Podcasts about Food policy

We all know by now that plants grown in living, thriving, life-filled soil, give us living, thriving, life-filled food... but the steps to getting there in the face of a multinational industry devoted to toxic, nutritionally empty, addictive - and highly profitable - ultra-processed 'food-like substances' are harder to see.  This week's guest, Daphne du Cros, spends her life deep in the mycelial networks of food and farming systems, bringing both into genuinely regenerative balance. Daphne is a food policy researcher, educator, and farmer. She holds a PhD in Food Policy at the Centre for Food Policy at City St. George's University of London, and a Master's in Environmental Science and Management from Toronto Metropolitan University in Canada. She is Director and Coordinator at Shropshire Good Food Partnership; Director at Light Foot Enterprises; Project Lead at Food Forward BC (where BC stands for Bishop's Castle, not British Columbia or any of the other potential options) -   and she's co-owner of Little Woodbatch CIC, a farm just outside BC that hosts the Bishop's Castle Community Seed Bank. She is the author of the town's Community Food Resilience Strategy - the only such policy in Shropshire.Daphne and I are relatively near neighbours, we have swapped seeds - her more than me - and share ideas about systems thinking and how we might evolve our world. She's deeply involved at every level from actual growing up to governmental meetings trying to get those in power to find some wisdom when it comes to food resilience, food security and all the other things we say as we try to get them to move away from the corruption innate in our system towards something that actually works in service to life. Daphne on LinkedIn https://uk.linkedin.com/in/daphne-du-cros-743128332Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/littlewoodbatch/ Shropshire Good Food Partnership:  https://www.shropshiregoodfood.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shropshiregoodfood/ Soil Ed UK: https://www.instagram.com/soil_ed_uk/  Gaia Foundation Seed Sovereignty Network: https://www.seedsovereignty.info/Serving the Public https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/serving-the-public-the-good-food-revolution-in-schools-hospitals-and-prisons-kevin-morgan/7657661?ean=9781526180469&next=tCivil Food Resilience Report: https://nationalpreparednesscommission.uk/publications/just-in-case-7-steps-to-narrow-the-uk-civil-food-resilience-gap/  Little Woodbatch Farm https://www.littlewoodbatch.co.uk/What we offer: Accidental Gods, Dreaming Awake and the Thrutopia Writing Masterclass If you'd like to join our next Open Gathering offered by our Accidental Gods Programme it's  'Dreaming Your Year Awake' (you don't have to be a member) on Sunday 4th January 2026 from 16:00 - 20:00 GMT - details are hereIf you'd like to join us at Accidental Gods, this is the membership where we endeavour to help you to connect fully with the living web of life. If you'd like to train more deeply in the contemporary shamanic work at Dreaming Awake, you'll find us here. If you'd like to explore the recordings from our last Thrutopia Writing Masterclass, the details are here

What's really in your food? If MAGA or MAHA the so-called health initiative of Bob Kennedy, RFK Jr prevails you may have a difficult time avoiding forever chemicals when getting your groceries and dining out. Trump's Food Policy Bombshell: Are Toxic Chemicals About to Hit Every American Meal?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of The Global Fresh Series, we explore three dynamic stories shaping the produce world and beyond. First, we dive into the innovative trend of packing premium avocados in festive Christmas gift boxes—what it means for growers, exporters, retailers and the seasonal consumer mindset. Next, we examine the latest global public-health push around ultra-processed foods: how policy, research and consumer behavior are changing, and why this matters for fresh produce marketers. Finally, we take a delightful detour into the world of agritourism with a UK farmer who invites visitors to cuddle cows—exploring diversification, consumer experience, and how farm storytelling can reshape perceptions of agriculture. Tune in for a wide-angle view of freshness, health, and the unexpected sweet spots in the produce ecosystem.

In this episode, Kelly Brownell speaks with Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and former Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety at the USDA. They discuss the alarming state of children's health in America, the challenges of combating poor nutrition, and the influence of the food industry on public policy. The conversation explores the parallels between the tobacco and food industries and proposes new strategies for ensuring children reach adulthood in good health. Mande emphasizes the need for radical changes in food policy and the role of public health in making these changes. Transcript So, you co-founded this organization along with Jerome Adams, Bill Frist and Thomas Grumbly, as we said, to ensure every child breaches age 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health. That's a pretty tall order given the state of the health of youth today in America. But let's start by you telling us what inspired this mission and what does it look like to achieve this in today's food environment? I was trained in public health and also in nutrition and in my career, which has been largely in service of the public and government, I've been trying to advance those issues. And unfortunately over the arc of my career from when I started to now, particularly in nutrition and public health, it's just gotten so much worse. Indeed today Americans have the shortest lifespans by far. We're not just last among the wealthy countries, but we're a standard deviation last. But probably most alarming of all is how sick our children are. Children should not have a chronic disease. Yet in America maybe a third do. I did some work on tobacco at one point, at FDA. That was an enormous success. It was the leading cause of death. Children smoked at a higher rate, much like child chronic disease today. About a third of kids smoked. And we took that issue on, and today it's less than 2%. And so that shows that government can solve these problems. And since we did our tobacco work in the early '90s, I've changed my focus to nutrition and public health and trying to fix that. But we've still made so little progress. Give us a sense of how far from that goal we are. So, if the goal is to make every child reaching 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health, what percentage of children reaching age 18 today might look like that? It's probably around a half or more, but we're not quite sure. We don't have good statistics. One of the challenges we face in nutrition is, unfortunately, the food industry or other industries lobby against funding research and data collection. And so, we're handicapped in that way. But we do know from the studies that CDC and others have done that about 20% of our children have obesity about a similar number have Type 2 diabetes or the precursors, pre-diabetes. You and I started off calling it adult-onset diabetes and they had to change that name to a Type 2 because it's becoming so common in kids. And then another disease, fatty liver disease, really unthinkable in kids. Something that the typical pediatrician would just never see. And yet in the last decade, children are the fastest growing group. I think we don't know an exact number, but today, at least a third, maybe as many as half of our children have a chronic disease. Particularly a food cause chronic disease, or the precursors that show they're on the way. I remember probably going back about 20 years, people started saying that we were seeing the first generation of American children that would lead shorter lives than our parents did. And what a terrible legacy to leave our children. Absolutely. And that's why we set that overarching goal of ensuring every child reaches age 18 in good metabolic health. And the reason we set that is in my experience in government, there's a phrase we all use - what gets measured gets done. And when I worked at FDA, when I worked at USDA, what caught my attention is that there is a mission statement. There's a goal of what we're trying to achieve. And it's ensuring access to healthy options and information, like a food label. Now the problem with that, first of all, it's failed. But the problem with that is the bureaucrats that I oversaw would go into a supermarket, see a produce section, a protein section, the food labels, which I worked on, and say we've done our job. They would check those boxes and say, we've done it. And yet we haven't. And if we ensured that every child reaches age 18 at a healthy weight and good metabolic health, if the bureaucrats say how are we doing on that? They would have to conclude we're failing, and they'd have to try something else. And that's what we need to do. We need to try radically different, new strategies because what we've been doing for decades has failed. You mentioned the food industry a moment ago. Let's talk about that in a little more detail. You made the argument that food companies have substituted profits for health in how they design their products. Explain that a little bit more, if you will. And tell us how the shift has occurred and what do you think the public health cost has been? Yes, so the way I like to think of it, and your listeners should think of it, is there's a North star for food design. And from a consumer standpoint, I think there are four points on the star: taste, cost, convenience, and health. That's what they expect and want from their food. Now the challenge is the marketplace. Because that consumer, you and I, when we go to the grocery store and get home on taste, cost, and convenience, if we want within an hour, we can know whether the food we purchased met our standard there. Or what our expectations were. Not always for health. There's just no way to know in a day, a week, a month, even in a year or more. We don't know if the food we're eating is improving and maintaining our health, right? There should be a definition of food. Food should be what we eat to thrive. That really should be the goal. I borrowed that from NASA, the space agency. When I would meet with them, they said, ' Jerry, it's important. Right? It's not enough that people just survive on the food they eat in space. They really need to thrive.' And that's what WE need to do. And that's really what food does, right? And yet we have food, not only don't we thrive, but we get sick. And the reason for that is, as I was saying, the marketplace works on taste, cost and convenience. So, companies make sure their products meet consumer expectation for those three. But the problem is on the fourth point on the star: on health. Because we can't tell in even years whether it's meeting our expectation. That sort of cries out. You're at a policy school. Those are the places where government needs to step in and act and make sure that the marketplace is providing. That feedback through government. But the industry is politically strong and has prevented that. And so that has left the fourth point of the star open for their interpretation. And my belief is that they've put in place a prop. So, they're making decisions in the design of the product. They're taste, they gotta get taste right. They gotta get cost and convenience right. But rather than worrying what does it do to your health? They just, say let's do a profit. And that's resulted in this whole category of food called ultra-processed food (UPF). I actually believe in the future, whether it's a hundred years or a thousand years. If humanity's gonna thrive we need manmade food we can thrive on. But we don't have that. And we don't invest in the science. We need to. But today, ultra-processed food is manmade food designed on taste, cost, convenience, and then how do we make the most money possible. Now, let me give you one other analogy, if I could. If we were CEOs of an automobile company, the mission is to provide vehicles where people can get safely from A to point B. It's the same as food we can thrive on. That is the mission. The problem is that when the food companies design food today, they've presented to the CEO, and everyone gets excited. They're seeing the numbers, the charts, the data that shows that this food is going to meet, taste, cost, convenience. It's going to make us all this money. But the CEO should be asking this following question: if people eat this as we intend, will they thrive? At the very least they won't get sick, right? Because the law requires they can't get sick. And if the Midmanagers were honest, they'd say here's the good news boss. We have such political power we've been able to influence the Congress and the regulatory agencies. That they're not going to do anything about it. Taste, cost, convenience, and profits will work just fine. Couldn't you make the argument that for a CEO to embrace that kind of attitude you talked about would be corporate malpractice almost? That, if they want to maximize profits then they want people to like the food as much as possible. That means engineering it in ways that make people overeat it, hijacking the reward pathways in the brain, and all that kind of thing. Why in the world would a CEO care about whether people thrive? Because it's the law. The law requires we have these safety features in cars and the companies have to design it that way. And there's more immediate feedback with the car too, in terms of if you crashed right away. Because it didn't work, you'd see that. But here's the thing. Harvey Wiley.He's the founder of the food safety programs that I led at FDA and USDA. He was a chemist from academia. Came to USDA in the late 1800s. It was a time of great change in food in America. At that point, almost all of families grew their own food on a farm. And someone had to decide who's going to grow our food. It's a family conversation that needed to take place. Increasingly, Americans were moving into the cities at that time, and a brand-new industry had sprung up to feed people in cities. It was a processed food industry. And in order to provide shelf stable foods that can offer taste, cost, convenience, this new processed food industry turned to another new industry, a chemical industry. Now, it's hard to believe this, but there was a point in time that just wasn't an industry. So these two big new industries had sprung up- processed food and chemicals. And Harvey Wiley had a hypothesis that the chemicals they were using to make these processed foods were making us sick. Indeed, food poisoning back then was one of the 10 leading causes of death. And so, Harvey Wiley went to Teddy Roosevelt. He'd been trying for years within the bureaucracy and not making progress. But when Teddy Roosevelt came in, he finally had the person who listened to him. Back then, USDA was right across from the Washington Monument to the White House. He'd walk right over there into the White House and met with Teddy Roosevelt and said, ' this food industry is making us sick. We should do something about it.' And Teddy Roosevelt agreed. And they wrote the laws. And so I think what your listeners need to understand is that when you look at the job that FDA and USDA is doing, their food safety programs were created to make sure our food doesn't make us sick. Acutely sick. Not heart disease or cancer, 30, 40 years down the road, but acutely sick. No. I think that's absolutely the point. That's what Wiley was most concerned about at the time. But that's not the law they wrote. The law doesn't say acutely ill. And I'll give you this example. Your listeners may be familiar with something called GRAS - Generally Recognized as Safe. It's a big problem today. Industry co-opted the system and no longer gets approval for their food additives. And so, you have this Generally Recognized as Safe system, and you have these chemicals and people are worried about them. In the history of GRAS. Only one chemical has FDA decided we need to get that off the market because it's unsafe. That's partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat. Does trans-fat cause acute illness? It doesn't. It causes a chronic disease. And the evidence is clear. The agency has known that it has the responsibility for both acute and chronic illness. But you're right, the industry has taken advantage of this sort of chronic illness space to say that that really isn't what you should be doing. But having worked at those agencies, I don't think they see it that way. They just feel like here's the bottom line on it. The industry uses its political power in Congress. And it shapes the agency's budget. So, let's take FDA. FDA has a billion dollars with a 'b' for food safety. For the acute food safety, you're talking about. It has less than 25 million for the chronic disease. There are about 1400 deaths a year in America due to the acute illnesses caused by our food that FDA and USDA are trying to prevent. The chronic illnesses that we know are caused by our food cause 1600 maybe a day. More than that of the acute every day. Now the agency should be spending at least half its time, if not more, worrying about those chronic illness. Why doesn't it? Because the industry used their political power in Congress to put the billion dollars for the acute illness. That's because if you get acutely ill, that's a liability concern for them. Jerry let's talk about the political influence in just a little more detail, because you're in a unique position to tell us about this because you've seen it from the inside. One mechanism through which industry might influence the political process is lobbyists. They hire lobbyists. Lobbyists get to the Congress. People make decisions based on contributions and things like that. Are there other ways the food industry affects the political process in addition to that. For example, what about the revolving door issue people talk about where industry people come into the administrative branch of government, not legislative branch, and then return to industry. And are there other ways that the political influence of the industry has made itself felt? I think first and foremost it is the lobbyists, those who work with Congress, in effect. Particularly the funding levels, and the authority that the agencies have to do that job. I think it's overwhelmingly that. I think second, is the influence the industry has. So let me back up to that a sec. As a result of that, we spend very little on nutrition research, for example. It's 4% of the NIH budget even though we have these large institutes, cancer, heart, diabetes, everyone knows about. They're trying to come up with the cures who spend the other almost 50 billion at NIH. And so, what happens? You and I have both been at universities where there are nutrition programs and what we see is it's very hard to not accept any industry money to do the research because there isn't the federal money. Now, the key thing, it's not an accident. It's part of the plan. And so, I think that the research that we rely on to do regulation is heavily influenced by industry. And it's broad. I've served, you have, others, on the national academies and the programs. When I've been on the inside of those committees, there are always industry retired scientists on those committees. And they have undue influence. I've seen it. Their political power is so vast. The revolving door, that is a little of both ways. I think the government learns from the revolving door as well. But you're right, some people leave government and try to undo that. Now, I've chosen to work in academia when I'm not in government. But I think that does play a role, but I don't think it plays the largest role. I think the thing that people should be worried about is how much influence it has in Congress and how that affects the agency's budgets. And that way I feel that agencies are corrupted it, but it's not because they're corrupted directly by the industry. I think it's indirectly through congress. I'd like to get your opinion on something that's always relevant but is time sensitive now. And it's dietary guidelines for America. And the reason I'm saying it's time sensitive is because the current administration will be releasing dietary guidelines for America pretty soon. And there's lots of discussion about what those might look like. How can they help guide food policy and industry practices to support healthier children and families? It's one of the bigger levers the government has. The biggest is a program SNAP or food stamps. But beyond that, the dietary guidelines set the rules for government spending and food. So, I think often the way the dietary guidelines are portrayed isn't quite accurate. People think of it in terms of the once (food) Pyramid now the My Plate that's there. That's the public facing icon for the dietary guidelines. But really a very small part. The dietary guidelines are meant to help shape federal policy, not so much public perception. It's there. It's used in education in our schools - the (My) Plate, previously the (Food) Pyramid. But the main thing is it should shape what's served in government feeding programs. So principally that should be SNAP. It's not. But it does affect the WIC program- Women, Infants and Children, the school meals program, all of the military spending on food. Indeed, all spending by the government on food are set, governed by, or directed by the dietary guidelines. Now some of them are self-executing. Once the dietary guidelines change the government changes its behavior. But the biggest ones are not. They require rulemaking and in particular, today, one of the most impactful is our kids' meals in schools. So, whatever it says in these dietary guidelines, and there's reason to be alarmed in some of the press reports, it doesn't automatically change what's in school meals. The Department of Agriculture would have to write a rule and say that the dietary guidelines have changed and now we want to update. That usually takes an administration later. It's very rare one administration could both change the dietary guidelines and get through the rulemaking process. So, people can feel a little reassured by that. So, how do you feel about the way things seem to be taking shape right now? This whole MAHA movement Make America Healthy Again. What is it? To me what it is we've reached this tipping point we talked about earlier. The how sick we are, and people are saying, 'enough. Our food shouldn't make us sick at middle age. I shouldn't have to be spending so much time with my doctor. But particularly, it shouldn't be hard to raise my kids to 18 without getting sick. We really need to fix that and try to deal with that.' But I think that the MAHA movement is mostly that. But RFK and some of the people around them have increasingly claimed that it means some very specific things that are anti-science. That's been led by the policies around vaccine that are clearly anti-science. Nutrition is more and more interesting. Initially they started out in the exact right place. I think you and I could agree the things they were saying they need to focus on: kids, the need to get ultra-processed food out of our diets, were all the right things. In fact, you look at the first report that RFK and his team put out back in May this year after the President put out an Executive Order. Mostly the right things on this. They again, focus on kids, ultra-processed food was mentioned 40 times in the report as the root cause for the very first time. And this can't be undone. You had the White House saying that the root cause of our food-caused chronic disease crisis is the food industry. That's in a report that won't change. But a lot has changed since then. They came out with a second report where the word ultra-processed food showed up only once. What do you think happened? I know what happened because I've worked in that setting. The industry quietly went to the White House, the top political staff in the White House, and they said, you need to change the report when you come out with the recommendations. And so, the first report, I think, was written by MAHA, RFK Jr. and his lieutenants. The second report was written by the White House staff with the lobbyists of the food industry. That's what happened. What you end up with is their version of it. So, what does the industry want? We have a good picture from the first Trump administration. They did the last dietary guidelines and the Secretary of Agriculture, then Sonny Perdue, his mantra to his staff, people reported to me, was the industries- you know, keep the status quo. That is what the industry wants is they really don't want the dietary guidelines to change because then they have to reformulate their products. And they're used to living with what we have and they're just comfortable with that. For a big company to reformulate a product is a multi-year effort and cost billions of dollars and it's just not what they want to have to do. Particularly if it's going to change from administration to administration. And that is not a world they want to live in. From the first and second MAHA report where they wanted to go back to the status quo away from all the radical ideas. It'll be interesting to see what happens with dietary guidelines because we've seen reports that RFK Jr. and his people want to make shifts in policies. Saying that they want to go back to the Pyramid somehow. There's a cartoon on TV, South Park, I thought it was produced to be funny. But they talked about what we need to do is we need to flip the Pyramid upside down and we need to go back to the old Pyramid and make saturated fat the sort of the core of the diet. I thought it meant to be a joke but apparently that's become a belief of some people in the MAHA movement. RFK. And so, they want to add saturated fat back to our diets. They want to get rid of plant oils from our diets. There is a lot of areas of nutrition where the science isn't settled. But that's one where it is, indeed. Again, you go back only 1950s, 1960s, you look today, heart disease, heart attacks, they're down 90%. Most of that had to do with the drugs and getting rid of smoking. But a substantial contribution was made by nutrition. Lowering saturated fat in our diets and replacing it with plant oils that they're now called seed oils. If they take that step and the dietary guidelines come out next month and say that saturated fat is now good for us it is going to be just enormously disruptive. I don't think companies are going to change that much. They'll wait it out because they'll ask themselves the question, what's it going to be in two years? Because that's how long it takes them to get a product to market. Jerry, let me ask you this. You painted this picture where every once in a while, there'll be a glimmer of hope. Along comes MAHA. They're critical of the food industry and say that the diet's making us sick and therefore we should focus on different things like ultra-processed foods. In report number one, it's mentioned 40 times. Report number two comes out and it's mentioned only once for the political reasons you said. Are there any signs that lead you to be hopeful that this sort of history doesn't just keep repeating itself? Where people have good ideas, there's science that suggests you go down one road, but the food industry says, no, we're going to go down another and government obeys. Are there any signs out there that lead you to be more hopeful for the future? There are signs to be hopeful for the future. And number one, we talked earlier, is the success we had regulating tobacco. And I know you've done an outstanding job over the years drawing the parallels between what happened in tobacco and food. And there are good reasons to do that. Not the least of which is that in the 1980s, the tobacco companies bought all the big food companies and imparted on them a lot of their lessons, expertise, and playbook about how to do these things. And so that there is a tight link there. And we did succeed. We took youth smoking, which was around a 30 percent, a third, when we began work on this in the early 1990s when I was at FDA. And today it's less than 2%. It's one area with the United States leads the world in terms of what we've achieved in public health. And there's a great benefit that's going to come to that over the next generation as all of those deaths are prevented that we're not quite seeing yet. But we will. And that's regardless of what happens with vaping, which is a whole different story about nicotine. But this idea success and tobacco. The food industry has a tobacco playbook about how to addict so many people and make so much money and use their political power. We have a playbook of how to win the public health fight. So, tell us about that. What you're saying is music to my ears and I'm a big believer in exactly what you're saying. So, what is it? What does that playbook look like and what did we learn from the tobacco experience that you think could apply into the food area? There are a couple of areas. One is going to be leadership and we'll have to come back to that. Because the reason we succeeded in tobacco was the good fortune of having a David Kessler at FDA and Al Gore as Vice President. Nothing was, became more important to them than winning this fight against a big tobacco. Al Gore because his sister died at a young age of smoking. And David Kessler became convinced that this was the most important thing for public health that he could do. And keep in mind, when he came to FDA, it was the furthest thing from his mind. So, one of it is getting these kinds of leaders. Did does RFK Jr. and Marty McCarey match up to Al Gore? And we'll see. But the early signs aren't that great. But we'll see. There's still plenty of time for them to do this and get it right. The other thing is having a good strategy and policy about how to do it. And here, with tobacco, it was a complete stretch, right? There was no where did the FDA get authority over tobacco? And indeed, we eventually needed the Congress to reaffirm that authority to have the success we did. As we talked earlier, there's no question FDA was created to make sure processed food and the additives and processed food don't make us sick. So, it is the core reason the agency exists is to make sure that if there's a thing called ultra-processed food, man-made food, that is fine, but we have to thrive when we eat it. We certainly can't be made sick when we eat it. Now, David Kessler, I mentioned, he's put forward a petition, a citizens' petition to FDA. Careful work by him, he put months of effort into this, and he wrote basically a detailed roadmap for RFK and his team to use if they want to regulate ultra-processed stuff food. And I think we've gotten some, initially good feedback from the MAHA RFK people that they're interested in this petition and may take action on it. So, the basic thrust of the Kessler petition from my understanding is that we need to reconsider what's considered Generally Recognized as Safe. And that these ultra-processed foods may not be considered safe any longer because they produce all this disease down the road. And if MAHA responds positively initially to the concept, that's great. And maybe that'll have legs, and something will actually happen. But is there any reason to believe the industry won't just come in and quash this like they have other things? This idea of starting with a petition in the agency, beginning an investigation and using its authority is the blueprint we used with tobacco. There was a petition we responded, we said, gee, you raised some good points. There are other things we put forward. And so, what we hope to see here with the Kessler petition is that the FDA would put out what's called an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking with the petition. This moves it from just being a petition to something the agency is saying, we're taking this seriously. We're putting it on the record ourselves and we want industry and others now to start weighing in. Now here's the thing, you have this category of ultra-processed food that because of the North Star I talked about before, because the industry, the marketplace has failed and gives them no incentive to make sure that we thrive, that keeps us from getting sick. They've just forgotten about that and put in place profits instead. The question is how do you get at ultra-processed food? What's the way to do it? How do you start holding the industry accountable? Now what RFK and the MAHA people started with was synthetic color additives. That wasn't what I would pick but, it wasn't a terrible choice. Because if you talk to Carlos Monteiro who coined the phrase ultra-processed food, and you ask him, what is an ultra-processed food, many people say it's this industrial creation. You can't find the ingredients in your kitchen. He agrees with all that, but he thinks the thing that really sets ultra-processed food, the harmful food, is the cosmetics that make them edible when they otherwise won't I've seen inside the plants where they make the old fashioned minimally processed food versus today's ultra-processed. In the minimally processed plants, I recognize the ingredients as food. In today's plants, you don't recognize anything. There are powders, there's sludges, there's nothing that you would really recognize as food going into it. And to make that edible, they use the cosmetics and colors as a key piece of that. But here's the problem. It doesn't matter if the color is synthetic or natural. And a fruit loop made with natural colors is just as bad for you as one made with synthetics. And indeed, it's been alarming that the agency has fast tracked these natural colors and as replacements because, cyanide is natural. We don't want to use that. And the whole approach has been off and it like how is this going to get us there? How is this focus on color additives going to get us there. And it won't. Yeah, I agree. I agree with your interpretation of that. But the thing with Kessler you got part of it right but the main thing he did is say you don't have to really define ultra-processed food, which is another industry ploy to delay action. Let's focus on the thing that's making us sick today. And that's the refined carbohydrates. The refined grains in food. That's what's most closely linked to the obesity, the diabetes we're seeing today. Now in the 1980s, the FDA granted, let's set aside sugar and white flour, for example, but they approved a whole slew of additives that the companies came forward with to see what we can add to the white flour and sugar to make it shelf stable, to meet all the taste, cost, and convenience considerations we have. And profit-making considerations we have. Back then, heart disease was the driving health problem. And so, it was easy to overlook why you didn't think that the these additives were really harmful. That then you could conclude whether Generally Recognized as Safe, which is what the agency did back then. What Kessler is saying is that what he's laid out in his petition is self-executing. It's not something that the agency grants that this is GRAS or not GRAS. They were just saying things that have historical safe use that scientists generally recognize it as safe. It's not something the agency decides. It's the universe of all of us scientists generally accept. And it's true in the '80s when we didn't face the obesity and diabetes epidemic, people didn't really focus on the refined carbohydrates. But if you look at today's food environment. And I hope you agree with this, that what is the leading driver in the food environment about what is it about ultra-processed food that's making us so sick? It's these refined grains and the way they're used in our food. And so, if the agency takes up the Kessler petition and starts acting on it, they don't have to change the designation. Maybe at some point they have to say some of these additives are no longer GRAS. But what Kessler's saying is by default, they're no longer GRAS because if you ask the scientists today, can we have this level of refined grains? And they'd say, no, that's just not Generally Recognized as Safe. So, he's pointing out that status, they no longer hold that status. And if the agency would recognize that publicly and the burden shifts where Wiley really always meant it to be, on the industry to prove that there are foods or things that we would thrive on, but that wouldn't make us sick. And so that's the key point that you go back to when you said, and you're exactly right that if you let the industry use their political power to just ignore health altogether and substitute profits, then you're right. Their sort of fiduciary responsibility is just to maximize profits and they can ignore health. If you say you can maximize profits, of course you're a capitalist business, but one of the tests you have to clear is you have to prove to us that people can thrive when they eat that. Thrive as the standard, might require some congressional amplification because it's not in the statute. But what is in the statute is the food can't make you sick. If scientists would generally recognize, would say, if you eat this diet as they intend, if you eat this snack food, there's these ready to heat meals as they intend, you're going to get diabetes and obesity. If scientists generally believe that, then you can't sell that. That's just against the law and the agency needs them to enforce the law. Bio:   Jerold Mande is CEO of Nourish Science; Adjunct Professor of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. Professor Mande has a wealth of expertise and experience in national public health and food policy. He served in senior policymaking positions for three presidents at USDA, FDA, and OSHA helping lead landmark public health initiatives. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety. In 2011, he moved to USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, where he spent six years working to improve the health outcomes of the nation's $100 billion investment in 15 nutrition programs. During President Clinton's administration, Mr. Mande was Senior Advisor to the FDA commissioner where he helped shape national policy on nutrition, food safety, and tobacco. He also served on the White House staff as a health policy advisor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Health at the Department of Labor. During the George H.W. Bush administration he led the graphic design of the iconic Nutrition Facts label at FDA, for which he received the Presidential Design Award. Mr. Mande began his career as a legislative assistant for Al Gore in the U.S. House and Senate, managing Gore's health and environment agenda, and helping Gore write the nation's organ donation and transplantation laws.  Mande earned a Master of Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Science in nutritional science from the University of Connecticut. Prior to his current academic appointments, he served on the faculty at the Tufts, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, and Yale School of Medicine.

The United States' first Food Stamp program began in 1939. Since then, millions of people have benefited from nutritional assistance. In 2024, one in nine Connecticut residents received benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Last week, federal judges ordered the Trump Administration to continue to fund SNAP benefits. The administration initially agreed to cover a fraction of the benefit payments. But later, President Trump announced that SNAP would not be paid until the shutdown ends. The majority SNAP recipients are children. Today, we talk about the future of SNAP benefits in Connecticut, and how the state could fill in the gaps. GUESTS: Jason Jakubowski: President and CEO, Connecticut Foodshare Caitlin Caspi: Associate Professor, Allied Health Sciences at the University of Connecticut, and Director of Food Security Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health Keith Phaneuf: State Budget Reporter for Connecticut Mirror Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm thrilled to welcome Marion Nestle for a special Tuesday episode of Eating at a Meeting Podcast LIVE! Marion is one of the most respected voices on food policy, nutrition, and food industry influence — and I've been following her work since 2009. Her insights continue to shape how so many of us think about what's on the plate and why it matters. In this conversation, we'll explore why food policy matters for event planners and our food service partners — and why understanding these broader influences is essential for anyone responsible for planning meals and menus at events.

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, host Norbert Wilson is joined by food and nutrition policy economists Will Masters and Parke Wilde from Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. The discussion centers around the concept of the least cost diet, a tool used to determine the minimum cost required to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet. The conversation delves into the global computational methods and policies related to least cost diets, the challenges of making these diets culturally relevant, and the implications for food policy in both the US and internationally. You will also hear about the lived experiences of people affected by these diets and the need for more comprehensive research to better reflect reality. Interview Summary I know you both have been working in this space around least cost diets for a while. So, let's really start off by just asking a question about what brought you into this work as researchers. Why study least cost diets? Will, let's start with you. I'm a very curious person and this was a puzzle. So, you know, people want health. They want healthy food. Of course, we spend a lot on healthcare and health services, but do seek health in our food. As a child growing up, you know, companies were marketing food as a source of health. And people who had more money would spend more for premium items that were seen as healthy. And in the 2010s for the first time, we had these quantified definitions of what a healthy diet was as we went from 'nutrients' to 'food groups,' from the original dietary guidelines pyramid to the MyPlate. And then internationally, the very first quantified definitions of healthful diets that would work anywhere in the world. And I was like, oh, wow. Is it actually expensive to eat a healthy diet? And how much does it cost? How does it differ by place location? How does it differ over time, seasons, and years? And I just thought it was a fascinating question. Great, thank you for that. Parke? There's a lot of policy importance on this, but part of the fun also of this particular topic is more than almost any that we work on, it's connected to things that we have to think about in our daily lives. So, as you're preparing and purchasing food for your family and you want it to be a healthy. And you want it to still be, you know, tasty enough to satisfy the kids. And it can't take too long because it has to fit into a busy life. So, this one does feel like it's got a personal connection. Thank you both for that. One of the things I heard is there was an availability of data. There was an opportunity that seems like it didn't exist before. Can you speak a little bit about that? Especially Will because you mentioned that point. Will: Yes. So, we have had food composition data identifying for typical items. A can of beans, or even a pizza. You know, what is the expected, on average quantity of each nutrient. But only recently have we had those on a very large scale for global items. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of distinct items. And we had nutrient requirements, but only nutrient by nutrient, and the definition of a food group where you would want not only the nutrients, but also the phytochemicals, the attributes of food from its food matrix that make a vegetable different from just in a vitamin pill. And those came about in, as I mentioned, in the 2010s. And then there's the computational tools and the price observations that get captured. They've been written down on pads of paper, literally, and brought to a headquarters to compute inflation since the 1930s. But access to those in digitized form, only really in the 2000s and only really in the 2010s were we able to have program routines that would download millions and millions of price observations, match them to food composition data, match that food composition information to a healthy diet criterion, and then compute these least cost diets. Now we've computed millions and millions of these thanks to modern computing and all of that data. Great, Will. And you've already started on this, so let's continue on this point. You were talking about some of the computational methods and data that were available globally. Can you give us a good sense of what does a lease cost diet look like from this global perspective because we're going to talk to Parke about whether it is in the US. But let's talk about it in the broad sense globally. In my case the funding opportunity to pay for the graduate students and collaborators internationally came from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency, initially for a pilot study in Ghana and Tanzania. And then we were able to get more money to scale that up to Africa and South Asia, and then globally through a project called Food Prices for Nutrition. And what we found, first of all, is that to get agreement on what a healthy diet means, we needed to go to something like the least common denominator. The most basic, basic definition from the commonalities among national governments' dietary guidelines. So, in the US, that's MyPlate, or in the UK it's the Eat Well Guide. And each country's dietary guidelines look a little different, but they have these commonalities. So, we distilled that down to six food groups. There's fruits and vegetables, separately. And then there's animal source foods altogether. And in some countries they would separate out milk, like the United States does. And then all starchy staples together. And in some countries, you would separate out whole grains like the US does. And then all edible oils. And those six food groups, in the quantities needed to provide all the nutrients you would need, plus these attributes of food groups beyond just what's in a vitamin pill, turns out to cost about $4 a day. And if you adjust for inflation and differences in the cost of living, the price of housing and so forth around the world, it's very similar. And if you think about seasonal variation in a very remote area, it might rise by 50% in a really bad situation. And if you think about a very remote location where it's difficult to get food to, it might go up to $5.50, but it stays in that range between roughly speaking $2.50 and $5.00. Meanwhile, incomes are varying from around $1.00 a day, and people who cannot possibly afford those more expensive food groups, to $200 a day in which these least expensive items are trivially small in cost compared to the issues that Parke mentioned. We can also talk about what we actually find as the items, and those vary a lot from place to place for some food groups and are very similar to each other in other food groups. So, for example, the least expensive item in an animal source food category is very often dairy in a rich country. But in a really dry, poor country it's dried fish because refrigeration and transport are very expensive. And then to see where there's commonalities in the vegetable category, boy. Onions, tomatoes, carrots are so inexpensive around the world. We've just gotten those supply chains to make the basic ingredients for a vegetable stew really low cost. But then there's all these other different vegetables that are usually more expensive. So, it's very interesting to look at which are the items that would deliver the healthfulness you need and how much they cost. It's surprisingly little from a rich country perspective, and yet still out of reach for so many in low-income countries. Will, thank you for that. And I want to turn now to looking in the US case because I think there's some important commonalities. Parke, can you describe the least cost diet, how it's used here in the US, and its implications for policy? Absolutely. And full disclosure to your audience, this is work on which we've benefited from Norbert's input and wisdom in a way that's been very valuable as a co-author and as an advisor for the quantitative part of what we were doing. For an article in the journal Food Policy, we use the same type of mathematical model that USDA uses when it sets the Thrifty Food Plan, the TFP. A hypothetical diet that's used as the benchmark for the maximum benefit in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. And what USDA does with this model diet is it tries to find a hypothetical bundle of foods and beverages that's not too different from what people ordinarily consume. The idea is it should be a familiar diet, it should be one that's reasonably tasty, that people clearly already accept enough. But it can't be exactly that diet. It has to be different enough at least to meet a cost target and to meet a whole long list of nutrition criteria. Including getting enough of the particular nutrients, things like enough calcium or enough protein, and also, matching food group goals reasonably well. Things like having enough fruits, enough vegetables, enough dairy. When, USDA does that, it finds that it's fairly difficult. It's fairly difficult to meet all those goals at once, at a cost and a cost goal all at the same time. And so, it ends up choosing this hypothetical diet that's almost maybe more different than would feel most comfortable from people's typical average consumption. Thank you, Parke. I'm interested to understand the policy implications of this least cost diet. You suggested something about the Thrifty Food Plan and the maximum benefit levels. Can you tell us a little bit more about the policies that are relevant? Yes, so the Thrifty Food Plan update that USDA does every five years has a much bigger policy importance now than it did a few years ago. I used to tell my students that you shouldn't overstate how much policy importance this update has. It might matter a little bit less than you would think. And the reason was because every time they update the Thrifty Food Plan, they use the cost target that is the inflation adjusted or the real cost of the previous edition. It's a little bit as if nobody wanted to open up the whole can of worms about what should the SNAP benefit be in the first place. But everything changed with the update in 2021. In 2021, researchers at the US Department of Agriculture found that it was not possible at the old cost target to find a diet that met all of the nutrition criteria - at all. Even if you were willing to have a diet that was quite different from people's typical consumption. And so, they ended up increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in small increments until they found a solution to this mathematical model using data on real world prices and on the nutrition characteristics of these foods. And this led to a 21% increase in the permanent value of the maximum SNAP benefit. Many people didn't notice that increase all that much because the increase came into effect at just about the same time that a temporary boost during the COVID era to SNAP benefits was being taken away. So there had been a temporary boost to how much benefits people got as that was taken away at the end of the start of the COVID pandemic then this permanent increase came in and it kind of softened the blow from that change in benefits at that time. But it now ends up meaning that the SNAP benefit is substantially higher than it would've been without this 2021 increase. And there's a lot of policy attention on this in the current Congress and in the current administration. There's perhaps a skeptical eye on whether this increase was good policy. And so, there are proposals to essentially take away the ability to update the Thrifty Food Plan change the maximum SNAP benefit automatically, as it used to. As you know, Norbert, this is part of all sorts of things going on currently. Like we heard in the news, just last week, about plans to end collecting household food security measurement using a major national survey. And so there will be sort of possibly less information about how these programs are doing and whether a certain SNAP benefit is needed in order to protect people from food insecurity and hunger. Parke, this is really important and I'm grateful that we're able to talk about this today in that SNAP benefit levels are still determined by this mathematical program that's supposed to represent a nutritionally adequate diet that also reflects food preferences. And I don't know how many people really understand or appreciate that. I can say I didn't understand or appreciate it until working more in this project. I think it's critical for our listeners to understand just how important this particular mathematical model is, and what it says about what a nutritionally adequate diet looks like in this country. I know the US is one of the countries that uses a model diet like this to help set policy. Will, I'd like to turn to you to see what ways other nations are using this sort of model diet. How have you seen policy receive information from these model diets? It's been a remarkable thing where those initial computational papers that we were able to publish in first in 2018, '19, '20, and governments asking how could we use this in practice. Parke has laid out how it's used in the US with regard to the benefit level of SNAP. The US Thrifty Food Plan has many constraints in addition to the basic ones for the Healthy Diet Basket that I described. Because clearly that Healthy Diet Basket minimum is not something anyone in America would think is acceptable. Just to have milk and frozen vegetables and low-cost bread, that jar peanut butter and that's it. Like that would be clearly not okay. So, internationally what's happened is that first starting in 2020, and then using the current formula in 2022, the United Nations agencies together with the World Bank have done global monitoring of food and nutrition security using this method. So, the least cost items to meet the Healthy Diet Basket in each country provide this global estimate that about a third of the global population have income available for food after taking account of their non-food needs. That is insufficient to buy this healthy diet. What they're actually eating is just starchy staples, oil, some calories from low-cost sugar and that's it. And very small quantities of the fruits and vegetables. And animal source foods are the expensive ones. So, countries have the opportunity to begin calculating this themselves alongside their normal monitoring of inflation with a consumer price index. The first country to do that was Nigeria. And Nigeria began publishing this in January 2024. And it so happened that the country's national minimum wage for civil servants was up for debate at that time. And this was a newly published statistic that turned out to be enormously important for the civil society advocates and the labor unions who were trying to explain why a higher civil service minimum wage was needed. This is for the people who are serving tea or the drivers and the low wage people in these government service agencies. And able to measure how many household members could you feed a healthy diet with a day's worth of the monthly wage. So social protection in the sense of minimum wage and then used in other countries regarding something like our US SNAP program or something like our US WIC program. And trying to define how big should those benefit levels be. That's been the first use. A second use that's emerging is targeting the supply chains for the low-cost vegetables and animal source foods and asking what from experience elsewhere could be an inexpensive animal source food. What could be the most inexpensive fruits. What could be the most inexpensive vegetables? And that is the type of work that we're doing now with governments with continued funding from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency. Will, it's fascinating to hear this example from Nigeria where all of the work that you all have been doing sort of shows up in this kind of debate. And it really speaks to the power of the research that we all are trying to do as we try to inform policy. Now, as we discussed the least cost diet, there was something that I heard from both of you. Are these diets that people really want? I'm interested to understand a little bit more about that because this is a really critical space.Will, what do we know about the lived experiences of those affected by least cost diet policy implementation. How are real people affected? It's such an important and interesting question, just out of curiosity, but also for just our human understanding of what life is like for people. And then of course the policy actions that could improve. So, to be clear, we've only had these millions of least cost diets, these benchmark 'access to' at a market near you. These are open markets that might be happening twice a week or sometimes all seven days of the week in a small town, in an African country or a urban bodega type market or a supermarket across Asia, Africa. We've only begun to have these benchmarks against which to compare actual food choice, as I mentioned, since 2022. And then really only since 2024 have been able to investigate this question. We're only beginning to match up these benchmark diets to what people actually choose. But the pattern we're seeing is that in low and lower middle-income countries, people definitely spend their money to go towards that healthy diet basket goal. They don't spend all of their additional money on that. But if you improve affordability throughout the range of country incomes - from the lowest income countries in Africa, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, to middle income countries in Africa, like Ghana, Indonesia, an upper middle-income country - people do spend their money to get more animal source foods, more fruits and vegetables, and to reduce the amount of the low cost starchy staples. They do increase the amount of discretionary, sugary meals. And a lot of what they're eating exits the healthy diet basket because there's too much added sodium, too much added sugar. And so, things that would've been healthy become unhealthy because of processing or in a restaurant setting. So, people do spend their money on that. But they are moving towards a healthy diet. That breaks down somewhere in the upper income and high-income countries where additional spending becomes very little correlated with the Healthy Diet Basket. What happens is people way overshoot the Healthy Diet Basket targets for animal source foods and for edible oils because I don't know if you've ever tried it, but one really delicious thing is fried meat. People love it. And even low middle income people overshoot on that. And that displaces the other elements of a healthy diet. And then there's a lot of upgrading, if you will, within the food group. So, people are spending additional money on nicer vegetables. Nicer fruits. Nicer animal source foods without increasing the total amount of them in addition to having overshot the healthy diet levels of many of those food groups. Which of course takes away from the food you would need from the fruits, the vegetables, and the pulses, nuts and seeds, that almost no one gets as much as is considered healthy, of that pulses, nuts and seeds category. Thank you. And I want to shift this to the US example. So, Parke, can you tell us a bit more about the lived experience of those affected by least cost diet policy? How are real people affected? One of the things I've enjoyed about this project that you and I got to work on, Norbert, in cooperation with other colleagues, is that it had both a quantitative and a qualitative part to it. Now, our colleague Sarah Folta led some of the qualitative interviews, sort of real interviews with people in food pantries in four states around the country. And this was published recently in the Journal of Health Education and Behavior. And we asked people about their goals and about what are the different difficulties or constraints that keep them from achieving those goals. And what came out of that was that people often talk about whether their budget constraints and whether their financial difficulties take away their autonomy to sort of be in charge of their own food choices. And this was something that Sarah emphasized as she sort of helped lead us through a process of digesting what was the key findings from these interviews with people. One of the things I liked about doing this study is that because the quantitative and the qualitative part, each had this characteristic of being about what do people want to achieve. This showed up mathematically in the constrained optimization model, but it also showed up in the conversations with people in the food pantry. And what are the constraints that keep people from achieving it. You know, the mathematical model, these are things like all the nutrition constraints and the cost constraints. And then in the real conversations, it's something that people raise in very plain language about what are all the difficulties they have. Either in satisfying their own nutrition aspirations or satisfying some of the requirements for one person or another in the family. Like if people have special diets that are needed or if they have to be gluten free or any number of things. Having the diets be culturally appropriate. And so, I feel like this is one of those classic things where different disciplines have wisdom to bring to bear on what's really very much a shared topic. What I hear from both of you is that these diets, while they are computationally interesting and they reveal some critical realities of how people eat, they can't cover everything. People want to eat certain types of foods. Certain types of foods are more culturally relevant. And that's really clear talking to you, Will, about just sort of the range of foods that end up showing up in these least cost diets and how you were having to make some adjustments there. Parke, as you talked about the work with Sarah Folta thinking through autonomy and sort of a sense of self. This kind of leads us to a question that I want to open up to both of you. What's missing when we talk about these least cost diet modeling exercises and what are the policy implications of that? What are the gaps in our understanding of these model diets and what needs to happen to make them reflect reality better? Parke? Well, you know, there's many things that people in our research community are working on. And it goes quite, quite far afield. But I'm just thinking of two related to our quantitative research using the Thrifty Food Plan type models. We've been working with Yiwen Zhao and Linlin Fan at Penn State University on how these models would work if you relaxed some of the constraints. If people's back in a financial sense weren't back up against the wall, but instead they had just a little more space. We were considering what if they had incentives that gave them a discount on fruits and vegetables, for example, through the SNAP program? Or what if they had a healthy bundle of foods provided through the emergency food system, through food banks or food pantries. What is the effect directly in terms of those foods? But also, what is the effect in terms of just relaxing their budget constraints. They get to have a little more of the foods that they find more preferred or that they had been going without. But then also, in terms of sort of your question about the more personal. You know, what is people's personal relationships with food? How does this play out on the ground? We're working with the graduate student Angelica Valdez Valderrama here at the Friedman School, thinking about what some of the cultural assumptions and of the food group constraints in some of these models are. If you sort of came from a different immigrant tradition or if you came from another community, what things would be different in, for example, decisions about what's called the Mediterranean diet or what's called the healthy US style dietary pattern. How much difference do this sort of breadth, cultural breadth of dietary patterns you could consider, how much difference does that make in terms of what's the outcome of this type of hypothetical diet? Will: And I think, you know, from the global perspective, one really interesting thing is when we do combine data sets and look across these very different cultural settings, dry land, Sahelian Africa versus countries that are coastal versus sort of forest inland countries versus all across Asia, south Asia to East Asia, all across Latin America. We do see the role of these cultural factors. And we see them playing out in very systematic ways that people come to their cultural norms for very good reasons. And then pivot and switch away to new cultural norms. You know, American fast food, for example, switching from beef primarily to chicken primarily. That sort of thing becomes very visible in a matter of years. So, in terms of things that are frontiers for us, remember this is early days. Getting many more nutritionists, people in other fields, looking at first of all, it's just what is really needed for health. Getting those health requirements improved and understood better is a key priority. Our Healthy Diet Basket comes from the work of a nutritionist named Anna Herforth, who has gone around the world studying these dietary guidelines internationally. We're about to get the Eat Lancet dietary recommendations announced, and it'll be very interesting to see how those evolve. Second thing is much better data on prices and computing these diets for more different settings at different times, different locations. Settings that are inner city United States versus very rural. And then this question of comparing to actual diets. And just trying to understand what people are seeking when they choose foods that are clearly not these benchmark least cost items. The purpose is to ask how far away and why and how are they far away? And particularly to understand to what degree are these attributes of the foods themselves: the convenience of the packaging, the preparation of the item, the taste, the flavor, the cultural significance of it. To what degree are we looking at the result of aspirations that are really shaped by marketing. Are really shaped by the fire hose of persuasion that companies are investing in every day. And very strategically and constantly iterating to the best possible spokesperson, the best possible ad campaign. Combining billboards and radio and television such that you're surrounded by this. And when you drive down the street and when you walk into the supermarket, there is no greater effort on the planet than the effort to sell us a particular brand of food. Food companies are basically marketing companies attached to a manufacturing facility, and they are spending much more than the entire combined budget of the NIH and CDC, et cetera, to persuade us to eat what we ultimately choose. And we really don't know to what degree it's the actual factors in the food itself versus the marketing campaigns and the way they've evolved. You know, if you had a choice between taking the food system and regulating it the way we regulate, say housing or vehicles. If we were to say your supermarket should be like an auto dealership, right? So, anything in the auto dealership is very heavily regulated. Everything from the paint to where the gear shift is to how the windows work. Everything is heavily regulated because the auto industry has worked with National Transportation Safety Board and every single crash investigation, et cetera, has led to the standards that we have now. We didn't get taxes on cars without airbags to make us choose cars with airbags. They're just required. And same is true for housing, right? You can't just build, you know, an extension deck behind your house any way you want. A city inspector will force you to tear it out if you haven't built it to code. So, you know, we could regulate the grocery store like we do that. It's not going to happen politically but compare that option to treating groceries the way we used to treat the legal services or pharmaceuticals. Which is you couldn't advertise them. You could sell them, and people would choose based on the actual merit of the lawyer or the pharmaceutical, right? Which would have the bigger impact. Right? If there was zero food advertising, you just walked into the grocery store and chose what you liked. Or you regulate the grocery store the same way we regulate automotive or building trades. Obviously, they both matter. There's, you know, this problem that you can't see, taste or smell the healthiness of food. You're always acting on belief and not a fact when you choose something that you're seeking health. We don't know to what extent choice is distorted away from a low-cost healthy diet by things people genuinely want and need. Such as taste, convenience, culture, and so forth. Versus things that they've been persuaded to want. And there's obviously some of both. All of these things matter. But I'm hopeful that through these least cost diets, we can identify that low-cost options are there. And you could feed your family a very healthy diet at the Thrifty Food Plan level in the United States, or even lower. It would take time, it would take attention, it would be hard. You can take some shortcuts to make that within your time budget, right? And the planning budget. And we can identify what those look like thanks to these model diets. It's a very exciting area of work, but we still have a lot to do to define carefully what are the constraints. What are the real objectives here. And how to go about helping people, acquire these foods that we now know are there within a short commuting distance. You may need to take the bus, you may need carpool. But that's what people actually do to go grocery shopping. And when they get there, we can help people to choose items that would genuinely meet their needs at lower cost. Bios Will Masters is a Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition, with a secondary appointment in Tufts University's Department of Economics. He is coauthor of the new textbook on Food Economics: Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Before coming to Tufts in 2010 he was a faculty member in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University (1991-2010), and also at the University of Zimbabwe (1989-90), Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (2000) and Columbia University (2003-04). He is former editor-in-chief of the journal Agricultural Economics (2006-2011), and an elected Fellow of the American Society for Nutrition (FASN) as well as a Fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). At Tufts his courses on economics of agriculture, food and nutrition were recognized with student-nominated, University-wide teaching awards in 2019 and 2022, and he leads over a million dollars annually in externally funded research including work on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (https://www.anh-academy.org), as well as projects supporting government efforts to calculate the cost and affordability of healthy diets worldwide and work with private enterprises on data analytics for food markets in Africa. Parke Wilde (PhD, Cornell) is a food economist and professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. Previously, he worked for USDA's Economic Research Service. At Tufts, Parke teaches graduate-level courses in statistics, U.S. food policy, and climate change. His research addresses the economics of U.S. food and nutrition policy, including federal nutrition assistance programs. He was Director of Design for the SNAP Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) evaluation. He has been a member of the National Academy of Medicine's Food Forum and is on the scientific and technical advisory committee for Menus of Change, an initiative to advance the health and sustainability of the restaurant industry. He directs the USDA-funded Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership. He received the AAEA Distinguished Quality of Communication Award for his textbook, Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction (Routledge/Earthscan), whose third edition was released in April 2025. 

Host Laura Hedlund welcomes Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy for Consumer Reports, to discuss the battle for food safety and transparency. They expose a new, misleadingly named industry group (“Americans for Ingredient Transparency”) that is actively trying to block state-level laws that ban toxic chemicals in products like baby food. Brian also shares findings…

This episode of Food Talk features two conversations from Food Tank's first annual Food and Agriculture Policy Summit in Washington D.C. First Congressmember Nikki Budzinski, who represents Illinois' 13th District, joins Dani to talk about the legislation that's needed to connect local farmers with food pantries and the hunger crisis that's about to worsen as we hurtle toward the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding cliff. Then Congressmember Shontel Brown, who represents Ohio's 11th District, sits down with Politico's Marcia Brown to talk about her own experience relying on SNAP, dispelling myths around those reliant on nutrition assistance programs, and what she's learned through her meetings with family farmers who are looking for more certainty in chaotic times. This event was held in partnership with the Global Food Institute at GW, the Culinary Institute of America, and Jose Andres, in collaboration with Driscoll's, Meatable, and Oatly. While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to "Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg" wherever you consume your podcasts.

This episode of Food Talk features two conversations from Food Tank's recent Summit in Phoenix, Arizona to uplift the partnerships that will help us eat for health while supporting the wellbeing of farmers and the planet. First Crystal FitzSimons, President of the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) talks about human impact of the policies threatening food and nutrition security as well as the bright spots we shouldn't overlook in a conversation moderated by Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director of the Arizona State University Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems. Then Michel Nischan, a Chef and the Founder and Executive Chair of Wholesome Wave, sits down with Clara Migoya, the Agriculture and Water Reporter at The Arizona Republic, for a conversation about filling the gaps left by federal funding cuts and finding common ground to improve food and farming systems. This event was held in partnership with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the Arizona State University Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, and the Sprouts Healthy Communities Foundation. While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.

Brian Ronholm is the Director of Food Policy for Consumer Reports. He leads CR’s advocacy efforts to advance a safe and healthy food system.

Brian Ronholm is the Director of Food Policy for Consumer Reports. He leads CR’s advocacy efforts to advance a safe and healthy food system.

From shifting regulations to evolving consumer expectations, bakers in the U.S. and Canada face similar challenges and opportunities. Live from IBIE, Bake to the Future host Anne Fairfield-Sonn spoke with ABA's Rasma Zvaners and the Baking Association of Canada's Denise Lee about how their associations are helping members navigate front-of-pack labeling, sustainability mandates, trade policy, and more. Together, they share where cross-border alignment is strongest, why collaboration is essential for long-term success, and how innovation and advocacy are shaping the future of commercial baking across North America.   With special guests: Denise Lee, Director of Food Policy and Sustainability at the Baking Association of Canada and Rasma Zvaners, Vice President of Government Relations at the American Bakers Association Hosted by: Anne Fairfield-Sonn, Director of Marketing and Communications at the American Bakers Association

270: I sat down with Ryland and Mollie Engelhart, farmers, filmmakers and real food advocates. This dynamic brother-sister duo is at the forefront of the regenerative farming movement, which they've explored in the critically-acclaimed documentaries “Kiss the Ground” and “Common Ground.” We're talking about MAHA (and where it can improve), rethinking SNAP to include whole foods, and the dire challenges facing local farms today.  Topics Discussed:  → How can we make health and nutrition a truly bipartisan issue? → What changes does MAHA need to actually support real food reform? → How could reframing SNAP bring more whole foods to families in need? → Are corporations and the government helping or harming our food system? → What can we do to save family farms and strengthen local food economies? Sponsored By: → Timeline | Timeline is offering 10% off your order of Mitopure Go to www.timeline.com/REALFOODOLOGY. → Function Health | Function is a near-360 view to see what's happening in your body, and my 1000 followers get a $100 credit toward their membership. Visit www.functionhealth.com/realfoodology or use code REALFOODOLOGY100 at sign-up to own your health. → Clearstem | Go to www.clearstem.com/realfoodology and use code REALFOODOLOGY at checkout for 15% off your first order.  → BIOptimizers | For 15% off go to www.bioptimizers.com/realfoodology and use promo code REALFOODOLOGY. → Puori | Feel the difference for yourself, go to www.puori.com/REALFOODOLOGY and use the code REALFOODOLOGY at checkout for 20% off. → Everyday Dose | Buy any two Everyday Dose products at a Target store near you, and they'll pay you back for one! Visit www.everydaydose.com/REALFOODOLOGYBOGO for more details. → Beekeeper's Naturals | Go to www.beekeepersnaturals.com/REALFOODOLOGY or enter code REALFOODOLOGY to get 20% off your order. Timestamps:  → 00:00:00 - Introduction  → 00:05:26 - Make America Healthy Again    → 00:17:50 - Where MAHA Needs Improvement  → 00:24:36 - Making Health Bipartisan  → 00:38:52 - Reforming SNAP  → 00:53:09 - Saving Family Farms  → 00:57:00 - Creating Community  → 01:00:21 - Soda, SNAP + Corporate Collusion  → 01:04:05 - Farm Supply Struggles → 01:06:24 - Advice for the Secretary of Agriculture Show Links: → Kiss the Ground (Documentary) → Common Ground (Documentary)  Check Out: → Ryland Engelhart  → Mollie Engelhart  → Sovereignty Ranch  Check Out Courtney:  →  LEAVE US A VOICE MESSAGE →  Check Out My new FREE Grocery Guide! →  @realfoodology →  www.realfoodology.com →  My Immune Supplement by 2x4 →  Air Dr Air Purifier →  AquaTru Water Filter →  EWG Tap Water Database Produced By: Drake Peterson

Food Tank is live all week at WNYC-NPR's The Greene Space running food and agriculture programming at Climate Week NYC with over 300 speakers, 60 performers, and 15 events. Watch these conversations live on Food Tank's YouTube channel, or by visiting FoodTank.com. While you are on our website please also become a Food Tank member to ensure programming like this continues. Our first conversation features a discussion with Grace Young, James Beard Award-winning cookbook author and Chinatown advocate, and Stacey Vanek Smith of Bloomberg, about food, history, and resilience. Then, Dani sits down with U.S. Congressman Daniel S. Goldman to discuss health, leadership, and the future of food policy. While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.

Transform your health this fall! Feeling that September urge to get your life together? That energy is real, but so are the convenience culture, workplace demands, and distractions working against your wellness goals. Today we're turning that autumn reset feeling into your game plan for "walking against traffic" toward lasting health! LET'S TALK THE WALK! Join here for support, motivation and fun! Wellness While Walking Facebook page Walking to Wellness Together Facebook GROUP Wellness While Walking on Instagram Wellness While Walking on Threads Wellness While Walking on Twitter Wellness While Walking website for show notes and other information wellnesswhilewalking@gmail.com   RESOURCES AND SOURCES (some links may be affiliate links) HOW TO WALK AGAINST TRAFFIC FOR BETTER HEALTH Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health and Their Food Marketing in Schools Department Let's Move Campaign (archived material from Obama White House Archives) Food Politics, Marion Nestle Salt Sugar Fat, Michael Moss The Dorito Effect, Mark Schatzker 12 Sedentary Lifestyle Statistics in 2021 That Will Get You Off Your Chair, ergonomictrends.com When Doing is Your Undoing, psychologytoday.com What Is Toxic Productivity? huffpost.org Crazy Busy, Edward Hallowell Here's Exactly What's Wrong With Mommy Wine Culture, goodhousekeeping.com Mommy Wine Culture and Why It's So Toxic, cirquelodge.com PRIOR EPISODES OF WELLNESS WHILE WALKING ABOUT THESE TOPICS Ep. 291: Your Health Non-Negotiables All Topics: Ep. 44, 5 Paths to Wellness: Food, Movement, Stress Reduction, Sleep and Connection Disconnection: Ep. 57, Getting Our Brains on Our Own Team with Austin Perlmutter, MD Toxins: Ep. 27, Toxins Are Making Us Sick and Heavy Food: Ep. 32, Reducing Inflammation for Optimal Health with Dr. Elizabeth Boham   HOW TO RATE AND REVIEW WELLNESS WHILE WALKING How to Leave a Review on Apple Podcasts on Your iOS Device 1.   Open Apple Podcast App (purple app icon that says Podcasts). 2.   Go to the icons at the bottom of the screen and choose “search” 3.   Search for “Wellness While Walking” 4.   Click on the SHOW, not the episode. 5.   Scroll all the way down to “Ratings and Reviews” section 6.   Click on “Write a Review” (if you don't see that option, click on “See All” first) 7.   Then you will be able to rate the show on a five-star scale (5 is highest rating) and write a review! 8.   Thank you! I so appreciate this!   How to Leave a Review on Apple Podcasts on a Computer  1.   Visit Wellness While Walking page on Apple Podcasts in your web browser (search for Apple Podcasts or click here)  https://www.apple.com/apple-podcasts/ 2.   Click on “Listen on Apple Podcasts” or “Open the App” 3.   This will open Apple Podcasts and put in search bar at top left “Wellness While Walking” 4.   This should bring you to the show, not a particular episode – click on the show's artwork 5.   Scroll down until you see “Rating and Reviews” 6.   Click on “See All” all the way to the right, near the Ratings and Review Section and its bar chart 7.   To leave a written review, please click on “Write a Review” 8.   You'll be able to leave a review, along with a title for it, plus you'll be able to rate the show on the 5-star scale (with 5 being the highest rating) 9.   Thank you so very much!! OTHER APPS WHERE RATINGS OR REVIEWS ARE POSSIBLE Spotify Goodpods Overcast (if you star certain episodes, or every one, that will help others find the show)  Castbox Podcast Addict Podchaser Podbean   HOW TO SHARE WELLNESS WHILE WALKING Tell a friend or family member about Wellness While Walking, maybe while you're walking together or lamenting not feeling 100% Follow up with a quick text with more info, as noted below! (My favorite is pod.link/walking because it works with all the apps!) Screenshot a favorite episode playing on your phone and share to social media or to a friend via text or email! Wellness While Walking on Apple – click the up arrow to share with a friend via text or email, or share to social media Wellness While Walking on Spotify -- click the up arrow to share with a friend via text or email, or share to social media Use this universal link for any podcast app: pod.link/walking – give it to friends or share on social media Tell your pal about the Wellness While Walking website Thanks for listening and now for sharing! : )       DISCLAIMER Neither I nor many of my podcast guests are doctors or healthcare professionals of any kind, and nothing on this podcast or associated content should be considered medical advice. The information provided by Wellness While Walking Podcast and associated material, by Whole Life Workshop and by Bermuda Road Wellness LLC is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment, and before undertaking a new health care regimen, including walking.     Thanks for listening to Wellness While Walking, a walking podcast and a "best podcast for walking"!

For a deeper dive on the implications of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again report could have on the U.S. food system, Geoff Bennett spoke with Marion Nestle, one of the nation’s foremost food policy experts and professor emerita at New York University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

For a deeper dive into the implications that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again report could have on the U.S. food system, Geoff Bennett spoke with Marion Nestle, one of the nation’s foremost food policy experts and professor emerita at New York University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Reducing the Spread of Weeds and Cereal Rye Inaugural Flinchbaugh Forum Shrubs for the Landscape   00:01:05 – Reducing the Spread of Weeds and Cereal Rye: Sarah Lancaster, K-State weed specialist, kicks off today's show with reminders about why it is important to clean harvest and drilling equipment. She also discusses using cereal rye and wheat.  Weed Management Practices: Fall Scouting and Equipment Cleaning Cereal Rye Control in Wheat War Against Weeds   00:12:05 – Inaugural Flinchbaugh Forum: Continuing the show is Dana Woodbury, executive director of the Barry Flinchbaugh Center for Ag and Food Policy, as she explains the center and the upcoming 2025 Flinchbaugh Forum. Flinchbaugh Forum Flinchbaughcenter.com   00:23:05 – Shrubs for the Landscape: Woody Ornamentals Horticulture Extension Specialist and Director of John C. Pair Horticulture Center, Jason Griffin, ends the show highlighting some great shrubs to incorporate into the home landscape.       Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

In 2025, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is 50 years old. “Lessons and Priorities for a Changing World”, its 2025 Global Food Policy Report, runs to just under 600 pages and covers the last five decades of progress in improving the world's food systems – but also the challenges that remain, and the need for policy to keep evolving if we are going to build sustainable, healthy food systems.  Johan Swinnen and Purnima Menon of IFPRI talk to Tim Phillips about the importance of agrifood resilience. With changes in the global economy, the equity and effectiveness of these food value chains will affect the livelihoods of billions of people. But has the progress in the last 50 years stalled? Read the full show notes on VoxDev: https://voxdev.org/topic/health/food-policy-lessons-and-priorities-changing-world Download the report: https://www.ifpri.org/global-food-policy-report/

The Kristina Farrell Episode: Fighting for Canada's Food System from the InsideIn this episode, hosts Phil and Kenny sit down with Kristina Farrell, CEO of Food & Beverage Canada, to explore the complex world of Canadian food manufacturing policy. Christina, who represents domestic food and beverage manufacturers across the country, breaks down the critical distinction between companies that actually make products in Canada versus those that simply sell here.From her team-of-two operation in Ottawa, Kristina tackles massive challenges including inter-provincial trade barriers, labor shortages, and the ongoing work on Bill C-5. The conversation reveals how 92% of Canada's food manufacturing companies have fewer than 100 employees, yet the industry remains the country's largest manufacturing sector—a fact that often gets overlooked in policy discussions.Kristina shares her journey from government bureaucracy to lobbying, explaining how she became the central coordinator between six provincial food and beverage associations and federal policymakers. The discussion touches on everything from why you've probably had more USDA beef than Alberta beef, to the surprising complexities of calling something "recyclable" under new Competition Act provisions.The hosts and Kristina dig into Canada's tendency to overcomplicate systems that should be straightforward, from food safety standards that vary by province to the challenges of getting recognition for an industry that feeds everyone but struggles to get the political attention given to "sexier" sectors like automotive or mining.Key topics covered:The difference between food manufacturers and CPG companiesInter-provincial trade barriers and Bill C-5Labor challenges in food manufacturingWhy Canada's food system is simultaneously world-class and poorly understood by CanadiansThe role of provincial food and beverage associationsSustainability challenges and greenwashing regulationsThis episode offers an inside look at the people working behind the scenes to keep Canada's food system running, and why understanding these complexities matters for everyone who eats.Find Kristina here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristina-farrell-b09ba549/Thank you to Field Agent Canada for sponsoring the podcast: https://www.fieldagentcanada.com/

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.

On this episode of #LatinosOutLoud, Rachel La Loca was invited back to City Hall, and this time to chat it up with the Deputy Mayor of Strategic Initiatives, Ana Almanzar--or as she's known to her staff, and now Rachel, "DM Ana". In this interview, we learn about the Deputy Mayor's day-to-day responsibilities and the initiatives she oversees. Reporting to her in this role are the commissioners and executive directors of the Center for Innovation through Data Intelligence, City University of the City of New York, New York City Department of Youth and Community Development, Mayor's Office of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, Mayor's Office of Equity, Mayor's Office of Food Policy, Mayor's Office of Nonprofits, and the Mayor's Fund and City Affiliated Nonprofits. Ana grew up in the Dominican Republic and moved to Bushwick, Brooklyn when she was 17 seeking not just the American dream, but the New York City dream. She is the FIRST Dominican Deputy Mayor for the City of NY. This episode is filled with inspiration, laughs and of course, a LIGHTNING ROUND with the Deputy Mayor. #LatinosOutLoud #RachelLaLoca #Comedy #DeputyMayor #NYC #AnaAlmanzar #podcast #Latinos #Dominican #Stories #Government #NY

Ora Kemp, creator of The Bodega Bites, is on a mission to make sure everyone's eatin'. As a 2025 Castanea Fellow and Senior Policy Advisor with the NYC Mayor's Office of Food Policy, she offers a candid look at New York City's food landscape, the stakes for SNAP, and the difference between food insufficiency and insecurity. We also explore how rising food and housing costs are reshaping communities—and the bold ideas needed to build a just, resilient food system.

In this 151st episode of The Food Foundation Podcast, Anna Taylor, Chief Executive at the Food Foundation celebrates its first 10 years with some of the people who have shared its journey.Laura Sandys OBE, chair and founder of the Food Foundation, Dev Sharma, 20-year-old food activist and young food ambassador at the Food Foundation, Henry Dimbleby MBE and Baroness Rosie Boycott, member of The House of Lords, and the Food Foundation board look back at some of the triumphs and challenges of calling on policy makers to recognize the central importance of the food system in shaping the nation's health and wealth. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Onto the 2nd ranch of our U.S Ranch and Farm Tour, where we are on a on a 6-month tour across America, we're visiting regenerative farms to podcast with ranchers, tour their land, document their work, and shake the hand that feeds us. Today's episode is with Maple Syrup rancher, Jacob Powsner. Jacob is great value. He absolutely loves maple syrup, which just makes the conversation that much better. He's living his dream. Alas, we do a total expose on everything Maple Syrup - super fascinating stuff. Enjoy!Jacob Baird is part of the fourth generation running Baird Farm, a 560-acre maple syrup operation in Vermont. In this episode, Jacob and Ryan dive into the full story behind maple syrup—how it's made, what separates the real from the fake, and why so many food labels today are built on confusion. From the misuse of terms like “natural” and “regenerative,” to the nutritional power of real syrup and the policies shaping food transparency, this is a candid conversation about what honest food really takes.Key topics:- How real maple syrup is made—from forest to sugarhouse- The difference between real and fake maple products- Why “natural,” “organic,” and “regenerative” labels often mislead- The nutritional and environmental case for real maple syrup- Small farms vs big food: marketing, policy, and system captureTimestamps:00:00 – “When you eat good food, you connect to the land” 03:30 – The 100-year family history of Baird Farm and the shift from dairy to maple 06:00 – How 15,000 trees are tapped and managed across the Vermont woods 09:00 – What makes real maple syrup: process, purity, and organic practices 12:30 – The truth about fake syrup, flavoring loopholes, and deceptive labels 16:00 – The “natural flavors” problem and how big food co-opts language 19:00 – Why regenerative is at risk of being greenwashed 22:00 – Health benefits of real maple syrup: minerals, glycemic load, and antioxidants 25:00 – Why maple syrup protects land from development and deforestation 28:00 – How big players are consolidating the maple industry and what's at stake 31:00 – Jacob's vision for small, intentional growth and honest food systemsConnect with Jason & Baird Farm:WebsiteInstagram

Send us a textIn this episode, CMMI Director Abe Sutton shares his unique journey from the private sector back to government service and reveals how he's rapidly transforming Medicare through innovative payment models. Sutton discusses the newly launched WISER (Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction) model, which leverages AI technology to reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, and the upcoming ASM (Ambulatory Specialty Model) targeting heart failure and lower back pain. The conversation explores CMMI's 2025 strategy focused on evidence-based prevention, patient empowerment, and choice and competition, while addressing how emerging technologies like generative AI are creating unprecedented opportunities to streamline healthcare administration and improve patient outcomes. Sutton also reveals how he spent four years during his "off season" developing a comprehensive roadmap for healthcare innovation that he's now implementing at warp speed.Links:WISeR (Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction) model: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innova...ASM (Ambulatory Specialty Model): https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innova...CMMI's 2025 Strategy Focus: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innova...Learn how AI can amplify your care coordination team by visiting https://link.careco.ai/HTRKQsTimestamps:00:00:00 - Introduction and Welcome00:00:37 - Why Leave Private Sector for Government Service00:09:16 - AI and Technology's Impact on Healthcare Innovation00:17:49 - WISER Model Introduction and Goals00:30:45 - Food Policy and Making America Healthy Again00:34:08 - ASM Model for Heart Failure and Lower Back Pain00:38:31 - Four Years of Preparation During "Off Season"

Dr. Rebecca Boulos, Executive Director of the Maine Public Health Association, brings an extraordinary blend of academic insight, personal experience, and deep-rooted commitment to her home state. With a PhD in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts, along with degrees from Yale and George Washington University, Rebecca has spent years exploring how our environment, mindset, and stress shape health outcomes. A Cape Elizabeth native, Rebecca shares how growing up in Maine—and eventually returning to it—shaped her belief in both self-sufficiency and community care. From her early days volunteering in local schools to groundbreaking research on optimism and public health policy, Rebecca offers a compelling perspective on how small shifts can lead to big health improvements. Her work is a powerful reminder that place, purpose, and people all matter. Join our conversation with Dr. Rebecca Boulos today on Radio Maine—and don't forget to subscribe to our channel!

Nearly 4 million college students have experienced food insecurity. Here in Connecticut, several colleges have food pantries and programs working to address food insecurity on campus. But addressing this issue goes beyond giving out canned goods. It’s about giving students access to quality foods, and addressing the root causes of food insecurity. Today, we hear from students and those working build better food security in higher education. GUESTS: Nelly Birmingham: undergraduate student at Southern Connecticut State University Rakeria Thomas: graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University Caitlin Caspi: Director of Food Security Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Heath at the University of Connecticut Hayley Berliner: Sustainability Coordinator at Trinity College Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Conference for Agriculture Producers The Flinchbaugh Focus: The Agricultural Economy Insect Activity in Kansas   00:01:05 – Conference for Agriculture Producers: Jason Warner, K-State cow-calf Extension specialist, kicks off the show by previewing the High Plains Journal Live Conference where he and other K-State specialists will be discussing the market, beef quality assurance, nutrition, farm bill and other topics. live.hpj.com   00:12:05 – The Flinchbaugh Focus: The Agricultural Economy: Today's show continues with part of an episode from the Barry Flinchbaugh Center for Ag and Food Policy as Mark Edelman, Iowa State University; Jenny Ifft, Kansas State University; and Brad Lubin, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, share their opinions on the agricultural economy. FlinchbaughCenter.com The Flinchbaugh Focus: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down on the Economy   00:23:05 – Insect Activity in Kansas: K-State horticultural entomologist Raymond Cloyd wraps the show with an update on insect activity in Kansas, including bagworms, European elm flea weevils and grasshoppers.      Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

In this episode of Flanigan's Eco-Logic, Ted welcomes Catherine Sands, Director of Fertile Ground, to the podcast. After years of working in development and promoting special fund-raising concerts for Natural Resources Defense Council, Catherine moved north from New York City to the Berkshires of Massachusetts to raise a family and live closer to the land. There, she became involved with schools and asked a very basic question: Why do local schools have such lousy food?These questions led Catherine to a career working with schools and communities, linking education and applied learning to food systems. She sought to emulate the edible schoolyard program that Alice Waters created in Berkeley, California. There, students were learning growing food in their schoolyards, gaining an appreciation of healthy food, and developing pathways for lifelong wellness. This inspired Catherine to work with local schools in Massachusetts, working on applied learning, food procurement, and linking local schools to local farms... all to bring healthy, pesticide-free food, and "scatch-made" meals to students. She explains that much of her work involves diligent networking and matchmaking to support food policy councils, school districts' food procurement professionals, and local farms.Determined to better understand food systems and food policy, and to undo the food inequity she found distressing, Catherine earned a graduate degree from University of Massachusetts to advance Fertile Ground and its work with schools and communities. Since then, Fertile Ground has provided food system evaluations with recommendations for school districts on how to best tap Farm Bill funds to advance healthy food. Fertile Ground develops approaches and programs and gardens. She then joined the U Mass faculty where she has inspired and guided hundreds of students on a similar mission, work that she continues... driven by passion and fulfillment in her successes. "What's in your garden this spring?" Ted asks Catherine in closing. She responds that, yes, "It's planting time. The greens are going in. Tomatoes too." And not only in her own garden: She relishes in having fostered and continuing to support hundreds of gardens at schools and within the communities that she serves. Catherine makes clear that providing healthy food at schools and in our communities is challenging, but more so, it is rewarding as it nurtures young minds and healthy souls and organically supports communities.

I was at a professional meeting recently and I heard an inspiring and insightful and forward-looking talk by journalist and author Roger Thurow. Roger was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal for 30 years, 20 of them as a foreign correspondent based in Europe and Africa. Roger has written a number of books including one on world hunger and another what I thought was a particularly important book entitled The First 1000 Days, A Crucial Time for Mothers and Children and the World. Now comes a new book on farmers around the world and how they are coping with the unprecedented changes they face. It was hearing about his book that inspired me to invite Mr. Thurow to this podcast and thankfully he accepted. His new book is entitled Against the Grain: How Farmers Around the Globe are transforming Agriculture to Nourish the World and Heal the Planet. Interview Summary I really admire your work and have loved the new book and what I've read before. So, let's talk about something that you speak about: the wisdom of farmers. And you talk about their wisdom in the context of modern agriculture. What do you mean by that? Farmers of the world, particularly the small holder farmers, indigenous farmers, family farmers as we know them in this country, they're really bold and pioneering in what they're doing. And these farmers, kind of around the world as we go on this journey around the world in the book, they've seen their efforts to earn a living and feed nourish their families and communities turn against. So, while conforming to the orthodoxies of modern industrial agriculture practices: the monocropping, the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides and insecticide chemicals, the land expansion, at the expense of savannas, forest wetlands, biodiverse environments. In the face of this, they've really witnessed their lands degrading. Their soils depleting. Their waters dwindling. Their pollinators fleeing. Their biodiversity shrinking and becoming less diverse. Their rains becoming ever more mercurial., Their temperatures ever hotter. And their children and families and their communities becoming ever more hungry and malnourished. So, they've really seen the future of their own impacts on the environment, and then the impacts of changing climates, of more extreme weather conditions. They've really seen this future. They've experienced, lived it, and it's ugly what they see and what they've experienced on their farms. So, that's their wisdom, and they'll really tell us that it doesn't have to be that way if we listen. That such a future isn't inevitable. Because out of their desperation, you know, these farmers have begun farming against the grain. So, there's the title of the book Against the Grain of this modern agriculture orthodoxy to reconcile their roles as both food producers and nourishers of us all, and stewards in the land. They're pushing forward with practices like agroforestry, agroecology, regenerative agriculture, kind of whatever one calls it. Farming with nature instead of bending nature to their will, which is what we too often done and with kind of the larger modern industrial agriculture techniques. So, farming with nature as opposed to against it as they strive to both nourish us all and heal our planet. Give us a sense, if you will, about how important these small farmers are to the world's food supply? So how important are these? They're really important. Extremely vital for the global food chain, certainly for their own families and communities, and their countries. In a lot of places, say in Africa, in many of the countries, on the continent, it's the small holder farmers that are producing the majority of the food. In their communities and in their countries and across the continent. Still not enough. Africa then must become a substantial importer of food. But these small holder farmers are so key and the more success that they have in feeding their communities and families, the more success we all have then in this great goal of ending hunger and malnutrition. Equally important, these farmers are the stewards of the land. And they're on the front lines of these environmental challenges. The threats from the changing climate and more extreme weather conditions. They're the first impacted by it, but they also increasingly see, and that's what stories in the book are about, how they see that their own actions are then impacting their environment and their climates. And this is why they're so important for all of us is that they find themselves at the center of what I think is this great collision of humanities two supreme imperatives. One, nourish the world, so nourish us all. That's the one imperative. And then the other imperative, kind of colliding with that, is to preserve, protect, and heal our planet from the very actions of nourishing us. So, these are these two colliding forces. You know as I think we already know agriculture and land use activities are responsible for about a third of the greenhouse gases impacting our climate and weather patterns. And the greatest impact of this then is felt by the farmers themselves. And they see what's happening to their soils and the depletion of their soils. Their lands being so terribly degraded by their very actions of nourishing their families and then contributing to nourishing us all. I think that's why they're so important for us. I mean, there's certainly kind of the canaries in the coal mine of climate change. Of these environmental challenges that we're all facing. And how they're then able to adjust their farming, as we kind of see in the book and that's this wisdom again. How can we learn from them and what are they seeing in their own situations. They're then having to adjust because they have no other options. They either have to adjust or their farms will continue to degrade and their children and their families increasingly malnourished and hungry. Roger let's talk through this issue of colliding imperatives just a bit. The fact that protecting the planet and nourishing people are colliding in your view, suggests that these two priorities are competing with one another. How is that the case? Some of the techniques of the monocropping, which is basically planting one crop on the same plot of land year after year, after year, season after season, right? And by doing that, these crops that are pulling nutrients out of the soil, many of the crops don't put nutrients back in. Some of them do. They'll restore nitrogen they'll put other nutrients in. But with the mono cropping, it's kind of the same depletion that goes on. And, has been particularly practiced in this country, and the bigger farmers and more commercial farmers, because it's more efficient. You are planting one crop, you have the same technique of kind of the planting and tending for that. And the harvesting, kind of the same equipment for that. You don't need to adjust practices, your equipment for various other crops that you're growing on that land. And so, there's an efficiency for that. You have then the price stability if there is any price stability in farming from that crop. That can be a weakness if the price collapses and you're so dependent on that. And so, the farmers are seeing, yeah, that's where the degrading and the weakening their of their soils comes from. So, what's their response to that when their land's degrading? When their soils become weak, it's like, oh, we need additional land then to farm. So they'll go into the forest, they'll cut down trees. And now there's virgin soil. They do the same practices there. And then after a number of years, well that land starts depleting. They keep looking for more. As you do these things, then with the soils depleting, the land degrading, becoming really hard, well, when the rain comes, it's not soaking in. And it just kind of runs away as the soil becomes almost like concrete. Farmers aren't able to plant much there anymore or get much out of the ground. And then so what happens then if the water isn't soaking into the soil, the underground aquifers and the underground springs they become depleted. All of a sudden, the lakes and the ponds that were fed by those, they disappear. The wildlife, the pollinators that come because of that, they go. The bushes, the plants, the weeds that are also so important for the environment, they start disappearing. And so you see that in their efforts to nourish their families and to nourish all of us, it's having this impact on the environment. And then that drives more impacts, right? As they cut down trees, trees drive the precipitation cycle. Tthen the rains become ever more mercurial and unpredictable. Without the trees and the shade and the cooling and the breezes, temperatures get hotter. And also, as the rains disappear and become more unpredictable. It has all this effect. And so, the farmers in the book, they're seeing all this and they recognize it. That by their very actions of cutting down trees to expand their land or to go to a different crop. Because again, that's what the commercial agriculture is demanding, so maybe its sugar cane is coming to the area. Well, sugar cane doesn't get along with trees. And so, the farmers in this one part of Uganda that I write about, they're cutting down all their trees to plant sugarcane. And then it's like, wow, now that the trees are gone, now we see all these environmental and ecosystem results because of that. And so that's where this collision comes from then of being much more aware, and sensitive in their practices and responding to it. That they are both nourishing their families and then also being even better stewards of their land. And they're not doing any of this intentionally, right? It's not like they're going 'we have to do all this to the land, and you know, what do we care? We're just here for a certain amount of time.' But no, they know that this is their land, it's their wealth, it's their family property. It's for their children and future generations. And they need to both nourish and preserve and protect and heal at the same time. Well, you paint such a rich picture of how a single decision like mono cropping has this cascade of effects through the entire ecosystem of an area. Really interesting to hear about that. Tell me how these farmers are experiencing climate change. You think of climate change as something theoretical. You know, scientists are measuring these mysterious things up there and they talk about temperature changes. But what are these farmers actually experiencing in their day-to-day lives? So along with the monocropping, this whole notion that then has expanded and become kind of an article of faith through industrial and modern agriculture orthodoxies, is to get big or get out, and then to plant from fence post to fence post. And so, the weeds and the flowers and plants that would grow along the edges of fields, they've been taken down to put in more rows of crops. The wetland areas that have either been filled in. So, it was a policy here, the USDA would then fund farmers to fill in their wetlands. And now it's like, oh, that's been counterproductive. Now there's policies to assist farmers to reestablish their wetland. But kind of what we're seeing with climate change, it's almost every month as we go through the year, and then from year after year. Every month is getting hotter than the previous months. And each year then is getting subsequently hotter. As things get hotter, it really impacts the ability of some crops in the climates where they're growing. So, take for instance, coffee. And coffee that's growing, say on Mount Kenya in Africa. The farmers will have to keep going further and further up the mountains, to have the cooler conditions to grow that type of coffee that they grow. The potato farmers in Peru, where potatoes come from. And potatoes are so important to the global food chain because they really are a bulwark against famine. Against hunger crises in a number of countries and ecologies in the world. So many people rely on potatoes. These farmers, they call themselves the guardians of the indigenous of the native potato varieties. Hundreds of various varieties of potatoes. All shapes, sizes, colors. As it gets warmer, they have to keep moving further and further up the Andes. Now they're really farming these potatoes on the roof of Earth. As they move up, they're now starting to then farm in soils that haven't been farmed before. So, what happens? You start digging in those soils and now you're releasing the carbon that's been stored for centuries, for millennia. That carbon is then released from the soils, and that then adds to more greenhouse gases and more impact on the climate and climate change. It kind of all feeds each other. They're seeing that on so many fronts. And then the farmers in India that we write about in the book, they know from history and particularly the older farmers, and just the stories that are told about the rhythm of the monsoon season. And I think it was the summer of the monsoon season of 2022 when I was doing the reporting there for that particular part of the book. The rains came at the beginning, a little bit. They planted and then they disappear. Usually, the monsoons will come, and they'll get some rain for this long, long stretch of time, sometimes particularly heavy. They planted and then the rains went away. And as the crops germinated and came up, well, they needed the water. And where was the water and the precipitation? They knew their yields weren't going to be as big because they could see without the rains, their crops, their millet, their wheat crops were failing. And then all of a sudden, the rains returned. And in such a downpour, it was like, I think 72 hours or three days kind of rains of a biblical proportion. And that was then so much rain in that short of time than added further havoc to their crops and their harvest. And it was just that mercurial nature and failing nature of the monsoons. And they're seeing that kind of glitches and kinks in the monsoon happening more frequently. The reliability, the predictability of the rains of the seasons, that's what they're all finding as kind of the impacts of climate change. You're discussing a very interesting part of the world. Let's talk about something that I found fascinating in your book. You talked about the case of pigweed in Uganda. Tell us about that if you will. Amaranth. So here, we call it pigweed. That's a weed. Yeah, destroy that. Again, fence post to fence post. Nah, so this pig weed that's growing on the side or any kind of weeds. The milkweed, so I'm from northern Illinois, and the milkweed that would kind of grow on the edges of the corn fields and other fields, that's really favored by monarch butterflies, right? And so now it's like, 'Hey, what happened to all the monarch butterflies that we had when we were growing up?' Right? Well, if you take out the milkweed plants, why are the monarch butterfly going to come? So those pollinators disappear. And they come and they're great to look at, and, you know, 'gee, the monarchs are back.' But they also perform a great service to us all and to our environment and to agriculture through their pollinating. And so, the pigweed in Africa - Amaranth, it's like a wonder crop. And one of these 'super crops,' really nutritious. And these farmers in this area of Uganda that I'm writing about, they're harvesting and they're cultivating Amaranth. And they're mixing that in their homemade porridge with a couple of other crops. Corn, some millet, little bit of sugar that they'll put in there. And that then becomes the porridge that they're serving to the moms, particularly during their pregnancies to help with their nutritional status. And then to the babies and the small children, once they started eating complimentary food. Because the malnutrition was so bad and the stunting so high in that area that they figured they needed to do something about that. And the very farmers that this program from Iowa State University that's been working with them for 20 years now, first to improve their farming, but then wow, the malnutrition is so bad in these farming families. What can we do about that? Then it was, oh, here's these more nutritional crops native to the area. Let's incorporate them into farming. This crop is Amaranth. Basically, neglected in other parts of the world. Destroyed in other parts of the world. That is something that's actually cultivated and harvested, and really cared for and prized in those areas. It's a really interesting story. Let's turn our attention to the United States, which you also profile in your book. And there was a particular farmer in Kansas named Brandon that you talk about. And he said he was getting divorced from wheat. Tell us about that. Yes, thank you. That's a really interesting story because he's standing there kind of on the edge of his farm, looking at the wheat crops across the road that his neighbor was planting and he had some himself. And he's saying, yeah, I need to get a divorce from wheat. Because of the impact that that was having on the environment. Again, the planting of the wheat, you know, year after year. It's the wheat belt of our Great Plains, which then is legendarily known as the breadbasket, not only of America, but the breadbasket of the world. This wheat is particularly good and appropriate for the label of Breadbasket because it's really good for breads, baking materials. But he's looking at here's the impact it had on his soil. The organic matter on the soil has been dwindling. In the season that the wheat is underground, and the topsoil is uncovered, then you have the problems with erosion. He's seen the impact over time of the year after year after year of growing the wheat. What's interesting, he says, you know, I need to get a divorce from wheat. Well, it's his relatives, because he's a fifth descendant, of the Mennonite farmers from what is now Ukraine - one of the world's original grain belts, who brought their hard red winter wheat seeds with them when they came to the Great Plains in the 1870s. They're the ones that wed Kansas, the Great Plains, the United States to wheat. So now this farmer, Brandon-I-need-to-get-a-divorce-from-wheat, well, it's your ancestors and your descendants that wed us to that. There's kind of historic irony that's taking place. But along with the wheat seeds that came, then also came the plowing up the prairie lands for the first time. And wheat is an annual crop. It's planted year after year one harvest. With each planting, the soil is disturbed, releasing carbon that had been stored, that had been stored in the soil for millennium when they first started plowing. Carbon along with methane released by agricultural activities is, again, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. And in addition, you know, this annual plowing exposes the soil to erosion. You know, relentless erosion with the wind and the rain in the plains. That's what eventually led to the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Some environmental and conservation agricultural practices come along because of that, but now that continues. And Brandon himself is seeing the impact as he measures the organic matter in the soil. These are the microorganisms in the soils that naturally work with the soils to grow the crops to feed us all. The nutrients in the soil are weakened and depleted, which then results in the need for more and more chemical enhancements and fertilizers, particularly nitrogen and all the rest. And then you see the runoff of the nitrogen into the water system. And so, yeah, he's seen the impact of all of this, and he's like I need to do something else. And so, he's taken a rather radical step than of planting and growing perennial crops, which you plant one season and then they'll grow for three or four years, maybe more and longer. He has some cattle, so he is able to graze that on those perennial crops. One in particular called kernza, which is an ancient intermediate wheat grass. Has some of the properties of wheat. And so the Land Institute in Kansas then is also working on perennial crops and how can they then be cultivated and harvested also as crops that we all eat. And so Kernza is very high in protein. There's all sorts of breads and pasta, pastries, that you can make with it. Cereals. It's a good ingredient for brewing. There's Kernza beer. And there's promise with that. And then so these perennial crops, then it's like, okay, so we don't have to plow every year. We plant, they grow, they provide a cover crop, but they also provide food for all of us. So perennials, good for our nutrition, good for the soils, good for the environment. You know, we've recorded a series of podcasts with farmers who've been doing regenerative agriculture. And the kind of story that you talk about Brandon, quite similar to what you hear from some of the other farmers. Farming was in their family for many generations. They were accustomed to a particular type of industrial agriculture. They saw it harming the land, thought it bad for the planet, and decided to really retool and do things entirely different. And they're making a go of it, which is really exciting. Roger, I wanted to ask you about Native Americans. As you write about their agriculture, spirituality, kinship, and how all these things come together. Tell us about that. Exactly. Thank you. And so, if you go travel a little bit further in our great plains from Kansas up to South Dakota, and the Sicangu Lakota communities in the southern part of South Dakota close to the Nebraska border. They're trying to reestablish their food sovereignty and the agriculture practices of the Native Americans destroyed, as we tried to destroy them and their communities. By taking of their land, forced relocations, the Trail of Tears, the Trail of Death, in various parts of the country, from various of the Native American communities. And they realize that, as you and the researchers at Duke, know really well, the health impacts that has had on the Native American communities and the high rates of diabetes and obesity, the shortened life expectancies in those communities. And one of the main factors then is their food pathways, and their nutrition being disturbed through all this. So how can they reestablish their food sovereignty? The emphasis on the crops that they used to grow, particularly the three sisters' crops, the maize, the beans, the squash. And then that they would have crops and taste and nutrients that were so vital to their systems traditionally. To recapture that in various growing projects that they have. And then also, with the Sicangu Lakota, they are trying to reestablish the buffalo herd, which was basically decimated from upwards of 30 million or more size of the herd basically down to several hundred with the intentional slaughter of the buffalo in order to really oppress and impact the Native American community. So vital not only to their food sources and nutrition, but basically everything. Clothing, tools - so using every inch of the buffalo. And then spiritually. And as they explain their approach to regenerative agriculture, they would put a picture of a buffalo as the very definition of regenerative agriculture. Just by the way that the buffalo grazes and then moves around. It doesn't graze to the soil it leaves something behind. Then the grasses grow quicker because there's something that's left behind. They leave things behind for other animals. The way that they migrate, and then kind of knead the soil as they go along. That also helps with the soil. So, all these regenerative agriculture, regenerative soil, healthy soil healing practices of it. And then they also say, look the spiritual nature of things that the buffalo represents their kinship. Their kinship of the people to the buffalo, to their land, to the environment. And to them, regenerative agriculture isn't just about food, about soils, about the cultivation and the planting, but also about this kinship. It is a kinship and a spirituality of kind of all of us together. We're all combined on this global food chain. And so that whole kinship element to regenerative agriculture, I think is also really important for us to all understand. Getting back to your original question about the wisdom. This is the wisdom of these farmers, these indigenous farmers, small holder farmers, family farmers. Like Brandon, the small holder farmers of African, India and Latin America are learning so much about their crops that we have so much to learn from.vIt's inspiring to think that some of the remedies that people are coming up with now in the face of all these challenges actually have historic roots that go back thousands of years is pretty inspiring. And it's nice to know that the resurrection of some of these techniques might really make a difference in the modern world. Roger, there are so many questions I'd love to ask you. And I'd urge people to read your book Against the Grain to further explore some of these issues. But I wanted to end with something. Are you hopeful that things will change in a positive direction? I am. I'm also concerned that we need to recognize the need to both nourish and heal. Recognize that this collision is looming, but it's already happening. And I think my hope, and cautious optimism I guess, then comes from the farmers themselves. They're very resilient, and they have to be, right? If you'd asked them the question about where their hope comes from or their optimism or their motivation and inspiration to keep going, it's they don't have any other option. I mean, this is their land. This is what they do. They're farmers, they're nourishing their families. If their families are to be nourished and to end the effects of poor nutrition as we see in this country, which is then common around the world, they need to adjust. So Abebe, a farmer Ethiopia this is kind of where my hope and inspiration comes from. And he begins the book. He's at the outset of the book and in the prologue. His land in Ethiopia was utterly degraded and you couldn't plant there anymore. They had already cut down trees, moved into areas that had been forested. The humble forest in the area had basically disappeared, in kind of the greater area of where Abebe lives. The bigger kind of ecosystem, environmental changes that then come from that, or the disappearance of a forest. And he had been following then the practices and the orthodoxies of modern agriculture. He realized that that was then behind the degradation of his land and the soil. He couldn't plant anymore. And the World Food Program, the Ethiopian government, other kind of NGOs, were then seeing, look these farm communities, these families, we're going to have to be assisting with food assistance forever because their lands are so degraded. They're not able to nourish their families from them unless we do something to restore and heal the land and bring the land back. And so, Abebe and his family and many others in his community, the kind of wider neighborhood and in this area, the humble forest, a lot of them, they stop farming on their land and they're given assistance saved by the World Food Program, kind of food for work. And they set about rehabbing their land. Kind of terracing their land so it'll hold the water. Digging shallow water pans to collect the rain so it then soaks into the soil, into the ground, and then regenerates the underground springs and sources of water. Planting grasses, bushes, letting kind of the land heal and regenerate itself. After a number of years, they see that happening. They move back to the land, and now he has this wide diversity as opposed to planting say corn every year or other mono cropping. Now he has this wide, wild, riotous array of different crops and vegetables and fruit trees. Some of the staple crops that he's grown also in rotation. Working with trees that have then grown up. Springs, a little pond has reformed that he didn't even know was there had come up because of the conservation the water. And he says, you know, my land, which once was dead, he's living again. Right? A profound statement and a realization from this farmer of this is how we can bring it back. So again, as I say, they've seen the future and it's ugly, right? He's seen his land degraded. He couldn't nourish his family anymore. He then does these practices, takes heed of this. I need to heal my land at the same time as farming it. And now his land is living again. So that to me is kind of a wonderful parable. So again, the wisdom of the farmers. It's through the stories and the wisdom of Abebe, that kind of the hope comes forward. Bio Roger Thurow is a journalist and author who writes about the persistence of hunger and malnutrition in our world as well as global agriculture and food policy. He was a reporter at The Wall Street Journal for thirty years, including twenty years as a foreign correspondent based in Europe and Africa. In 2003, he and Journal colleague Scott Kilman wrote a series of stories on famine in Africa that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting. Thurow is the author of four books: Enough: Why the World's Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty (with Scott Kilman); The Last Hunger Season: A Year in an African Farm Community on the Brink of Change; The First 1,000 Days: A Crucial Time for Mothers and Children – And the World; and, Against the Grain – How Farmers Around the Globe Are Transforming Agriculture to Nourish the World and Heal the Planet. He has also been a senior fellow for Global Agriculture and Food Policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, as well as a Scholar-in-Residence at Auburn University's Hunger Solutions Institute.

What exactly is the Farm Bill—and why should you care? In this episode of Fresh Take, we demystify one of the most influential pieces of legislation shaping our food system. Host Lana Chehabeddine sits down with Billy Hackett, a passionate policy specialist from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, to break down the Farm Bill's history, structure, and far-reaching impact on farming, food access, environmental health, and rural communities.Billy shares insights on how the bill affects everything from food prices to conservation programs, and why equitable reform is essential for farmers and communities. Learn about common misconceptions, current challenges, and how grassroots advocacy can drive meaningful change.Whether you're a grower, policymaker, or simply someone who eats, this episode will empower you with the knowledge and tools to engage with the Farm Bill and support a more sustainable, just food system.Support the showDue to the ongoing federal funding freeze, we must redirect our efforts to other FOG programs. But we need your help to keep programs like Fresh Take and other FOG initiatives alive! Become a sponsor today! Your sponsorship is crucial for us to continue providing essential programs, including this podcast. Visit our sponsor page now to learn more and join our community of supporters. Together, we can make a significant impact!

I'm joined by Dave Chapman, host of the US chart-topping Real Organic Podcast. We dive into the rise of “regenerative” as the latest industry buzzword, the troubling reality of corporate consolidation in agriculture, and how antitrust issues are threatening the future of truly organic food. We also explore the key differences between organic food markets in the U.S. and the EU—and what they might mean for growers and consumers alike. Links www.realorganicproject.org On Facebook On Instagram Other episodes if you liked this one:

The New Disabled South is working to build a coalition of disability justice activists and advocates. Dom Kelly, the co-founder, president, and CEO of New Disabled South, discusses the organization’s mission: 'To improve the lives of disabled people and build strong disability justice and rights movements in the South. Plus, with looming potential cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and surging prices at the grocery store, the nonprofit A Red Circle, has released a national blueprint that outlines five food policy recommendations that all states, including Georgia, can follow to act on right now. Erica R. Williams, the executive director of A Red Circle, talks with Rose about the work of the nonprofit, the importance of combating food insecurity and the national blueprint.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Beth Feraco joins me to talk about everything from the absurdity of the “all sugar diet” trend to why basic nutrition advice—like “eat vegetables”—is now controversial online. We dive into personal responsibility, food deserts, shady supplement marketing, and her own photoshoot prep journey. If you're tired of fitness fluff and want real talk, this is the episode for you. Sign up To Become A 1:1 Online Fitness MemberBeth's WebsiteBuy My Book, 'Your Fat Loss Journey Starts Here'Sign up For My Free 14-Day Fat Loss Kick-StarterBeth's InstagramMy InstagramBeth's TikTokMy ThreadsMy YouTube channelFree Fitness Guides Timestamps:00:27 Beth Feraco's Background01:15 Portugal and Spain Nationwide Blackout03:30 Why Leo Loves the Threads App04:17 MAHA's Questionable Nutrition Messaging08:04 Food Deserts and Policy Failures10:43 Adults Complaining About Eating Vegetables13:16 Social Media Backlash Against Basic Nutrition Advice16:40 The Rise of the “All Sugar Diet” Trend21:06 Convenience Culture and Rising Obesity Rates25:04 How to Inconvenience Yourself to Move More28:08 Chemical Fear vs Real Health Risks33:34 A Simple Challenge to Cut Back Alcohol37:17 Red Flags in Athletic Greens and Colostrum Marketing41:28 Young Leo's Supplement Obsession43:07 Why Personal Responsibility Still Matters46:42 Fitness Influencers Misleading with “Balanced” Messaging51:08 What Beth Learned From Her Photoshoot Journey53:16 Stop Procrastinating Your Fat Loss Goals54:56 Where to Find and Follow Beth Feraco

Global food systems have been increasingly subjected to financial speculation, leading to adverse consequences for growers, consumers, and public health. But what are the systemic vulnerabilities that impact food security, equitable access to nutritious food, and the broader socio-political frameworks influencing these outcomes? Understanding the financial mechanisms shaping food production and distribution is highly relevant for health professionals, policy makers, and researchers concerned with nutrition, equity, and global health systems. This episode urges a critical re-evaluation of current food policies and invites consideration of more ethical, resilient approaches to safeguarding food systems. Professor Martin Caraher is Emeritus Professor of Food and Health Policy at the Centre for Food Policy, City St. Georges, University of London. His research encompasses food poverty, food security, the role of food aid, and the broader implications of food systems on public health. Timestamps [01:12] Financialization of food: an overview [05:27] Speculation and its impact on food prices [13:10] Global food security and policy responses [17:20] Corporate concentration in food systems [34:03] Potential solutions and future directions Related Resources Go to episode page Prof. Caraher's Recommended Reading List Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course Episode #344: Prof. Martin Caraher – Food Poverty & Food Aid Provision X: @MartinCaraher and @NutritionDanny

To get a taste of the discussions that were happening at the 2025 Food Safety Summit, we spoke face-to-face with keynote speaker Jason Evans, Ph.D., Dean, College of Food Innovation and Technology, Johnson & Wales University; as well as Brian Ronholm, M.A., Director of Food Policy, Consumer Reports; Michael Fang, Co-Founder, Spectacular Labs; and Steven Lyon, Ph.D., Director, Food Safety—Field Operations, Chick-fil-A Inc.; Purni Wickramasinghe, Ph.D., Food Safety & Restaurant Solutions, Chick-fil-A Inc. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with: Dr. Jason Evans [30:39] about how to shine as a leader in the face of challenges Brian Ronholm [47:48] about chemical safety for food processors Michael Fang [1:02:24] about the need for a comprehensive and integrated food safety solution. Dr. Steven Lyon and Dr. Purni Wickramasinghe [1:28:20] about how to leverage AI for food safety applications Sponsored by: Spectacular Labs   We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

As any parent knows, it is really important to help our children to make healthy food choices. I know as a father who cooks for my child, it is really critical that I introduce her to fruits and vegetables and encourage whole grains and try to manage the amount of additional sugars, but it's hard. We do this with the goal of trying to make sure that our child is able to eat healthy once she leaves the home. That she's able to make healthy choices there. But it's not just about the future. My child is making choices even today at school and outside of school, and the question is, can we help her make those choices that are going to lead to healthy food outcomes? Do food labels on products encourage children to make healthy food choices if it indicates good ingredients? Or would labels that warn against nutrients of concern actually discourage kids from using those or consuming those products? Today we're going to actually explore those questions in a particular context- in Chile. In 2016, the Chilean government implemented a comprehensive set of obesity prevention policies aimed at improving the food environment for children. Last year on this podcast, we actually explored how the Chilean food laws affected school food purchases. But now today, we're going to explore how food labels are influencing youth outside of school. It is my pleasure to welcome back my colleagues, Gabriela Fretes, who is an associate research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, or IFPRI; and Sean Cash, who is an economist and chair of the Division of Agriculture, food and Environment at Tufts University at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. Interview Summary Gabi and Sean, I'm excited to discuss our new paper, Front of Pack Labels and Young Consumers an Experimental Investigation of Nutrition and Sustainability Claims in Chile that was recently published in a Journal of Food Quality and Preference. Gabi, let's begin with you. So why look at Chile? Can you explain the focus of the Chilean labeling and food environment policies there? So, the setting of our study, as in the previous study, was Chile because recently the country implemented the law of food labeling and advertising, which includes three main components. The first one being mandatory front of package warning labels on packaged goods and beverages. The second one being restrictions on all forms of food marketing directed to children younger than 14 years. So, including printed media, broadcast, and also all digital media. And the third component being at school regulations at different levels including preschool, elementary, and high school levels. Briefly, food manufacturers in Chile must place front of package labels on packaged foods or beverages that are high in specific nutrients of concern, including added sugars, saturated fats, sodium, and or energy. This law was implemented in three stages, starting in June 2016. The last stage was implemented in June 2019. So, it has been already six or seven years since the full implementation of the regulation. Specifically talking about the school component because this, yeah, it relates to children and adolescents. The law mandates that foods and beverages with at least one front of pack warning label cannot be sold, promoted, or marketed inside schools. And this includes the cafeteria, the school kiosks, and even events that are happening inside the schools. And additionally, food and beverages that have at least one front pack warning label cannot be offered as part of school meal programs. In addition to this front of pack warning label regulation, Chile also implemented voluntary eco labels starting in 2022 that provide information about the recyclability of food packages specifically. There is a certification process behind this labeling regulation and the eco label can be displayed if the food or beverage package is at least 80% recyclable. Wow. This is a really comprehensive set of policies to encourage healthier food choices, both at the school and then also outside of the school. I'm excited to discuss further what this may do to food choices among children. Sean, that really brings up the question, why is it important to look at young consumers and their food choices and what makes them unique compared to adults? Thanks for asking Norbert. This is an area where I've been interested in for a while. You know, young consumers play a crucial role in shaping the demand for food and long-term dietary habits. And young consumers might be more open to incorporating dietary advice into those long-term habits than adults might be. Just perhaps kids are less set in their ways. Children and adolescents are both current, but also future consumers with growing autonomy in what they choose around food as they get older. To marketers, we sometimes would say they might represent a three-in-one market. First, they spend their own money on snacks. What you could think of as the primary market. And how children spend money autonomously is really something that hasn't been studied enough by researchers. Although it's an area where I have tried to make a contribution. Second, kids influence household purchases. This is sometimes called pester power. You can think of a kid in the supermarket begging a parent to buy a favorite snack or a certain brand of cereal. But this can also be more socially positive in that kids might be agents of change within their households. Encouraging perhaps other family members to buy healthier food items if they get more interested in that. And third, this three-in-one market is rounded out by the fact that children represent future purchasing power as future adults. So, the habits that they're forming now might influence what they do when they're older. Despite this importance for marketers, but also for pro-social behavior change, there really hasn't been a lot of research on youth food purchasing behaviors. And this question that we are looking at here of how kids might respond to front to package labels has been particularly limited. In this project, we wanted to understand how Chilean adolescents might respond both to nutrition warning labels, but also eco labels, and how they consider price when choosing snacks. We were lucky to be able to recruit a sample of over 300 kids, aged 10 to 14, to participate in these experiments. I know we're going to chat a bit more about what we found, but in general, our results suggest that while price is perhaps the biggest factor in explaining what the kids chose in our experiment, that some of these youth showed preferences for the eco labels, which could be indicative of an emerging interest in sustainability issues. But overall, understanding these behaviors is really important because the food choices made during childhood and adolescence can persist in adulthood. And this can be really something that helps change long-term health outcomes.   Gabi, let's talk a little bit more about eco labels for a moment. What are they, and how do these echo labels influence children's snack choices? What did they tell us about their awareness of sustainability? That's a great question, Norbert. Thanks. In our study specifically, we found that eco labels, had a greater influence on adolescents' snack choices than nutrition warning labels these black and white octagons that are displayed on the front of the package of products in Chile. And this suggests that some young consumers are becoming more aware of environmental issues, or at least in our sample. One possible explanation for this could be that eco labels suggest positive emotions rather than warnings, as with the nutrition labels. Which might feel more restrictive. Unlike the nutrition labels that tell consumers what not to eat, eco labels, on the other hand, highlight a product's benefits, making it more appealing. This could be one of the reasons. Related to that, adolescents may also associate eco-friendly products with social responsibility aligning with increasing youth-driven environmental movements that are very prevalent around the world. However, not all adolescents in our sample responded equally to the eco labels that were presented to them in the snacks. Our study specifically found that those who receive pocket money were more likely to choose eco label snacks. And this could be possibly because they have more autonomy over their purchases and their personal values could be playing a bigger role in their choices. If eco labels are really influencing children and adolescents with choices, one intervention that could be potentially beneficial could be to incorporate sustainability messaging in school food and nutrition education in order to reinforce those positive behaviors. And make them part of the daily food choices that they make. In making sustainable food more affordable, government incentives or retailer promotions could encourage youth to choose more eco-friendly snacks. Given that price, as we saw in our study, remains a key factor for choice. Lastly, not all eco labels are created equal. And this suggests that clear standardization and regulation are needed to prevent misleading claims. And ensure that adolescents receive accurate information about the sustainability of their food choices. Ultimately, the eco labeling, of course, is not a silver bullet. It's not going to solve all the environmental issues, but it represents a promising tool to nudge consumers. So our better dietary and environmental behaviors. Gabi, you talked about how the eco labels have a bigger effect than nutrition warning. And overall, the nutrition warning labels didn't really have that big of an effect on snack food choices. Why do you think that's the case? Yes, this was really one surprising finding in our study. That front of pack nutrition warning labels did not significantly impact children's and adolescents' snack choices. And this kind of contradicts some previous research suggesting that warning labels can help consumers make healthcare choices. And there are several possible explanations for why this could be happening. The first one could be just lack of interest. So compared to adults, children and adolescents may be just more responsive to positive rather than negative messaging. Because negative messages related to nutrition might not seem relevant to them because they feel healthy in the present. They just are not interested in those kinds of messages. The second could be label fatigue. We discuss this in our paper and basically it is because Chile's regulation was already introduced in 2016. Given that it has been already some time since implementation, young consumers may have become habituated to seeing the warning labels on food products. So, like how adults also experience label fatigue, and this is documented in the evidence, children and adolescents might no longer pay attention or pay less attention to the warning. Third possible explanation is it relates to taste and brand loyalty. For this point, research shows that for youth specifically, taste remains the top priority when they choose food. So often outweighing any other factors including health concerns. If a favorite snack, for example, has warning labels but remains tasty and familiar to the kid, the label alone may not discourage them from choosing that snack. And lastly, social and environmental factors. Our study found, as we already mentioned, that eco labels had a stronger influence that nutrition warnings, and this could indicate that children and adolescents are just more responsive to messages about sustainability than to warnings, which they may perceive as less immediate. Thank you for sharing that. And at this moment in the US there is a conversation about front of pack labels. And the work that you are showing in this paper may even point to some of the things that may happen if we see similar front of pack labels here in the US. I'll be looking forward to see what happens with that effort right now. Sean, I want to turn to you and ask an economist type question. What role does price play in adolescent food choices? Not only price, but the availability of pocket money? And how do you think that should influence policy? Our study shows that price is the most significant factor influencing the snack choices of the kids in our study. And higher prices definitely reduce the likelihood of seeing a certain product being selected. It was kind of interesting. Interestingly, this effect was consistent regardless of whether the kids regularly received pocket money. Suggesting that even those that don't receive spending money still are paying attention to price. And this was a little bit different from what we found in some other studies that I've been able to work on, in the US and Germany, that suggested that previous experience with pocket money, or getting an allowance, was really important for understanding which kids might be most careful about spending their own money. I don't know if that's something different in the Chilean context than those other contexts. Or if that was just about what the kids in this particular study were paying attention to because we're asking about different things. But when we look more closely at the kids in our Chilean study, we found some important differences. As Gabi already mentioned, those kids who received pocket money were the ones who were more positively inclined to choosing products with the eco labels. And that suggests that they might be valuing sustainability a little bit more when making their own choices. Perhaps because they're already a little bit more familiar with some of those dynamics of spending their own money. Whereas those without pocket money were more likely to choose cheaper options or sometimes the healthier options like the apples that we provided as an option in our study. And suggesting they're focused more on affordability or health. So, what this means for policy, given the strong influence of price, it means that policy interventions that focus on price, like taxes on unhealthy foods or perhaps subsidies for healthier options, might be effective tools in guiding better choices for these kids. But also, programs promoting budgeting skills and food literacy might help adolescents make more informed decisions both about the nutrition and the sustainability of the foods they're eating. Finally, since some kids are responding positively to eco labels, integrating sustainability messages with the nutrition education could enhance the impact of food labeling policies. Overall, combining price policies and education labeling strategies could be really effective in driving meaningful changes in children and adolescent food choices. Sean, thank you. And it's really important to appreciate the differences that may occur when we think about a country like Chile versus the US or in some of your other work in Germany. And understanding that youth culture may be different and may be shaping these behaviors. But it's very clear that all people, it sounds like, are responding to price. And that's a constant that we're seeing here. Sean, here's my final question for you. What is the take home implications of this study? Well, first and foremost, our findings here suggest that nutrition labeling alone isn't necessarily going to be enough to drive healthier choices among children and adolescents. It can be part of an answer, but policymakers looking to promote healthier food choices might need to compliment labeling with education campaigns that reinforce the meaning of these warnings and integrate them into school-based nutrition programs. That said, I think that Chile has already been a leader in this regard, because the food items that get the warning labels in the Chilean context are the same ones that are subject to different restrictions on marketing or sales in schools, as well. I do think that we're going to see kids and eventually adults just become more familiar with these categorizations because of the consistency in the Chilean law. Also, on the eco label side, leveraging that kind of eco labeling alongside nutrition messaging might be an effective combination to help promote both healthier and more sustainable food choices. And finally we've been talking about new front to pack labeling schemes here in the United States. And it's really important to make sure we learn as much as possible from the experiences with such policies in other countries. Chile's really been a world leader in this regard and so I'm very happy to have tried to contribute to an understanding of how people use these labels through this study and through some of the other projects that Gabi, you and I have all been involved in. Bios Gabriela (Gabi) Fretes is an Associate Research Fellow in the Nutrition, Diets, and Health (NDH) Unit of the International Food Policy Research Institute. She received her PhD in Food and Nutrition Policies and Programs at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, USA in 2022 and holds a master's in food and nutrition with a concentration on Health Promotion and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases from the Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile. Her research interests are at the intersection of child obesity prevention, food policy and consumer behavior, and her doctoral thesis involved evaluation of a national food labeling and advertising policy designed to improve the healthfulness of the food environment and address the obesity epidemic in Chile, particularly among children. She has worked with a broad range of government, international organizations, academia, public and private sector stakeholders and decision-makers in Paraguay, Chile, and the United States of America. Sean Cash is an economist and Chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. He conducts research both internationally and domestically on food, nutrition, agriculture and the environment. He is interested in environmental impacts on food and beverage production, including projects on crop quality and climate change, consumer interest in production attributes of tea and coffee, and invasive species management. He also focuses on how food, nutrition, and environmental policies affect food consumption and choice, with specific interest in children's nutrition and consumer interest in environmental and nutritional attributes of food. He teaches courses in statistics, agricultural and environmental economics, and consumer behavior around food. He is currently Specialty Chief Editor of the Food Policy and Economics section of Frontiers in Nutrition, and has previously served as an Editor of the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics as well as the Chair of the Food Safety and Nutrition Section of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Subscribe to UnitedHealthcare's Community & State newsletter.Welcome to the third episode in a special four-part series from Health Affairs on the intersection of food, nutrition, and health. This special series compliments the release of a theme issue on food, nutrition, and health to be released this week.In this episode, Health Affairs' Jessica Bylander and Ellen Bayer discuss the content in the theme issue.Order the Food, Nutrition, and Health Issue. Subscribe to UnitedHealthcare's Community & State newsletter.

This evening, Vince Hall will give an overview of food policy, his work with Feeding America navigating the complexities of solving hunger in America with healthy, nutritious foods, while explaining how policy affects the quality and quantity of food on your plate. Mr. Hall will be joined by Jennifer Steele, who will tell us how food policy affects her work with Meals on Wheels. They will work together explaining how food policy affects the ingredients used to make the appetizers you will be sampling this evening. About the Speakers As chief government relations officer at Feeding America, the largest charity working to end hunger in the United States, Vince Hall leads the development and execution of Feeding America's public policy, legislative, and advocacy strategies to empower communities and improve food security. He helps lead efforts to end hunger by advocating for policy changes, supporting advocacy capacity across the network, increasing neighbor enrollment in public benefits, and building partnerships that amplify our collective voice. Jennifer Steele is the CEO of Meals on Wheels of San Francisco. This organization ensures that older adults in the region have home-delivered meals and services that help them live with grace and independence in their homes. Steele has dedicated her professional career to advocating for those who can't advocate for themselves. Before joining Meals on Wheels, she worked in food insecurity and hunger relief both domestically and internationally. Organizer: Patty James   A Nutrition, Food & Wellness Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to a special four-part series from Health Affairs on the intersection of food, nutrition, and health. This special series compliments the release of a theme issue on food, nutrition, and health to be released April 7, 2025.In the first episode, Health Affairs' Ellen Bayer speaks with Na'Taki Osborne Jelks from Spelman College on the topic of water insecurity.Pre-order the Food, Nutrition, and Health Issue.Related Links:Water Insecurity and Population Health: Implications for Health Equity and Policy (Health Affairs' Health Policy Brief)

Welcome to a special four-part series from Health Affairs on the intersection of food, nutrition, and health. This special series compliments the release of a theme issue on food, nutrition, and health to be released April 7, 2025.In the first episode, Health Affairs' Ellen Bayer speaks with Na'Taki Osborne Jelks from Spelman College on the topic of water insecurity.Pre-order the Food, Nutrition, and Health Issue.Related Links:Water Insecurity and Population Health: Implications for Health Equity and Policy (Health Affairs' Health Policy Brief)

There are many policies that are undergoing change in the area of health and nutrition within our government. We begin talking about a few of them here and want to hear what you have to say! Please drop us a note at between2pastries@gmail.com or leave us a messenge in messenger or facebook! Thank you all for listening!! Want to support our work, catch us on patreon! 

Karen E. Fisher shares stories of Ramadan at Zaatari, the world's largest Syrian refugee camp located in Jordan. Helena Bottemiller Evich introduces the new administration's appointments charged to “Make America Healthy Again.” Dr. Christopher Gardener drops some wisdom about seed oil. Caroline Eden reflects on her travels through Central Asia and Eastern Europe and considers how the kitchen is a unique space to tell human stories.

Karen E. Fisher shares stories of Ramadan at Zaatari, the world's largest Syrian refugee camp located in Jordan. Helena Bottemiller Evich introduces the new administration's appointments charged to “Make America Healthy Again.” Dr. Christopher Gardener drops some wisdom about seed oil. Caroline Eden reflects on her travels through Central Asia and Eastern Europe and considers how the kitchen is a unique space to tell human stories.