to the Adversary (Matthew 9:34; 12:24; Acts 5:27-39). They must not let protective traditions — as praiseworthy as they might be — override God's revealed purpose. Internal purity and love for the nations Yeshua's list of defiling things in one’s heart in Mark 7:21–23 mirrors lists of “works of the flesh” in passages like Galatians 5:19–21. These outcomes reveal the state of the heart. In contrast, the “fruit of the Spirit” reflects a heart transformed by God (Galatians 5:22–23). The purity system of Torah, the Temple worship, and Yeshua's teaching together point toward a central goal. God wants a people who are set apart in heart and conduct — inside and outside. He wants them to reflect His character among the nations. He wants them to welcome those He calls, whether from Israel or from the Gentiles. Therefore, Yeshua warns against judging others by outward appearance or current condition only (John 7:24; Leviticus 19:15; Isaiah 11:3; Zechariah 7:9). A persecutor like Saul of Tarsus can become a devoted emissary (Acts 9:1–22). A former enemy can become a powerful witness. Believers should pray for their enemies, as Yeshua commands (Matthew 5:44). They should remain open to God's surprising grace. Heart of the matter Leviticus 9–11 teaches distinctions between holy and common, clean and unclean. 1Kings 8 shows that the Temple stands as a beacon to all nations. Mark 7 reveals that true defilement arises from the heart, not merely from external contact or neglected traditions. Acts 10–15 confirms that God cleanses people from the nations and brings them near through faith and the work of the Spirit. The categories of kadosh (holy) and khol (common), and of tahor (clean) and tamé (unclean), remain essential lesson-practices. They call God's people to continually examine what they bring into their lives. They also call us to recognize whom God is drawing near. The ultimate aim is that “all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no one else” (1Kings 8:60 NASB95). The post From Torah to table: How ancient food laws speak to modern faith (Leviticus 11; 1Kings 8; Mark 7; Acts 10) appeared first on Hallel Fellowship.

Van PPWR tot allergenenwetgeving: op het Food Law Event op 9 juni vertellen experts over nieuwe wetgeving belangrijk voor foodbedrijven. Onder andere Albert Heijn en de Vegetarische Slager vertellen over de ervaring in de praktijk. Wat staat er nog meer op het programma? Dat vertelt Carmen Groeneveld in deze editie van Voedselpraat met VMT.Food Law Event vindt plaats op 9 juni in Expo Houten.Bekijk het hele programma: https://www.vmt.nl/foodlaw/programma

What did the apostles actually require of Gentile believers in Acts 15? This teaching examines the Apostolic Decree as an introduction to Torah, showing how the four prohibitions connect to holiness, idolatry, sexual morality, and the food laws.We also consider whether these commands were temporary or intended for all believers, and why Acts 15:21 matters so much for understanding the apostles' expectations.Scriptures: Acts 15:19-21; Acts 15:28-29; Acts 21:25; Leviticus 17:10-14; Leviticus 18:1-30; 1 Corinthians 10:18-22Takeaway: The Apostolic Decree was not a minimal end point, but a gracious starting point for Gentile believers turning to God. As believers hear Moses proclaimed, they are expected to grow in holiness and obedience.

Complete Jewish Bible April 11, 2026page: 117Leviticus 9:1-11:47page: 3392nd Samuel 6:1-7:17page: 1374........ this is clear verification of what the vision of the sheet truly means. Acts: 10:1-11:18

How do beekeepers make a living? Why is there so much honey fraud? And why did billions of bees suddenly disappear? To find out, guest host Steve Levitt activates his hive mind.   SOURCES: Alex Sapoznik, historian, reader in late medieval history at King's College London. Chris Hiatt, past president of the American Honey Producers Association, owner of Hiatt Honey Company. Michael Roberts, founding executive director of the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy at U.C.L.A. Law School. Walter "Wally" Thurman, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at North Carolina State University.   RESOURCES: "U.S. honey is increasingly supplied through imports," by David Olsen (USDA Economic Research Service, 2018). "Economic Effects and Responses to Changes in Honey Bee Health," by Peyton Ferrier, Randal Rucker, Walter Thurman, and Michael Burgett (USDA Economic Research Service, 2018). "The Fable of the Bees: An Economic Investigation," by Steven Cheung (The Journal of Law and Economics, 1973). "Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables - Visualization: Meeting honey demand in the United States," (USDA Economic Research Service). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In Episode 34 of Nature's Neighbor, Melanie and Josh dig deeper than ever before — moving beyond gardening tips into the bigger systems shaping our food, economy, and communities.From food regulations and hidden ingredients to corporate consolidation, tariffs, local farming, and the fragility of modern supply chains, this episode explores what happens when small farms are overregulated while big corporations expand.What is the real cost of “cheap” groceries?Are we too dependent on outside distribution?What happens when local knowledge leaves our communities?And how do we rebuild trust — neighbor to neighbor?This conversation isn't about political sides.It's about resilience, accountability, food integrity, and strengthening local communities from the ground up.If we want stronger neighborhoods and healthier food systems, it starts with what we grow, what we buy, and how we support each other.

This month Diana is in discussion with UCLA Law student Melissa Deng and Robyn Huey Lao, an allergy mom advocate and pediatric nurse practitioner, about Robyn's journey to shepherd California Senate Bill 68, the Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences, to passage.  She explains how she was inspired by her nine-year-old daughter, Addie, and how their love of food inspired this bill. The three talk about building coalitions, the process of introducing bills to the legislature, and the importance of legal research. Melissa also explains her work at UCLA on restaurant training for food allergens. You can find Robyn's website, Addie Tells All, here.You can follow her on Instagram at @AddieTellsAllYou can find the law review article, Fearless Dining: Mandating Universal Allergen Disclosures on Restaurant Menus, that started Robyn thinking here. You can find Melissa Deng on LinkedIn here. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.

In this episode, Diana and Michael are joined by Professor Lingxi Chenyang to discuss her article, “Food Antidemocracy,” forthcoming in the Southern California Law Review. In this article, Professor Chenyang looks at the Farm Bill's hidden history, delving into the antidemocratic techniques that were used to initially pass this law and tracing some of the major problems in our modern food system to this history. “Food Antidemocracy” is a fascinating look at the underpinning of the American food system. Professor Chenyang is an Associate Professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law. Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.  Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find “Food Antidemocracy” here.  You can see Dorothea Lange's “Migrant Mother” photograph here. 

In this month's episode, Michael and Diana talk with Amanda Mrad and Juliet Cushing, two UCLA students who are involved with the World Food Forum and who participated in its annual flagship event at FAO headquarters in Rome this October.Juliet Cushing is a clinical researcher with the UCLA Department of General Internal Medicine, working on diabetes prevention and chronic disease management. Juliet graduated from UCLA with a degree in Human Biology and Society, and a minor in Food Studies.Amanda Mrad is a double Bruin, holding a degree in physiology and food studies and currently pursuing an MLS degree, specializing in food law. She is also currently interning at the FAO headquarters, where she works within the Office of Youth and Women, home to the World Food Forum. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Some relevant links are here:World Food Forum (WFF)Join a WFF National Youth Chapter UCLA Teaching Kitchen  UCLA MLS ProgramAs always, you can send questions or comments to Diana Winters at winters@law.ucla.edu. 

Today, Repast welcomes Mary Eichenberger, the new Editor-in-Chief of the University of Arkansas School of Law's Journal of Food Law & Policy (JFLP). Here, Michael, Diana, and Mary discuss the background of this seminal journal, its history of publishing crucial food law and policy scholarship, and her plans for its future. Mary Eichenberger is from Clarksville, Arkansas where she grew up on her family's cattle farm. She is a 3L student at the University of Arkansas School of Law and currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Food Law & Policy. While in law school, Mary has served on the executive board for the Food & Ag Law Society and the Rural Law Association. She graduated from the University of Arkansas in 2023 with a bachelor's degree in agricultural business and minors in legal studies and southern studies. Mary currently works as a Research Fellow at the National Agricultural Law Center. After law school, Mary plans to pursue a career in agricultural and food law with an emphasis on policy. In her free time, she enjoys reading, baking, and spending time outdoors.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find a link to the JFLP here.You can find the JFLP's LinkedIn here.The JFLP is on Instagram at @arkansas_foodlawandpolicy.As always, you can send questions or comments to Diana Winters at winters@law.ucla.edu. 

Support your health journey with our private practice! Explore comprehensive lab testing, functional assessments, and expert guidance for your wellness journey. Find exclusive offers for podcast listeners at nutritionwithjudy.com/podcast. _____Susan and I dive into the hidden truths about the pet food industry, including how condemned animals and waste products are legally allowed in kibble and even raw pet foods, and how misleading labels trick consumers into believing their pets are eating “chicken” when it's actually feed-grade material. We also discuss the regulatory loopholes, lack of enforcement by the FDA, and why choosing human-grade food is the only way to ensure quality for your pets. Make sure to listen to the full interview to learn more.Susan Thixton is a leading pet food consumer advocate and founder of Truth About Pet Food. After losing her own dog to cancer caused by preservatives in kibble, she dedicated her career to exposing the corruption, hidden practices, and lack of transparency in the pet food industry. Through education, advocacy, and legal petitions, she pushes for stricter regulations and empowers pet owners to make safer choices for their animals.We discuss the following: Meet Susan ThixtonProving kibble's link to cancerAre chicken labels misleading?Is human-grade just marketing?Difference between food and feedAre quality pet foods the same?Is homemade pet food a gray area?Vitamin A poisoning in petsWhat are the 4D's?Vaccines' impact on pet healthLong-term harm from unnecessary surgeriesWhere to find Susan Thixton_____EPISODE RESOURCESPet Food NewsPet Feed vs Pet FoodHealthy Pet FoodsSusan's newsletterThe Forever Dog bookBig Kibble bookAAFCONRCEFH Personalized Health Plan_____WEEKLY NEWSLETTER 

The Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulates roughly 78% of the US food supply. This includes packaged products, food additives, infant formula, ultra-processed foods, and lots more. However, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that 99% of new food ingredients enter our food supply through a legal loophole that skirts FDA oversight and seems, to me at least, to be incredibly risky. Today we're speaking with two authors of a recent legal and policy analysis published in the Journal Health Affairs. They explain what this loophole is and its risks and suggest a new user fee program to both strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate food ingredients and address growing concerns about food safety. Our guests are Jennifer Pomeranz Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at New York University School of Global Public Health and Emily Broad, director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Interview Summary So Jennifer, let's start with you, help our listeners understand the current situation with food ingredient oversight. And what is this legal loophole that allows food companies to add new ingredients without safety reviews. Sure. So, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment in 1958, and the idea was to divide food additives and generally recognized as safe ingredients into two different categories. That's where the GRAS term comes from generally recognized as safe? ‘Generally Recognized As Safe' is GRAS. But it circularly defines food additives as something that's not GRAS. So, there's not actually a definition of these two different types of substances. But the idea was that the food industry would be required to submit a pre-market, that means before it puts the ingredient into the marketplace, a pre-market petition to the FDA to review the safety. And then the FDA promulgates a regulation for safe use of a food additive. GRAS ingredients on the other hand, initially thought of as salt, pepper, vinegar, are things like that would just be allowed to enter the food supply without that pre-market petition. The problem is the food industry is the entity that decides which category to place each ingredient. There's no FDA guidance on which category they're supposed to ascribe to these ingredients. What has happened is that the food industry has now entered into the food supply an enormous amount of ingredients under what we call the GRAS loophole, which is allowing it to just bring it to the market without any FDA oversight or even knowledge of the ingredient. So, in essence, what we're having now is that the food industry polices itself on whether to submit this pre-market petition for a food additive or just include it in its products without any FDA knowledge. When you said ‘enormous number of such things,' are we talking dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nobody knows, but the environmental working group did find that 99% of new ingredients are added through this loophole. And that's the concerning part. Well, you can look at some ultra-processed foods and they can have 30 or 40 ingredients on them. That's just one food. You can imagine that at across the food supply, how many things there are. And there are these chemicals that nobody can pronounce. You don't know what's going on, what they are, what they're all about. So, what you're saying is that the food industry decides to put these things in foods. There's some processing reason for putting them in. It's important that the public be protected against harmful ingredients. But the food industry decides what's okay to put in and what's not. Are they required to do any testing? Are there criteria for that kind of testing? Is there any sense that letting the industry police itself amounts to anything that protects the public good? Well, the criteria are supposed to be the same for GRAS or food additives. They're supposed to be meeting certain scientific criteria. But the problem with this is that for GRAS ingredients, they don't have to use published data and they can hold that scientific data to themselves. And you mentioned food labels, the ingredient list, right? That doesn't necessarily capture these ingredients. They use generic terms, corn oil, color additive, food additive whatever. And so, the actual ingredient itself is not necessarily listed on the ingredient list. There is no way to identify them and it's unknown whether they're actually doing the studies. They can engage in these, what are called GRAS panels, which are supposed to be experts that evaluate the science. But the problem is other studies have found that 100% of the people on these GRAS panels have financial conflicts of interest. Okay, so let me see if I have this right. I'm a food company. I develop a new additive to provide color or flavor or fragrance, or it's an emulsifier or something like that. I develop a chemical concoction that hasn't really been tested for human safety. I declare it safe. And the criteria I use for declaring it set safe is putting together a panel of people that I pay, who then in a hundred percent of cases say things are. That's how it works? I can't say that in a hundred percent of cases they say it's safe, but a hundred percent of the people have financial conflicts of interest. That's one of the major concerns there. Well, one can't imagine they would continue to be paid... Exactly. This sounds like a pretty shaky system to be sure. Emily: I wanted to add a couple other really quick things on the last discussion. You were saying, Kelly, like they're using a panel of experts, which indeed are paid by them. That would be best case in some cases. They're just having their own staff say, we think this is generally recognized as safe. And I think there's some examples we can give where there isn't even evidence that they went to even any outside people, even within industry. I think that the takeaway from all of that is that there's really the ability for companies to call all the shots. Make all the rules. Not tell FDA what they're doing. And then as we talked about, not even have anything on the label because it's not a required ingredient if it's, used as part of a processing agent that's not a substance on there. So I was feeling pretty bad when Jennifer is talking about these panels and the heavy conflict... Even worse. Of interest, now I feel worse because that's the best case. Totally. And one other thing too is just you kind of warmed this up by talking about this loophole. When we put an earlier article out that we wrote that was about just this generally recognized as safe, the feedback we got from FDA was this isn't a loophole. Why are you calling this a loophole? And it's pretty clear that it's a loophole, you know? It's big enough to drive thousands of ingredients through. Yes, totally. Emily, you've written about things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, trans fats, and red dye number three in particular. Both of which FDA has now prohibited in food. Can you walk us through those cases? You asked about partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat, and then red dye three, which are two examples that we talk about a little bit in our piece. Actually, one of those, the partially hydrogenated oils was allowed in food through the generally recognized as safe definition. And the other was not. But they are both really good examples of another real issue that FDA has, which is that not only are they not doing a good job of policing substances going into food on the front end, but they do an even worse job of getting things out of food on the backend, post-market once they know that those substances are really raising red flags. And you raised two of the prime examples we've been talking about. With partially hydrogenated oils these are now banned in foods, but it took an extremely long time. Like the first evidence of harm was in the mid-nineties. By 2005, the Institute of Medicine, which is now the National Academies, said that intake of trans fat, of partially hydrogenated oils, should be as low as possible. And there was data from right around that time that found that 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks in the US each year were caused by these partially hydrogenated oils. And on FDA's end, they started in early 2000s to require labeling. But it wasn't until 2015 that they passed a final rule saying that these substances were not generally recognized as safe. And then they kept delaying implementation until 2023. It was basically more than 20 years from when there was really clear evidence of harm including from respected national agencies to when FDA actually fully removed them from food. And red dye number three is another good example where there were studies from the 1980s that raised concerns about this red dye. And it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. But they still allowed it to be added to food. And didn't ban it from food until early this year. So early 2025. In large part because one of the other things happening is states are now taking action on some of these substances where they feel like we really need to protect consumers in our states. And FDA has been doing a really poor job. California banned red dye about 18 months before that and really spurred FDA to action. So that 20-year delay with between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attack deaths attributable to the trans fats is the cost of delay and inaction and I don't know, conflicts of interest, and all kinds of other stuff that happened in FDA. So we're not talking about something trivial by any means. These are life and death things are occurring. Yes. Give us another example, if you would, about something that entered the food supply and caused harm but made it through that GRAS loophole. The example that I've talked about both in some of the work we've done together and also in a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that really focused on why this is an issue. There was this substance added to food called tara flour. It came on the scene in 2022. It was in food prepared by Daily Harvest as like a protein alternative. And they were using it from a manufacturer in South America who said we have deemed this generally recognized as safe. Everything about that is completely legal. They deemed it generally recognized as safe. A company put it into food, and they sold that. Up until that point, that's all legal. What happened was very quickly people started getting really sick from this. And so there were, I think, about 400 people across 39 states got sick. Nearly 200 people ended up in the hospital, some of them with liver failure because of this toxicity of tara flour. And so FDA followed the thread they did help work with the company to do a voluntary recall, but it then took them two years, until May, 2024, to declare tara flour not generally recognized as safe. So I think, in some ways, this is a great example because it shows how it's so immediate, the impact of this substance that, again, was legally added to food with no oversight. In some ways it's a misleading example because I think so many of the substances in food, it's not going to be so clear and so immediate. It's going to be year over year, decade over decade as part of a full diet that these are causing cardiovascular risk, thyroid disease, cancer risk, those kinds of things. I'd love to hear from either of you about this. Why is FDA falling down on the job so badly? Is it that they don't have the money to do the necessary testing? Do they not have the authority? Is there not the political will to do this? Is there complete caving into the food industry? Just let them do what they want and we're going let it go? Jennifer: All of the above? Everything you just said? It's all of the above. Emily: Jen, do you wanna talk about the money side? Because that sort of gets to the genesis of the article we worked on, which was like maybe there's a creative solution to that piece. Yes, I'd love to hear about that because I thought that was a very creative thing that you guys wrote about in your paper. That there would be an industry user fee to help produce this oversight. Tell us what you had in mind with that. And then then convince me that FDA would appropriately use this oversight and do its job. So, the idea in the paper was proposing a comprehensive user fee program for the food branch of the FDA. The FDA currently collects user fees for all of human drugs, animal drugs, medical devices, etc. With Tobacco, it's a hundred percent funded by user fees. But food, it only gets 1% of its funding through user fees. And it's important to note user fees fund processes. They don't fund outcomes. It's not like a bribe. And the idea behind user fees and why industry sometimes supports them is actually to bring predictability to the regulatory state. It brings efficiency to reviews. And then this all allows the industry to anticipate timelines so they can bring products to market and know when they're going be able to do it. In the food context, for example, the FDA is required to respond to those food additives petitions that we talked about within 180 days. But they can't respond in time. And they have a lot of timelines that are required of them in the food context that they can't meet. They can't meet their timelines because they're so underfunded. So, we proposed a comprehensive user fee. But one of the main reasons that we think a user fee is important is to address the pre-market issues that I talked about and the post-market issues that Emily talked about. In order to close that GRAS loophole, first of all, FDA needs to either reevaluate its authorities or Congress needs to change its authorities. But it would need resources to be able to do something pre-market. Some of the ideas we had was that the user fee would fund some type of either pre-market review, pre-market notification, or even just a pre-market system where the FDA determines whether a proposed ingredient should go through the GRAS avenue, or through food additive petition. So at least that there will be some type of pre-market oversight over all the ingredients in the food supply. And then also the FDA is so severely lacking in any type of comprehensive post-market into play, they would have the resources to engage in a more comprehensive post-market review for all the ingredients. Could you see a time, and I bring this up because of lawsuits against the food industry for some of these additives that are going on now. The state attorney's generals are starting to get involved, and as you said, Emily, the some states are taking legislative action to ban certain things in the food supply. Do you think there could come a time when the industry will come to government pleading to have a user fee like this? To provide some standardization across jurisdictions, let's say? So, there's two things. The first is Congress has to pass the user fee, and historically, actually, industry has done exactly what you said. They have gone to Congress and said, you know what? We want user fees because we want a streamlined system, and we want to be able to know when we're bringing products to market. The problem in the context of food for the issues we're talking about is that right now they can use the GRAS loophole. So, they have very little incentive to ask for user fees if they can bring all their ingredients into the market through the GRAS loophole. There are other areas where a user fee is very relevant, such as the infant formula 90 day pre-market notification, or for different claims like health claims. They might want user fees to speed those things up, but in terms of the ingredients, unless we close the GRAS loophole, they'd have little incentive to actually come to the table. But wouldn't legal liability change that? Let's say that some of these lawsuits are successful and they start having to pay large settlements or have the State Attorneys General, for example, come down on them for these kinds of things. If they're legally liable for harm, they're causing, they need cover. And wouldn't this be worth the user fee to provide them cover for what they put in the food supply? Yes, it's great to have the flexibility to have all these things get through the loophole, but it'd be great as well to have some cover so you wouldn't have so much legal exposure. But you guys are the lawyers, so I'm not sure it makes sense. I think you're right that there are forces combining out in the world that are pushing for change here. And I think it's hard to disentangle how much is it that industry's pushing for user fees versus right now I think more willing to consider federal regulatory changes by either FDA or by Congress. At the state level this is huge. There's now becoming a patchwork across states, and I think that is really difficult for industry. We were tracking this year 93 bills in 35 states that either banned an additive in the general public, banned it in schools. Banned ultra-processed foods, which most of the states, interestingly, have all defined differently. But where they have had a definition, it's been tied to various different combinations of additives. So that's going on. And then I think you're right, that the legal cases moving along will push industry to really want clear and better standards. I think there's a good question right now around like how successful will some of these efforts be? But  what we are seeing is real movement, both in FDA and in Congress, in taking action on this. So interestingly, the Health Affairs piece that we worked on was out this spring. But we had this other piece that came out last fall and felt like we were screaming into the void about this is a problem generally recognized as safe as a really big issue. And suddenly that has really changed. And so, you know, in March FDA said they were directed by RFK (Robert F. Kennedy), by HHS (Health and Human Services) to really look into changing their rule on generally recognized as safe. So, I know that's underway. And then in Congress, multiple bills have been introduced. And I know there are several in the works that would address additives and specifically, generally recognized as safe. There's this one piece going on, which is there's forces coalescing around some better method of regulation. I think the question's really going to also be like, will Congress give adequate resources? Because there is also another scenario that I'm worried about that even if FDA said we're going now require at least notification for every substance that's generally recognized as safe. It's a flood of substances. And they just, without more resources, without more staff devoted to this, there's no way that they're going to be able to wade through that. So, I think that either the resources need to come from user fees, or at least partially from user fees, from more appropriations and I think, In my opinion, they are able to do that on their own. Even given where current administrative law stands. Because I think it's very clear that the gist of the statute is that FDA should be overseeing additives. And I think a court would say this is allowing everything to instead go through this alternative pathway. But I really think FDA's going to need resources to manage this. And perhaps more of a push from Congress to make sure that they really do it to the best of their ability. I was going to say there's also an alternative world where we don't end up spending any of these resources, and they require the industry just to disclose all the ingredients they've added to food and put it on a database. This is like low hanging fruit, not very expensive, doesn't require funding. And then the NGOs, I hope, would go to work and say, look at this. There is no safety data for these ingredients. You know, because right now we just can't rely on FDA to do anything unless they get more funding to do something. So, if FDA doesn't get funding, then maybe this database where houses every ingredient that's in the food supply as a requirement could be a low resource solution. Jennifer, I'll come back to you in a minute because I'd like to ask how worried should we be about all this stuff that's going into food. But Emily, let me ask you first, does FDA have the authority to do what it needs to do? Let's say all of a sudden that your wish was granted and there were user fees would it then be able to do what needs to be done? I think certainly to be able to charge these user fees in almost all areas, it right now doesn't have that authority, and Congress would need to act. There's one small area which is within the Food Safety Modernization Act for certain types of like repeat inspections or recalls or there's a couple other. FDA isn't charging fees right now because they haven't taken this one step that they need to take. But they do have the authority if they just take those steps. But for everything else, Congress has to act. I think the real question to me is because we now know so many of these substances are going through this GRAS pathway, the question is really can they do everything they need to do on their own to close that loophole? And again, my opinion is Congress could make it clear and if Congress were to act, it would be better. Like they could redefine it in a way that was much more clear that we are drawing a real line. And most things actually should be on the additive side of the line rather than the generally recognized as safe side of the line. But even with their current authority, with the current definition, I think FDA could at least require notification because they're still drawing a line between what's required for additives, which is a very lengthy pre-market process with, you know, a notice and comment procedure and all of these things. My take is FDA do what you can do now. Let's get the show on the road. Let's take steps here to close up the loophole. And then Congress takes time. But they definitely can even strengthen this and give a little more, I think, directives to FDA as to how to make sure that this loophole doesn't recur down the line. In talks that I've given recently, I've shown an ingredient list from a food that people will recognize. And I ask people to try to guess what that food is from its ingredient list. This particular food has 35 ingredients. You know, a bunch of them that are very hard to pronounce. Very few people would even have any idea at all what those ingredients do. There's no sense at all about how ingredient number 17 would interact with ingredient 31, etc. And it just seems like it's complete chaos. And I don't want to take you guys outside your comfort zone because your backgrounds are law. But Jennifer, let me ask you this. You have a background in public health as well. There are all kinds of reasons to be worried about this, aren't there? There are the concerns about the safety of these things, but then there's a concern about what these ultra-processed ingredients do to your metabolism, your ability to control your weight, to regulate your hunger and things like that. It sounds this is a really important thing. And it's affecting almost everybody in the country. The percentage of calories that are now coming from ultra-processed foods is over 50% in both children and adults. So it sounds like there's really reason to worry. Would you agree? Yes. And also, the FDA is supposed to be overseeing the cumulative effects of the ingredients and it doesn't actually enforce that regulation. Its own regulation that it's supposed to evaluate the cumulative effects. It doesn't actually enforce this. So by cumulative effects do you mean the chronic effects of long term use? And, having these ingredients across multiple products within one person's consumption. Also, the FDA doesn't look at things like the effect on the gut microbiome, neurotoxicity, even cancer risk, even though they're supposed to, they say that if something is GRAS, they don't need to look at it because cancer risk is relegated only to food additives. So here we're at a real issue, right? Because if everything's entering through the GRAS loophole, then they're not looking at carcinogen effects. So, I think there is a big risk and as Emily had said earlier, that these are sometimes long-term risks versus that acute example of tara flour that we don't know. And we do know from the science, both older and emerging science, that ultra-processed food has definite impact on not only consumption, increased consumption, but also on diet related diseases and other health effects. And by definition what we're talking about here are ultra-processed foods. These ingredients are only found in ultra-processed foods. So, we do know that there is cause for concern. It's interesting that you mentioned the microbiome because we've recorded a cluster of podcasts on the microbiome and another cluster of podcasts on artificial sweeteners. Those two universes overlap a good bit because the impact of the artificial sweeteners on some of them, at least on the microbiome, is really pretty negative. And that's just one thing that goes into these foods. It really is pretty important. By the way, that food with 35 ingredients that I mentioned is a strawberry poptart. Jennifer: I know that answer! Emily: How do you know that? Jennifer: Because I've seen Kelly give a million talks. Yes, she has. Emily: I was wondering, I was like, are we never going to find out? So the suspense is lifted. Let me end with this. This has been highly instructive, and I really appreciate you both weighing in on this. So let me ask each of you, is there reason to be optimistic that things could improve. Emily, I'll start with you. So, I've been giving this talk the past few months that's called basically like Chronic Disease, Food Additives and MAHA, like What Could Go Right and What Could Go Wrong. And so, I'm going give you a very lawyerly answer, which is, I feel optimistic because there's attention on the issue. I think states are taking action and there's more attention to this across the political spectrum, which both means things are happening and means that the narrative changing, like people are getting more aware and calling for change in a way that we weren't seeing. On the flip side, I think there's a lot that could go wrong. You know, I think some of the state bills are great and some of them are maybe not so great. And then I think this administration, you have an HHS and FDA saying, they're going to take action on this in the midst of an administration that's otherwise very deregulatory. In particular, they're not supposed to put out new regulations if they can get rid of 10 existing ones. There are some things you can do through guidance and signaling, but I don't think you can really fix these issues without like real durable legislative change. So, I'm sorry to be one of the lawyers here. I think the signals are going in the right direction, but jury is out a little bit on how well we'll actually do. And I hope we can do well given the momentum. What do you think, Jennifer? I agree that the national attention is very promising to these issues. The states are passing laws that are shocking to me. That Texas passing a warning label law, I would never have thought in the history of the world, that Texas would be the one to pass a warning label law. They're doing great things and I actually have hope that something can come of this. But I am concerned at the federal level of the focus on deregulation may make it impossible. User fees is an example of where they won't have to regulate, but they could provide funding to the FDA to actually act in areas that it has the authority to act. That is one solution that could actually work under this administration if they were amenable to it. But I also think in some ways the states could save us. I worry, you know, Emily brought up the patchwork, which is the key term the industry uses to try to get preemption. I do worry about federal preemption of state actions. But the states right now are the ones saving us. California is the first to save the whole nation. The food industry isn't going to create new food supply for California and then the rest of the country. And then it's the same with other states. So, the states might be the ones that actually can make some real meaningful changes and get some of the most unsafe ingredients out of the food supply, which some of the states have now successfully done. Bios Emily Broad Leib is a Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, the nation's first law school clinic devoted to providing legal and policy solutions to the health, economic, and environmental challenges facing our food system. Working directly with clients and communities, Broad Leib champions community-led food system change, reduction in food waste, food access and food is medicine interventions, and equity and sustainability in food production. Her scholarly work has been published in the California Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, Harvard Law & Policy Review, Food & Drug Law Journal, and Journal of Food Law & Policy, among others. Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

The what, how, and why when thinking about clean and unclean meat laws.

TODAY ON THE ROBERT SCOTT BELL SHOW: COVID Flu Universal Vaccine, Cory Hillis, EMF Dangers, Kalium-Cyanatum, RFK Jr. Food Laws, Medical Groups Push Back., William Parker, Acetaminophen-Autism Link, Religious Exemption Guide and MORE! https://robertscottbell.com/covid-flu-universal-vaccine-cory-hillis-emf-dangers-kalium-cyanatum-rfk-jr-food-laws-medical-groups-push-back-william-parker-acetaminophen-autism-link-religious-exemption-guide-and-more/https://boxcast.tv/view/rfk-universal-vaccine-cory-hillis-emf-dangers-kalium-cyanatum-william-parker-tylenol-autism-link---the-rsb-show-8-11-25-ajx45lyrejxnaizvxbsw Please read this disclaimer carefully before you (“you”, “your”) use our [Your Website URL] website (“website”, “service”) operated by the [Your Business Name] (“operator”, “us”, “we”, “our”). Purpose and Character The use of copyrighted material on the website is for non-commercial, educational purposes, and is intended to provide benefit to the public through information, critique, teaching, scholarship, or research. Nature of Copyrighted Material Weensure that the copyrighted material used is for supplementary and illustrative purposes and that it contributes significantly to the user's understanding of the content in a non-detrimental way to the commercial value of the original content. Amount and Substantiality Our website uses only the necessary amount of copyrighted material to achieve the intended purpose and does not substitute for the original market of the copyrighted works. Effect on Market Value The use of copyrighted material on our website does not in any way diminish or affect the market value of the original work. We believe that our use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you believe that any content on the website violates your copyright, please contact us providing t

Dr. Steven Gundry explores the profound impact of gut health on overall well-being. In this episode, he discusses the modern insults to our gut microbiome since the mid-1970s, the significance of gut diversity, and strategies for maintaining a healthy gut lining. Dr. Gundry shares insights on combating inflammation, the importance of soaking and pressure-cooking legumes, and the transformative role of olive oil. This enlightening conversation combines historical wisdom with modern scientific insights, providing practical tips for maintaining a healthy gut.Episode Overview (timestamps are approximate):(0:00) Intro/Teaser(4:00) Understanding Inflammation and Gut Health(20:00) Impact of Modern Insults on Autoimmunity(37:00) Impact of Endurance Exercise on Health(45:00) Food Laws and Autoimmune Disease(53:00) The Lost Wisdom of Traditional Diets(1:07:00) Fermented Foods and Gut Health(1:10:00) BONUS: Dr. Stephanie's "After Party"We are grateful to our sponsors:PIQUE - Designed to deeply hydrate, enhance skin elasticity & firmness and support sustained energy—exactly what we need during this stage of life. Start your daily ritual today with 20% off for life—plus a free gift to elevate your routine. Head to https://piquelife.com/drestima.JUST THRIVE HEALTH - Unlike other probiotics, spore probiotics arrive in the gut microbiome (home to trillions of bacteria) 100% alive and ready to work. Go to https://justthrivehealth.com/better and use the code BETTER to save.BON CHARGE - Achieve glowing skin, gain more energy, and uplevel your recovery practice with a suite of red light products. Get 15% off at https://boncharge.com/better with code BETTER.LMNT - Rehydrate with the perfect mix of sodium, potassium, and magnesium. Get a free sample pack at https://drinklmnt.com/drestima.

Did God revoke his food laws? Did he abolish the distinction between clean and unclean animals? Many argue that he did based on Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10. However, recent scholarship is challenging that interpretation. In his new book, "Whom God Has Made Clean: A Pronomian Pocket Guide to Acts 10:9–15," my guest, R. M. Bailey, argues that Peter's vision isn't about food at all. Bailey challenges popular antinomian interpretations and offers a pronomian reading that better fits both the immediate context and the broader biblical narrative. I'm excited to talk to him about this important passage.Get your copy of "Whom God Has Made Clean" here: https://a.co/d/1bx8C2J

In this episode of Repast, Michael and Diana host Emily Broad Leib, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC), and Akif Khan, Clinical Fellow at the FLPC. They discuss the FLPC's long history of working on food waste and food date labeling, and a comment the FLPC recently submitted in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Request for Information on Food Date Labeling, drafted by Akif. Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. The link to the FLPC's comment is here.The link to the Zero Food Waste Coalition comment is here.You can find the FLPC's Food Loss and Waste Policy Hub here.

This month on Repast, Diana talks with Maria Trubetskaya and Justine Kim, UCLA Law's inaugural Future of Food Fellows. The Future of Food Initiative was created as an interdisciplinary collaboration between graduate students working in different fields to address issues and obstacles in the creation and path to market of cultivated meat. Here, Diana, Maria, and Justine discuss cultivated meat, its regulation, this collaboration, and more. Justine is a rising 3L at UCLA Law School, interested in pursuing personal injury law. Maria graduated from UCLA Law in May 2025 with a specialization in Critical Race Studies. They are joining a big law firm this fall as an associate in their commercial litigation practice.  Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. A link to the flyer for the Future Food Symposium, held spring 2025, is here. 

If your homestead isn't compliant, you can find yourself in trouble. Alexia Kulwiec from Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund has helpful tips for you.  Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) protects the rights of farmers and consumers to engage in direct commerce through legal representation and policy work. Our members receive help drafting the agreements they need to provide food directly to consumers. We are there for farmers facing inspection and regulatory issues and may provide representation of members facing litigation if it fits our mission. We work to influence state and local policy to ease the regulatory burden placed on independent farmers. Sponsored by BaseCampEd App - It takes a village, build yours today! Episode Links Find FCLDF: www.farmtoconsumer.org Phone: 703-208-3276 Email: info@farmtoconsumer.org Digital Thermometer: https://amzn.to/4mv48Xn Find Kody Website: https://www.thehomesteadeducation.com/ Shop Curriculum: https://www.thehomesteadeducation.com/shop Speaking Events: https://www.thehomesteadeducation.com/events Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thehomesteadeducation Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/homestead_education Watch episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@homesteadeducation    

Eating crickets and meat grown in a lab with cancer-like cells - WHO APPROVED THAT?! Scott Tips, president of the National Health Federation (NHF) and internationally recognized health freedom attorney, joins host, Jamie Belz, to help us understand the deeper mechanisms of Codex Alimentarius, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the global regulatory web that threatens access to nutrient-dense food, natural health remedies, and therapeutic supplements.   As the only health-freedom organization with official INGO (International Non-Governmental Organization) status at Codex, NHF is uniquely positioned to stand up for the public's right to safe, informed, and autonomous healthcare choices on the global stage.   Over the last 70 years, NHF has defended medical choice and challenged the federal government's overreach into nutrition, supplementation, and holistic healing.   Some quick topics/snippets from this episode: Codex creates international food law—affecting everything from vitamin dosage limits to whether or not your meat contains drug residues. Most people don't even know Codex exists. And yet, decisions made there determine what shows up in your grocery cart, your supplement bottle, and your child's plate. The U.S. can now force genetically modified foods into countries that don't want them — not through diplomacy, but through international tribunals using Codex standards as their weapon. Ractopamine is a drug with zero therapeutic value. It makes animals fatter, faster — but it's banned in the EU, China, and Russia. In the U.S., you're probably eating it. When you hear ‘scientific consensus,' be cautious. The phrase is used to bulldoze public concern. You can be banned for calling out corruption at Codex. At CODEX, NHF is the only one defending your right to natural health freedom. The EU, Russia, even Iran — they've stood up for consumer safety at Codex more than the U.S. delegates have. The scary thing isn't just what the FDA is doing. It's how many people still trust them, blindly — even when their actions have harmed more people than every U.S. war combined. We need advocacy from the ground up. Most parents feeding their kids toxic food don't even know it — because the truth has been buried. “Frankenmeat”, insect protein, and natural flavoring cover-ups, all of which bypass transparent labeling laws while being quietly introduced into the food supply. They're trying to outlaw homeopathy—while promoting lab-grown meat and insect protein as sustainable alternatives. We don't want to be right. We want to get it right.   “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship… To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.” - Dr. Benjamin Rush, Declaration of Independence signator and Surgeon General of the Continental Army   "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls of those who live under tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson   TAKE ACTION:  Join the National Health Federation for only $45/year to support international advocacy at Codex and receive the quarterly NHF magazine. This low-cost membership helps fund independent watchdog efforts that no other organization is legally authorized to perform at the global level. ⁠JOIN HERE⁠   Other mentions: ⁠⁠Ep 034: Fight For Your Right To Health Freedom⁠⁠ ⁠The HighWire report exposing Peter Marks and vaccine data suppression⁠    Health freedom is necessary. As government and corporate interests grow more entangled, grassroots advocacy is no longer optional. It's essential. Join the NHF and become part of the movement to reclaim sovereignty over what we eat, how we heal, and what we're allowed to know.    

Today, Repast welcomes Kim Kessler, the Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control at the New York City Department of Health, Dipa Shah Patel, the Director of the Los Angeles County Public Health Department's Nutrition and Physical Activity Program, and Paula Daniels, the Director of the L.A. County Office of Food Systems. Kim, Dipa, and Paula join Diana to discuss how agencies within municipalities can work together to reduce chronic disease.  This conversation was sparked by a strategy released by the New York City Health Department in January of this year titled Addressing Unacceptable Inequities: A Chronic Disease Strategy for New York City—a multiagency strategy that addresses the root causes of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and screenable cancers, and outlines proposals and interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic disease. Kim Kessler is the Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control at the New York City Department of Health. Dipa Shah Patel is the Director of the Los Angeles County Public Health Department's Nutrition and Physical Activity Program.  Paula Daniels is the Director of the L.A. County Office of Food Systems. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Addressing Unacceptable Inequities: A Chronic Disease Strategy for New York City here. You can find the L.A. County Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Report here. As always, you can send questions or comments to Diana Winters at winters@law.ucla.edu. 

In this episode of Repast, Diana is joined as co-host by Lavanya Sathyamurthy, UCLA Law student and co-founder of the Food, Race, and Equity Initiative. Diana and Lavanya talk with Professor Denisse Córdova Montes from the University of Central Florida.  Here, the three discuss Professor Córdova Montes' career as a human rights advocate and educator, her work as the Acting Associate Director of the University of Miami School of Law's Human Rights Clinic, and a human rights approach to the right to food, among other things. Professor Córdova Montes is an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida.  Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find blog posts about the Food, Race, and Equity Initiative at UCLA Law here and here. You can find Professor Córdova Montes' Maine Law Review article on the Maine right to food here. You can find a link to the National Right to Food Community of Practice's website here. You can find the article titled The “Second Amendment of Food”: Some Reflections on American Liberalism, commented on in the podcast, here.    

In this episode of the Ag Law in the Field Podcast, Judith McGeary delves into the intricacies of Texas Cottage Food Law. If you're a home baker, a small-scale food producer, or simply curious about the regulations surrounding selling homemade food in Texas, this episode is a must-listen.   Contact Info for Judith McGeary (Email) Judith@farmandranchfreedom.org (Website) https://farmandranchfreedom.org/about/team/    Links to Topics Mentioned on the Show Laboratory Services Requests for Official Determination on Food Regulations Texas Cottage Food Production House Bill 2952 Senate Bill 2099 Senate Bill 541 House Bill 520 House Bill 2588 Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance National Ag Law Center 50 State Compilation of Cottage Food Laws:   FARFA Cottage Food Law page:   More info on Texas Cottage Food Law:     Podcast Sponsors Capital Farm Credit,  AgTrust Farm Credit, Texas Corn Producers, Braun & Gresham, Plains Land Bank, Plateau Land & Wildlife Management, and AgTexas  

In this episode we talk to Kyla Wazana Tompkins, chair of the Department of Global Gender and Sexuality studies at the University of Buffalo. She gives incredible insight into the relationship between the history of science and the history of food law and policy. We look at legislation like the 1906 Food and Drug Act to examine how food policy shaped and was shaped by American ideas about race, national identity, and the body. From $40 LA smoothies to the fermentation practices of the Appalachian peoples, we explore how the way we eat is always bound up with race and gender, both in the past and in the present. 

Today on Repast, Michael, Diana, and Professors Amy Cohen and Susan Schneider look at the new Trump administration and food policy, discussing background policies, underlying trends, and state initiatives. The four discuss the complex political and cultural dynamics in food policy, agricultural policy and the USDA, nutrition initiatives and the FDA, and trade policy and international food law. They talk about the role of misinformation, big tech, the need for strong leadership, left-right alliances, and the transactional nature of the administration, among other things. This podcast was recorded on January 24, 2025, before the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Agriculture was named.   Amy Cohen is Professor and Robert J. Reinstein Chair in Law at Temple University School of Law. Susan Schneider is the William H. Enfield Professor of Law at the Arkansas School of Law and the Director of the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law. Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Amy Cohen and Mathilde Cohen's article titled “The 'Second Amendment of Food': Some Reflections on American Liberalism,” here. As always, you can send questions or comments to Diana Winters at winters@law.ucla.edu. 

For many years in talks that I gave, I showed a slide with an ingredient list from a food most people know. Just to see if the audience could guess what the food was. based on what it was made of. It was very hard for people to guess. A few people might come close, but very few people would guess. And it was pretty hard because the food contained 56 ingredients. This is in one food. And the ingredient list had chemical names, flavorings, stabilizers, and heaven knows what else. But 56 things in one, just one food in the food supply. Pretty amazing to think what kind of things we're bombarded with in foods we eat in our everyday lives. So, one key question is do we know what all this stuff does to us, either individually or in combination? So, how does ingredient 42 interact with ingredient 17? Even if we happen to know what they do individually, which we may not. And, who's looking out for the health of the population, and who has regulatory control over these things? Today we're joined by the author of a new article on this topic published in the American Journal of Public Health. Jennifer Pomeranz is an attorney and is Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management in the School of Global Public Health at New York University. The food, by the way, was a chocolate fudge Pop Tart. Interview Summary So, who has regulatory oversight with these things that are added to foods? The FDA has the authority over all of those packaged foods. So, Pop Tarts, all of that type of packaged foods and the ingredients in there. Can you explain the nature of their authority and the concept of GRAS and what that stands for? Yes. So, there are two main ingredients in our food, but there is also color additives and other things that we didn't get to in our study. But the two main ingredients are called 'food additives' and then 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS substances. And these are the two ingredients that are in all the processed foods. They're both complex substances, but they're regulated differently. GRAS is assumed to be safe. And food with GRAS substances is presumed to be safe as long as there's a generally agreement among scientists that it's safe, or if it's been in use in food since 1958. Food additives, on the other hand, are presumed to be unsafe. And so, foods that have food additives must have the food additive be approved for the condition of use. So actually, the FDA issues regulations on the food additives. Is it true that the FDA authority covers lots of these chemical type things that get put in foods that we discussed? But also, things that occur naturally in some things like caffeine? Yes. And so, caffeine is considered GRAS or generally recognized as safe. The FDA has a tolerance level for cola-type beverages for caffeine. It actually doesn't enforce that as you see, because we have energy drinks that far exceed that type of level. So, there's different types of GRAS substances. But they can be very complex substances that are actually not so different than food additives. Who decides at the end of the day whether something's safe or not? You imagine this battalion of scientific experts that the FDA has on hand, or consults with, to decide whether something's safe or not. But how does it work? Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case. When it comes to food additives, the industry must petition the FDA and provide evidence showing that it's safe. And the FDA promulgates a regulation saying that it agrees it's safe and it can be used for the things that it set forth in the regulation. For GRAS, there are two mechanisms. One is the industry can notify the FDA that it thinks something's safe. And then it actually goes through a similar transparent process where the FDA will evaluate the evidence submitted. Or, shockingly, the industry can actually decide that it's safe for themselves. And they don't have to notify the FDA. And they can add it to their food without the FDA or the public actually knowing. Now they might disclose this on a website or something, but it's actually not even required to be based on peer reviewed literature, which is actually one of the concerning aspects about this. Concerning is polite language for what one might call shocking. So, in the case of some of these things that go into the food, the industry itself decides whether these things are safe. And in some cases, they have to at least tell the FDA that something they declare as safe is going into the food. But in some cases, they don't even have to do this. Right. So, they only have to if they've determined that it's a food additive. But actually, the industry itself is deciding that it's a food additive versus GRAS. Once it made the decision, it's GRAS, it doesn't even have to notify the FDA that it considers it safe. If they do, they are supposed to rely on their own research saying that it's safe. But actually, there's some alarming parts about that as well. The other outside research that's not my own found that the panels of experts that they employ, 100 percent of the people on those panels have financial conflicts of interest. So, that's already worrisome. They're receiving money from the food industry in some way. Yes. To say that the ingredient is safe. Another scary part is that if they do notify the FDA and they're not happy with how the FDA is reacting to their GRAS notification, they can actually request a cease and desist. The FDA will issue a cease and desist letter, and then they can actually go to market with that ingredient. Pretty amazing. Like loopholes that not only a truck can go through, but a train and everything else. That's really pretty remarkable. So one could say that the risk built into this system is hypothetical, and it works pretty well. But is that true? I mean, are there cases where things have gotten through that probably shouldn't have? Or is it just that we don't know? I think there's a lot of unknowns. The Environmental Working Group does that research and they have identified things that they find to be concerning. A lot of it is that we actually don't know what we don't know, right? So even the FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know. And that is, is part of the concern, that you can't just identify this by looking at the nutrition facts label where they list ingredients. Sometimes they just use terms like spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives. But that could be masking an ingredient that has never been examined and for which It's unclear that it's actually safe. I know there have been some policy efforts in places such as California to prohibit use of some of these things that have otherwise been considered safe by the FDA, or perhaps just by industry. Is that true that's happening more and more? Yes, actually there has been. Because of the gap in the FDA's oversight, we are seeing states, and it's actually a pretty shocking situation, that California banned four ingredients that the FDA did not. And it's saying that those ingredients are not safe to be in food in California. And given what a huge market California is, the thinking is that the industry will have to change their ingredients across the nation. And frankly, they've already taken those ingredients out of the same foods in Europe, where those ingredients are not allowed. So how much do you trust this self-policing by the industry? To be honest, I'm quite concerned about it. The FDA has the authority to review substances post market, so after they're already in the ingredients. But we see that it can take years or even decades. In the case of, remember, partially hydrogenated oils, which were artificially produced trans-fat. It took decades for them to get that removed from the food supply, despite significant research showing that it had caused health harm. So, even when there is evidence of harm, it takes quite a long time for the FDA to remove it. And in the case of another ingredient recently where California banned it, then the FDA decided to ban it. So, it does worry me that even their post market authority is not being utilized to the extent that it should. Let's think about what a good set of defaults might be and how this might actually play out in practice. If you'd assume these things that go into foods are not safe by default, then the question is what would it take to make sure they're safe before they're allowed in the food supply? And it would take toxicology studies, studies with lab animals perhaps, studies with humans. I don't know exactly how these things are tested, but one can imagine it's not an easy or a quick process. Nor probably an inexpensive one. But somebody would have to do it, and if government can't do it, you can't rely on industry to do it. I wonder if the default might be fewer things in the food supply and whether that might not be a pretty good thing? I love that you said that because that's the conclusion I came to as well. Why do we need all these new ingredients? We already have ultra processed foods, which are by definition contain all these ingredients that we don't really know what they are. And why do we even need new ingredients? I think they could even put a moratorium on new ingredients and say, let's take a, take an analysis of what we've got in the food supply at this point. And to be honest, it would take Congress to act to change FDA's authority to give them more authority to do what you just suggested. And of course, resources, which would be personnel like you described. So maybe that chocolate Pop Tart that has 56 ingredients could get by with 41 or 32 or 17. And you know, maybe we'd be just fine having it with fewer ingredients. One interesting thing that I've heard about, but I'm not an expert in because my background isn't law, is I know it's possible for outside parties to bring lawsuits against government for failing to execute its duties. Has there been any talk about possible lawsuits taking on the FDA for failing to protect the public's health with regard to these things? Well, actually, there was a lawsuit already. These consumer protection organizations sued the FDA, arguing that they weren't protecting the public. And that they were actually ceding authority to the industry, which, they by definition are. But according to the law, because Congress didn't require them to review these ingredients pre market, the court found that the FDA did not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And so, they were operating according to the law. But also, to your point, I could see other lawsuits would be possible about them not actually exercising their post market authority to protect the public. Those could be from private lawsuits or a state attorney's general. There are different ideas there. So, what do you suggest going forward? You know what? Don't eat the Pop Tart. I think you got to avoid the many truly ultra processed foods and go for the lower processing levels. It's kind of that original advice. If you can't understand the ingredient list, maybe pick something different. And there are options within the same categories, right? There are potato chips that have three ingredients and there's potato crisps that have something like 12. So there are different options in that way. Bio Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

In this episode, recorded in late December 2024, Michael and Diana talk with Dr. Darin Detweiler, a prominent food safety academic, advisor, advocate, and author. Dr. Detwiler has significantly influenced food safety policies through roles with the USDA, FDA, and others. He is a Professor at Northeastern University, an adjunct professor of food law at Michigan State University, and Founder and CEO of Detwiler Consulting Group. His career, spanning over 30 years, is highlighted in the Emmy Award-winning 2023 Netflix documentary "Poisoned: The Dirty Truth about Your Food."  In addition to traveling around the world as a keynote speaker, Dr. Detwiler's work and insights appear regularly in various publications, news outlets, and podcasts, as well as his books: “Food Safety: Past, Present, and Predictions” and “Building the Future of Food Safety Technology: Blockchain and Beyond.”  Notably, he is the recipient of the International Association for Food Protection's 2022 Control of Foodborne Illness Award as well as their 2018 Distinguished Service Award for dedicated and exceptional contributions to the reduction of risks of foodborne illness. Here, Dr. Detwiler discusses the recent spate of foodborne illness outbreaks, and he looks to the past to predict, and make recommendations for, the future. You can find more information on Dr. Detwiler here.  You can read about the documentary Poisoned: The Dirty Truth About Your Food here. Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.     

In this episode, Michael and Diana talk with Nicola Twilley, the author of Frostbite: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves (Penguin Press, June 2024), and co-host of the award-winning Gastropod podcast, which looks at food through the lens of history and science. They discuss supply chains, how refrigerated beef changed America, and the trade-offs of refrigeration, among other things.  Nicola Twilley is an author and podcast host, and you can find more information on her here.  Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can buy Frostbite here. You can listen to Nicky's podcast, Gastropod, here. You can find Nicky's latest articles in The New Yorker here.    

This month on Repast Michael and Diana talk with Amanda Howell, managing attorney at the Animal Legal Defense Fund. They discuss a recent petition by the ALDF to the FDA urging the FDA require the disclosure of animal-derived ingredients on package labels, along with other work the ALDF is doing right now.  Amanda Howell is a managing attorney at ALDF. Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find ALDF's petition to the FDA here. A list of cases ALDF is involved in can be found here. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, discussed in the podcast, cab be found here.

November 7, 2024 This episode features Doug O'Brien, President & CEO of the National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International (NCBA CLUSA). Vernon and Doug delve into election results and the implications for cooperatives. Doug O'Brien is the President & CEO National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International (NCBA CLUSA) He works with the cooperative community, both domestically and internationally, to deepen their impact and influence. NCBA CLUSA is the primary voice for cooperatives in the United States for using the cooperative business model to empower people in their businesses and communities. Doug has been with NCBA since 2016 and became president and CEO in January 2018. Before coming to NCBA CLUSA, he led the work of the White House Rural Council and served in top positions at the U.S. Department of Agriculture focusing on rural economic development. Doug has experience working in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and for two state governors. His academic career encompasses teaching and authoring at the University of Arkansas Law School and Drake University Law School. Raised on a diverse farm in Dubuque County, Iowa, O'Brien earned degrees from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, the University of Iowa Law School, and a Master's in Agricultural and Food Law from the University of Arkansas.

Johanna Velez is Vice President of Quality Assurance for Monin Americas, having joined the brand in 2002. With more than 27 years in the food industry, Johanna has a wealth of experience in leading, directing, and guiding the company's food safety and quality programs at all Monin North America locations. She successfully led Monin to achieve Safe Quality Foods (SQF) and Organic certifications for both the Clearwater, Florida and Sparks, Nevada facilities, resulting in an "Excellent" rating for the brand's food safety practices. Prior to Monin, Johanna spent five years at Wild Flavors (now Archer-Daniels-Midland Company) in Cincinnati, Ohio. She is a member of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), including the Florida IFT Division, as well as the Bay Area Manufacturers Association (BAMA). Johanna graduated from Louisiana State University and later attended Michigan State University to obtain her certification in Food Law and Regulations. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Johanna [30:04] about: How her industry and academic experiences inform her work at Monin Americas, and important food safety and quality considerations of doing business as a global supplier Embracing technology and digitization to modernize quality control processes, such as using QR codes to track equipment maintenance history Implementing quarterly proficiency testing to ensure that employees' skills and knowledge stay up-to-date Utilizing a "blameless problem-solving" approach to address non-conformances, and bringing cross-functional teams together to identify root causes of issues and implement improvements How Monin Americas achieved an “Excellent” rating for its food safety practices, and the company's processes for upholding its SQF and Organic certifications Reinforcing a culture of continuous improvement and collaboration at Monin Americas, where food safety is a core value shared by all employees Onboarding suppliers as "partners" and working closely with them to reinforce robust food safety standards and ensure implementation of best practices. News and Resources News McDonald's E. coli Outbreak [3:29] CDC Names Taylor Farms Onions as Cause of McDonald's E. coli Outbreak; Patient Count Rises to 90 Beef Ruled Out as Source of McDonald's E. coli Outbreak, Quarter Pounders Return to Restaurants Major Chains Pull Onions Due to E. coli Concerns After Taylor Farms Confirmed as McDonald's Supplier At Least One Death Caused by E. coli Outbreak Linked to McDonald's Quarter Pounders FDA Human Foods Program Reveals Work Plans for 2025 [7:13] Listeria, Salmonella Represent 40 Percent of FDA Food and Beverage Recalls in Last 20 Years [17:01] Following Salmonella Outbreaks Linked to Indiana Cantaloupe, FDA and Purdue University Launch Environmental Study [19:10] Resources Food Safety Insights: “How is the Revolution in Technology Changing Food Safety?—Part 3” [20:01] Food Safety Five Newsreel Food Safety Magazine's YouTube Channel We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

Recorded on Sunday, October 27, 2024. Other scripture cited: Leviticus 11:29-40; Mark 7:14-19.Support the show

Did Jesus abolish the distinction between permitted (clean) and prohibited (unclean) food in the Torah? Many say that he did based on his interaction with the Pharisees in Mark 7:1-23. In this passage, Jesus says that nothing that goes into a person can defile him (Mark 7:15). Also, in most English Bible translations, Mark 7:19 has a parenthetical statement that reads, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Hence, it is believed that Mark's Jesus invalidated the Torah's food laws. But is that really what this passage is saying? My guest, Dr. Logan Williams, challenges the antinomian reading of Mark 7:1-23 and offers a more plausible interpretation. Read the paper from Dr. Logan Williams here --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/david-wilber/support

In this episode, Michael and Diana talk with Catherine Sweetser, Deputy Director of the Promise Institute for Human Rights and the Director of the Human Rights Litigation Clinic at UCLA Law. Here, Professor Sweetser discusses her work against slavery and human trafficking in the global food supply chain, particularly in the context of chocolate production, the U.S. Supreme Court case Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe (2021), and how lawyers, advocates, and students can make a difference in this area.Catherine Sweetser is Deputy Director of the Promise Institute for Human Rights and the Director of the Human Rights Litigation Clinic at UCLA Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe (2021) here.The book Bitter Chocolate by Carol Off, mentioned by Professor Sweetser, can be found here.The citation for the law review article mentioned by Professor Sweetser is: Burley, Anne-Marie, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461 (1989).

As CEO of STOP Foodborne Illness (STOP) since May 2019, Mitzi Baum, M.Sc. is focused on expanding STOP's impact by concentrating on three strategic areas: families and individuals impacted by foodborne disease, company culture and practice, and food safety policy. By instituting a collaborative, consumer-centric operating model, STOP engages stakeholders across the food system to develop and advance solutions to food safety. Prior to her tenure at STOP, which will come to an end in late 2024, Mitzi cultivated a 23-year career at Feeding America, rising to the senior-level position of Managing Director of Food Safety. Mitzi holds a Master of Science degree in Food Safety and a certificate in Food Law from Michigan State University. She received her Bachelor of Science degree from Bowling Green State University and has obtained certificates in Nonprofit Management from the University of Chicago, Quality Management from DePaul University, and Food Safety Management from Cornell University. Mitzi is the 2021 Joseph Leiter Lecturer of the Medical Library Association and National Library of Medicine, an adjunct faculty for Michigan State University's Online Food Safety Program, a certified seafood Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) instructor, and a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI). She also serves as the consumer representative on Council I for the Conference for Food Protection and is a member of the National Restaurant Association's Food Safety Advisory Council. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Mitzi [2:57] about: The development and impacts of the Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness, a program of STOP that joins industry with consumers STOP's advocacy for the modernization of USDA-FSIS's regulatory standards for Salmonella in poultry, for which FSIS recently released a proposed framework, and STOP's thoughts on the new framework STOP's work to include Cronobacter sakazakii on the CDC's List of Nationally Notifiable Diseases, and whether more work is required to prevent Cronobacter infections from powdered infant formula following the 2022 outbreak and supply shortage Efforts to position STOP as a more credible, reliable, and focused organization with greater visibility and improved fundraising outcomes What drew Mitzi to STOP, and her proudest achievements during her tenure as CEO. We Want to Hear from You!Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

The preservation of competition in agricultural markets has been identified as as one of the Biden Administration's highest enforcement priorities. In this episode, co-hosts Alicia Downey and Barry Nigro talk to Professor Kelly Nuckolls of the University of Arkansas School of Law about recent enforcement actions and rulemaking efforts targeting anticompetitive practices in the agriculture sector. Listen to this episode to learn about the DOJ Antitrust Division's case against benchmarking service provider Agri Stats based on allegedly collusive information-sharing, and the Division's renewed interest in enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921--a federal statute with the potential to support challenges to unfair conduct that the Sherman Act might not reach. With special guest: Kelly Nuckolls, Assistant Director and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law for the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law, University of Arkansas School of Law Related Links: Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 9 CFR 201.302-201.390 (Mar. 6, 2024) Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments, 9 CFR 201.2-201.4 (Nov. 28, 2023) Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009) Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Barry Nigro, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

Entrepreneurs of all types deal with a myriad of concerns about legal issues, like risk mitigation, trademark law and intellectual property, to name a few. These topics are especially prominent in the competitive food and beverage industry because legal rules about label and marketing claims are strict. On today's episode of The Tidbit, host Kim Bryden speaks with Lauren Handel, principal attorney of Handel Food Law, a law firm dedicated to food businesses. Lauren shares tidbits of knowledge for entrepreneurs who are starting and growing business and uncertain what to keep in mind when it comes to legal topics.Show notes:Host: Kim BrydenProducer: Gabriela SaldiviaGuests: Lauren Handel, Handel Food Lawhttps://www.handelfoodlaw.com/lauren-handel/

Britton Taylor discusses Leviticus 11:2-3—“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat.'”Download our Clean & Unclean Meats Infographic: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/learning-center/infographics/clean-unclean-meats/This episode is a companion to the following Daily Bible Verse post: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/blog/biblical-food-laws-clean-and-unclean-meats/Verse by Verse releases every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Be sure to subscribe in your player of choice to hear each new episode as soon as it's released!

This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Nora von Bergen, LL.M., a lawyer with Food Lex AG, to discuss her role as an accomplished food practitioner in Bern, Switzerland. Nora and I are both officers of the International Bar Association Agriculture and Food Law Section, and I have learned more over the past several years about Nora's practice and find it fascinating. We discuss what Nora does at Food Lex and in that context, recent comprehensive amendments to Swiss food law that went into effect recently, and  a few of the challenging legal issues Nora and her colleagues are addressing.  ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

We would like to offer you a welcome to the whole Word. More and more people are realizing the WHOLE Bible is true and applicable to all in the faith today.   If this describes you, then you may have a lot of questions. In this 2-part video we will be taking a brief look at a lot of topics. Here is what we will be covering in part 1: What instructions from our Creator should I be following that I am not currently? The Sabbath (Exodus 20:8) Dietary Instructions (Leviticus 11) Circumcision Tzitzits (Tzitziyot/Tassels - Numbers 15:38-41) Mixing Thread (Deuteronomy 22:11) Christmas and Easter (Deuteronomy 12:32) The Appointed Times (The Mo'edim - Leviticus 23) Teaching Torah (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) Tradition vs. Actual Commandments Laws of Niddah (Women's Menstrual Time - Lev. 15:19-24)

There was a brief period in America's history – after people left the farm to work in the city and before the government started regulating it – when there was a total, lawless free-for-all in the food industry. Things were bad. Really, really bad.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode was sponsored by Strategy Maven Agency. Go to strategymavenagency.com Want to learn about the top claims against emerging CPG brands?Join Daniel Scharff in this episode of the Startup CPG podcast to discuss the legal landscape of the food industry with Lauren Handel from Handel Food Law. From the surge in lawsuits against emerging brands to the nuances of labeling and disability compliance, Lauren provides prevention tips and strategies for both small and established brands.Gain insights into specific areas of litigation, including false advertising, health claims, and ADA compliance. Learn about Prop 65 risks in California and the increasing challenges with ADA lawsuits targeting websites. Lauren also offers crucial advice for brands on influencer endorsements and avoiding misleading marketing claims.Tune in now!Listen in as Lauren shares about:Consumer Protection LitigationLitigation Risk OverviewOrigins of LawsuitsSettlement DiscussionsNegotiation StrategyClass Action ConsiderationsNatural and Artificial ClaimsSugar Content and Health ClaimsSustainability and Environmental ClaimsSlack Fill-In PackagingAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Website AccessibilityProp 65 and Chemical Exposure RisksEpisode Links:Lauren's WebsiteLauren's Email lauren@handelfoodlaw.comLauren's LinkedInDon't forget to leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify if you enjoyed this episode. For potential sponsorship opportunities or to join the Startup CPG community, visit http://www.startupcpg.com.Show Links:Transcripts of each episode are available on the Transistor platform that hosts our podcast here (click on the episode and toggle to “Transcript” at the top)Join the Startup CPG Slack community (15K+ members and growing!)Follow @startupcpgVisit host Daniel's Linkedin Questions or comments about the episode? Email Daniel at podcast@startupcpg.comEpisode music by Super Fantastics Strategy Maven Agency Link:Visit www.strategymavenagency.com and mention “Startup CPG” for a free account audit! Find co-founders Amy Hage or Brittney Trahan in the Start-up CPG slack channel.

Erewhon sells an $18 dollar smoothie named after Hailey Bieber. Mary Beth Albright considers how drinking it will make us feel.

Sometimes people ask if Christians should keep the Bible's food laws found in Leviticus 11. It's taught by some that those laws are outdated and no longer apply to Christians after Christ came because of passages like Mark 7, Romans 14, and Acts 10. In this short video we take a quick look at those verses as we strive to test everything and hold fast to what is good.