Podcasts about Food policy

In this special “Year of the Fire Horse” episode of The Food Professor Podcast, Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois deliver a wide-ranging and unfiltered analysis of the forces reshaping Canada's food economy — from stubborn food inflation to AI-powered grocery shopping, trade diplomacy, restaurant distress, and the surprising fall in cocoa and coffee prices.The episode opens with a deep dive into Canada's alarming 7.3% food inflation rate — the highest among G7 nations. Stripping out the temporary GST holiday effect, inflation still lands north of 6%, raising serious structural concerns about Canada's food supply chain. Sylvain outlines the real drivers: interprovincial trade barriers, industrial carbon taxes, logistics inefficiencies, supply management constraints, and geopolitical disruptions. The hosts challenge mainstream narratives and examine whether policy decisions — not just global pressures — are exacerbating affordability challenges.Shifting to trade, the duo assess Canada's renewed engagement with Mexico, highlighting opportunities for agricultural exports, food manufacturing expansion, and supply chain diversification under CUSMA. With U.S. agricultural groups openly supporting the trade agreement, the geopolitical chessboard around North American food trade is heating up.On the business front, Coca-Cola's $141 million expansion in Brampton underscores the importance of food processing capacity in driving economic resilience. Meanwhile, Diageo's Ontario investment announcement sparks debate about political optics versus substantive impact.Technology also takes center stage as Loblaw's integration with OpenAI signals the beginning of visible AI deployment in Canadian food retail. Michael explores how AI will disrupt food discovery, loyalty programs, and consumer personalization — while Sylvain raises concerns about algorithmic pricing, consumer trust, and the moral contract between grocers and shoppers.There's relief on the horizon: cocoa and coffee commodity prices are falling sharply from record highs, potentially translating into lower consumer prices later in 2026.The episode closes with sobering data from Restaurants Canada: 44% of restaurants are operating at break-even or loss levels — a stark reminder of how fragile Canada's foodservice sector remains. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Episode Summary What if the global food system isn't "broken" in the way sustainability debates usually claim, and treating it that way leads to worse decisions?   Paul Shapiro sits down with Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel Rosenberg, authors of Feed the People, to unpack how industrial scale and trade created unprecedented food abundance, why "eat local" and small-farm nostalgia collapses at 8 billion people, and what practical policy levers can improve outcomes without fantasy. They explore a clear framework, more food, less feed, no fuel, why animal agriculture remains an inefficient use of land and protein, and how public policy can reshape meat demand by changing incentives instead of accepting forecasts as fate.   You'll leave with sharper systems thinking, grounded tradeoffs, and a clearer view of what scalable food system decarbonization can actually look like.   Things You Will Learn How to evaluate food system claims using systems logic instead of slogans. Why meat demand rises, and how policy can bend the curve without moralizing. What "more food, less feed, no fuel" implies for land use, emissions, and investment priorities.   Tools & Frameworks Covered More food, less feed, no fuel. Prioritizes crops for human food over animal feed and biofuels. Incentives over narratives. Shows how policy choices shape production, prices, and demand. Democratic hedonism. Meets people where they are, then reduces harm at scale.   #BusinessForGood #SustainableBusiness #FutureOfFood #AlternativeProtein #FoodSystemDecarbonization

Health Affairs' Jeff Byers welcomes dietitian Jenny Lo from Wellness and Sports Dietetics to discuss the recently revised dietary guidelines for Americans. They discuss what's changed, the emphasis on protein, the ambiguity over ultraprocessed foods, and the best advice she gives to new clients looking to make dietary changes. Related Articles:Panel behind new dietary guidelines had financial ties to beef, dairy industries (Stat News)Experts Who Advised on Diet Guidelines Say RFK Jr.'s Version Is Full of Errors (MedPage Today)A Multilayered Public Policy Approach To Ultraprocessed Foods (Health Affairs Forefront)MAHA says its new food pyramid is affordable and healthy. We asked experts (Stat News)

In this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois deliver a wide-ranging discussion that spans Canadian agricultural investment, dairy transparency, food trade infrastructure, and seafood sustainability—before welcoming Jason McLinton, President of the Fisheries Council of Canada, for an in-depth conversation on the future of Canada's wild capture seafood industry.The episode opens with analysis of major developments shaping Canadian agri-food policy. Sylvain reflects on Canadian Ag Day  spent in Saskatoon and the newly announced $5 billion investment coalition led by Farm Credit Canada, designed to mobilize private capital into agriculture and agri-food innovation. The hosts debate whether this signals a meaningful shift toward private-sector leadership in food production. They also tackle dairy sector transparency, highlighting new data showing that 4.9% of collected milk is being rejected or “skimmed,” raising renewed concerns around supply management efficiency and food affordability.Trade infrastructure also takes center stage, with discussion of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and its implications for cross-border agri-food movement. As geopolitical tensions evolve, the hosts examine how Canadian consumers and producers are reacting to U.S. trade volatility and what it means for domestic competitiveness.The second half of the episode features Jason McLinton, who outlines why Canada's seafood sector—representing more than $9 billion in economic activity—is both economically vital and culturally foundational. McLinton explains how Canada consistently ranks among the top five most sustainable seafood producers globally, reinforcing its reputation as a premium, trusted source in international markets.The conversation explores Canada's export-heavy seafood model, noting that more than $8 billion of production is shipped abroad annually. McLinton highlights the strategic importance of maintaining tariff-free access to key markets such as China and the United States, while continuing to expand into the Indo-Pacific and other high-growth regions.He also addresses regulatory uncertainty, marine conservation policy, access to fisheries resources, and the need for science-based decision-making. With climate adaptation, sustainability technology, and global market diversification top of mind, McLinton shares his strategic priorities for strengthening Canada's blue economy while protecting coastal communities. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

In this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, Michael LeBlanc and Sylvain Charlebois deliver a wide-ranging discussion that connects Canadian food policy, trade risk, pricing power, and the accelerating role of AI in restaurants. The episode is anchored by a forward-looking interview with Deborah Matteliano Simeoni, Global Head of Restaurants at Amazon Web Services (AWS), recorded live at the NRF Big Show in New York.The first half of the episode focuses on the state of Canadian agriculture and food affordability. Sylvain shares firsthand insights from meetings with farmers across the Prairies, highlighting cautious optimism around renewed beef access to China alongside deep concern about U.S. trade policy and the durability of CUSMA. The hosts debate the federal government's grocery rebate program, questioning its long-term fiscal impact and contrasting it with a structural alternative: removing GST on food and foodservice to address affordability more directly.A key political and policy thread centers on Mark Wiseman, Canada's incoming Ambassador to the United States. Michael and Sylvain discuss Wiseman's previously published criticism of supply management, exploring whether his appointment signals potential pressure on the system during future Canada–U.S. trade negotiations—and whether Ottawa may ultimately position reforms as externally forced rather than domestically driven. The conversation situates supply management within broader competitiveness, trade credibility, and agri-food resilience debates.The hosts also examine PepsiCo's high-profile U.S. snack price reductions, questioning whether the move reflects margin recalibration, competitive signaling, or Super Bowl-era marketing—and why those cuts do not apply to Canada. Additional topics include the quiet disappearance of frozen orange juice concentrate, the continued normalization of food delivery, and why physical restaurants still matter as legitimizing anchors for digital-first and delivery-led food brands.The second half features an in-depth conversation with Deborah Matteliano Simeoni, who reframes AI not as an end goal, but as a tool for solving real restaurant challenges. Drawing on her experience launching Uber Eats and now advising global QSR brands at AWS, she explains how AI is improving drive-through accuracy, enhancing employee satisfaction, and enabling sophisticated personalization within loyalty ecosystems. Deborah emphasizes experimentation, data-driven learning, and customer-centric design as essential to scaling technology responsibly.Lastly we celebrate the Lobster Lady, still fishing at 101, leaving the earth at 103: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/business/virginia-oliver-dead.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.q_7X.15lWPrsTltE7&smid=url-share About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Impact of Weather on Weeds and Wheat Flinchbaugh Center: Agricultural Economy Ready for Garden Planting   00:01:05 – Impact of Weather on Weeds and Wheat: Starting off the show is Chip Redmond, Sarah Lancaster, and Kelsey Andersen Onofre as they chat about how the previous above average temperatures and now cold temperatures have impacted impact weeds and wheat.    00:12:05 – Flinchbaugh Center: Agricultural Economy: Part of the Flinchbaugh Center for Ag and Food Policy's podcast continues today's show as Jenny Ifft, Brad Lubben, Joe Glauber and Eric Atkinson talk about the current state of the agricultural economy. Full Podcast Episode Smoke & Mirrors: Ag Policy Unfiltered - Apple Podcasts   00:23:05 – Ready for Garden Planting: K-State Extension agent for Riley County, Gregg Eyestone, ends the show discussing things gardeners can do now to get ready for planting this spring.      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 Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University 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 statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan. For more information, visit www.ksre.ksu.edu. K-State Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

On this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois unpack one of the most wide-ranging conversations of the season—blending major food policy, trade, and retail stories with an inspiring deep dive into the life and business philosophy of Cosimo Mammoliti, Founder & CEO of the Terroni Group.The episode opens with fast-moving headlines shaping Canada's food system. The hosts analyze the federal government's decision to cut roughly 1,300 jobs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), debating whether technology, AI, and risk-based inspection models can offset staffing losses. They then break down the new income-tested GST grocery credit, calling it a helpful short-term fix that fails to address deeper productivity and food affordability challenges.Next, the discussion turns to gene-edited pork, following Health Canada's approval and the decision by DuBreton to label products as non-gene-edited. Sylvain stresses this is not a food safety issue—but a consumer transparency issue that will define trust in future food technologies. The hosts also explore the implications of the long-awaited EU–India trade agreement, what it means for Canada's global food competitiveness, and how warming relations with China and India could reshape agri-food exports.Climate volatility also makes the agenda, with Arctic air threatening Florida citrus crops and reinforcing how global sourcing—from Egypt to South Africa—now underpins North American grocery supply. The segment closes with a sharp debate on universities banning beef, Amazon's decision to close Fresh and Go stores while doubling down on automation, and Starbucks' early progress under CEO Brian Niccol.At the heart of the episode is an extraordinary conversation with Cosimo Mammoliti, whose Terroni Group has grown from a four-stool café on Queen Street into a hospitality, importing, and wine empire spanning Toronto and Los Angeles. Cosimo shares how his obsession with **materia prima—ingredient integrity and provenance—**led him to import his own flour, olive oil, and wines directly from family producers across Italy.He explains why Terroni does not allow menu modifications, how COVID permanently changed his approach to delivery platforms, and why authenticity—not trends—guides every decision. Cosimo also reflects on launching his best-selling cookbook La Cucina di Terroni, his fast-growing frozen pizza brand Porta, and the operational pressures facing restaurants in today's high-cost economy. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Lianna Levine Reisner, MSOD, is building a multicultural movement for health as President and Network Director of Plant Powered Metro New York, an organization she co-founded in 2019 to empower local communities to prevent and reverse chronic disease through evidence-based, plant-based nutrition. To address her family's health challenges, Lianna had been searching for clear, evidence-based nutritional guidelines that made sense for her family. The writings of T. Colin Campbell, PhD, and his colleagues made a compelling case for whole food, plant-based nutrition, helping her to lose 20% of her body weight, reverse endometriosis and hormonal imbalances, and heavily reduce her allergies and skin issues, among many other benefits. Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center honored Lianna as a 40 Under 40 Rising Star in Food Policy in 2022. Lianna holds a certificate in Plant-Based Nutrition from the T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies and eCornell, and she is a certified Vegan Lifestyle Coach and Educator through Main Street Vegan Academy. She is also a member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. With a Master's from Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management, Lianna previously worked as an independent coach and consultant serving UJA-Federation of New York, providing organizational change support to Jewish nonprofit organizations in the New York metropolitan area. She lives in the Upper West Side of Manhattan with her husband and three children.

In this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois unpack two powerful and timely themes shaping Canada's food system: the shifting geopolitical landscape of agri-food and the growing threat of food fraud. The episode opens with a wide-ranging news segment focused on Canada's evolving trade relationship with China, recent developments at Davos, and new data on food inflation.Sylvain shares insights from Manitoba Ag Days, where optimism is building among farmers following Canada's short-term agricultural trade deal with China, particularly for canola, lobster, and beef exports. The hosts explore the strategic implications of re-opening Chinese markets, noting how geopolitical uncertainty is now a permanent feature of food systems. Sylvain argues that Canada must invest more heavily in domestic manufacturing, modernize supply management, and incentivize green technologies to strengthen long-term food sovereignty. The conversation also turns to food inflation, with Sylvain explaining why Canada's 6.2% food inflation rate cannot be blamed solely on the GST holiday, pointing instead to opportunistic pricing and structural inefficiencies across the supply chain.The second half of the episode features a compelling interview with Deleo de Leonardis, CEO and Co-Founder of Purity IQ, a science-based company specializing in food and supplement authenticity testing. Drawing on her 30-year career in grocery retail, including two decades at Sobeys, Deleo explains how food fraud represents one of the most underestimated risks in modern retail. While many companies rely on basic identity testing, Deleo highlights the critical difference between identity and authenticity: a product may technically meet regulatory standards while still being diluted, substituted, or adulterated.Deleo introduces advanced tools such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and DNA-based testing, which allow for non-targeted analysis at the molecular level. This approach enables Purity IQ to detect unknown adulterants and inconsistencies across batches—something traditional testing methods often miss. She outlines high-risk categories such as olive oil, honey, fish, avocado oil, sesame oil, and dietary supplements, emphasizing that food fraud is an opportunistic crime driven by global supply shocks, climate events, tariffs, and geopolitical instability.Together, the episode paints a sobering picture: as supply chains become more complex and economic pressures rise, food authenticity will become a defining issue for retailers, brands, and regulators alike. The hosts conclude that in an era of shrinking trust and rising prices, transparency and scientific verification may be the only sustainable path forward for the global food industry. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

In this episode of The Food Professor Podcast, Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois deliver a wide-ranging discussion on the forces reshaping food, retail, and consumer behaviour—before sitting down with one of Canada's most dynamic food entrepreneurs, Suzie Yorke, CEO and Founder of The Little Cacao Company.The episode opens with insights from New York City, where Michael reports from NRF Big Show, highlighting how retail continues to blend hospitality, entertainment, and commerce. From Tecovas' in-store bar concept to Printemps' alcohol-free champagne experience, the hosts explore how experiential retail is redefining consumer engagement. The conversation then shifts to quick-service restaurants, where McDonald's decision to freeze value meal pricing underscores growing pressure on restaurant traffic amid economic uncertainty. Sylvain explains why this price war reflects defensive strategy rather than growth, while noting the strain rising costs place on supply chains—from coffee to beef.Broader macro themes follow, including climate data, forest fires, and their often-misunderstood impact on agriculture and food policy. The hosts debate alarmist climate narratives, the reliability of long-term data, and the risks of poorly designed policies that can penalize farmers and processors. The episode also touches on Aldi's aggressive U.S. expansion, Amazon's underestimated grocery scale, and Canada's evolving trade posture with China—particularly as agriculture remains entangled in geopolitics and tariff negotiations.The heart of the episode is a candid, high-energy interview with Suzie Yorke, a veteran brand builder turned founder on a mission to fundamentally rethink chocolate. Yorke traces her journey from engineering to senior marketing roles at major CPG firms, to launching breakout brands like Love Good Fats, and ultimately founding The Little Cacao Company. She explains why cacao is one of the world's most powerful antioxidant superfoods—and how decades of sugar, poor fats, and aggressive processing stripped it of its nutritional potential.Yorke also shares hard-earned lessons from scaling food startups through the volatile pre- and post-COVID investment cycles, including the importance of founder-led execution, disciplined economics, and authentic consumer connection. She discusses how protein, fibre, and low-sugar formulations position her chocolate for a world shaped by GLP-1 drugs, health-driven indulgence, and changing cravings. Equally compelling is her perspective on leadership, resilience, and representation—using her platform to champion inclusivity while proving that innovation doesn't have an expiration date.  About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Helena Bottemiller Evich is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Food Fix. She previously led coverage of food and agriculture at POLITICO for nearly a decade, winning numerous awards for her work, including a prestigious George Polk Award for a series on climate change and two James Beard Awards for features on nutrition and science. In 2022, she was a James Beard Award finalist for a deep dive on diet-related diseases and COVID-19. Helena is also a sought-after speaker and commentator on food issues, appearing on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, and other outlets. Her work is widely cited in the media and has also been published in the Columbia Journalism Review and on NBC News. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Helena [2:58] about: The newly released Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030 and their much-debated details, such as their saturated fats advice and focus on "highly processed foods" Contention around the undecided definition for "ultra-processed foods" (UPFs), and what the use of "highly processed foods" instead of UPFs in the revised DGAs could imply The differences in FDA's structure and its unique challenges today (e.g., facing the 2025 infant botulism outbreak linked to ByHeart formula) versus 2022, during the Cronobacter sakazakii/Abbott Nutrition infant formula crisis and before the establishment of FDA's Human Foods Program The rise of "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA), from a grassroots movement to an official White House-backed agenda with bipartisan support, and the implications for the food space The question within the Trump Administration of whether MAHA rhetoric will translate into real policy changes that advance MAHA objectives Shortcomings of the MAHA approach to food safety policy and regulation, particularly a lack of focus on microbiological safety and inconsistent handling of chemical safety Why the MAHA agenda may not succeed with a deregulatory approach and a weakened federal workforce and resources How the Trump Administration's moves in 2026 may determine if MAHA will remain in the forefront of public discussion, moving forward. News and Resources Eat Real Food: New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Name and Shame 'Highly Processed Foods' Food Fix We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

In the first episode of 2026, The Food Professor Podcast kicks off the year with a wide-ranging discussion that blends big-picture food system insights with an inspiring founder story. Hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois are joined by Roxanne Joyal, Founder and CEO of &Back Coffee, for a conversation that spans food policy, restaurant industry disruption, and the future of ethical coffee.The episode opens with the hosts unpacking several pressing food industry developments. Charlebois shares fresh analysis on supply chain volatility, including short-term disruptions in chicken and lactose-free milk, and explores how new vitamin D fortification rules may be influencing dairy availability. The discussion then turns to Charlebois' 2026 predictions, notably his forecast that Canada could see a net loss of up to 4,000 restaurants as closures outpace openings. While dining out remains popular, rising input costs, lower alcohol consumption, and weaker consumer spending are accelerating a “right-sizing” of the sector—particularly hurting independent operators that drive food innovation. The hosts also examine the grocery “blackout period,” the evolving role of the Code of Conduct, and how geopolitical tensions could indirectly impact food prices, currencies, and trade.At the heart of the episode is an in-depth interview with Roxanne Joyal, whose career spans global women's empowerment, international development, and now coffee. A Rhodes Scholar and Order of Canada recipient, Joyal explains how her work with women artisans around the world led naturally to coffee farming communities along the equator. That journey inspired  &Back Coffee, a woman-owned, woman-grown premium coffee company built around impact, storytelling, and scale.Joyal outlines why and back deliberately focused on the B2B coffee market first, supplying offices, hotels, airlines, and workplaces rather than competing in crowded retail aisles. Now operating in more than 500 workplaces across Canada and expanding rapidly in the U.S., the company helps organizations align everyday procurement decisions with sustainability, employee engagement, and social impact goals. Central to the model is reinvestment in coffee-growing communities, particularly programs that support women farmers through financial literacy, agricultural training, and income diversification.The conversation closes with a thoughtful exploration of coffee inflation, return-to-office trends, and what it will take to create dignified, prosperous futures for coffee farmers. Together, the hosts and their guest remind listeners that food—and coffee in particular—is never just a commodity, but a daily ritual deeply connected to people, policy, and purpose About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Visiting Professor in Food Policy and Distribution at McGill University and a Professor in Food Distribution and Policy in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University.Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. He is one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability with over 775 published peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Charlebois is also an editor for the prestigious Trends in Food Science Technology journal. He co-hosts The Food Professor podcast, discussing issues in the food, foodservice, grocery and restaurant industries and which is the most listened Canadian management podcast in Canada. Every year since 2012, he has published the now highly anticipated Canadian Food Price Report, which provides an overview of food price trends for the coming year. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, nationally as well as internationally. He has testified on several occasions before parliamentary committees on food policy-related issues as an expert witness. He has been asked to act as an advisor on food and agricultural policies in many Canadian provinces and other countries.With extensive experience collaborating with businesses, governments, and NGOs, Dr. Charlebois combines academic rigor with practical expertise, making him one of the most influential voices in the global agri-food landscape. His work continues to advance the understanding of food systems, fostering innovation and resilience in a rapidly evolving industry. In 2025, he received the prestigious Charles III medal recognizing his tremendous work in informing Canadians about food issues. Michael LeBlanc is a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and media entrepreneur. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions hosted senior retail executive on-stage in 1:1 interviews worldwide. Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including The Remarkable Retail Podcast, The Voice of Retail, The Food Professor, The FEED powered by Loblaw and the Global eCommerce Leaders podcast. He has been recognized by the National Retail Federation (NRF) as a global Top Retail Voice for 2025 and 2025, and continues to be a ReThink Retail Top Retail Expert for the fifth year in a row.

Well today to kick off the sixth series of the podcast we welcome Anna to the R2Kast

Frank Yiannas, M.P.H. is a renowned food safety leader and executive, food system futurist, author, professor, past president of the International Association of Food Protection (IAFP), and advocate for consumers. Most recently, he served under two different administrations as the Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a position he held from 2018–2023, after spending 30 years in leadership roles with Walmart and the Walt Disney Company. After retiring from FDA, Mr. Yiannas founded Smarter FY Solutions to help organizations address critical food safety and supply chain challenges. He also advises several well-known companies, offering consultancy services to modernize compliance strategies and ensure that clients meet regulatory requirements and industry standards. Throughout his career, Mr. Yiannas has been recognized for his role in strengthening food safety standards in new and innovative ways, as well as building effective food safety management systems based on modern, science-based, and tech-enabled prevention principles. Drew McDonald is the Senior Vice President of Quality and Food Safety at Taylor Fresh Foods in Salinas, California, where he oversees the quality and food safety programs across the foodservice, retail, and deli operations under both FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) jurisdictions. Mr. McDonald works with an impressive team developing and managing appropriate and practical quality and food safety programs for fresh food and produce products. He has more than 30 years of experience in fresh produce and fresh foods. Over the course of his career, Mr. McDonald has worked with growers and processors of fresh food and produce items across the globe. He currently serves on numerous food safety-related technical committees and has participated in the authorship of many produce safety articles and guidelines. He serves on the Food Safety Summit Educational Advisory Board and is a former chair of the Center for Produce Food Safety's Technical Committee and United Fresh's Technical Council. Mr. McDonald received his education from Lawrence University in Wisconsin. John Besser, Ph.D. worked for ten years as Deputy Chief of the Enteric Diseases Laboratory Branch at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), where he was involved in national and global programs to detect, characterize, and track gastrointestinal diseases. Prior to CDC, Dr. Besser led the infectious disease laboratory at the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for 19 years and served as a clinical microbiologist at the University of Minnesota Hospital for five years. He currently works as an independent contractor and consultant. Dr. Besser is the author or co-author of more than 70 publications. He received his Ph.D. and M.S. degree from the University of Minnesota. Craig Hedberg, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota and Co-Director of the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence. He promotes public health surveillance as a prerequisite for effective food control, and his work focuses on improving methods for collaboration among public health and regulatory agencies, academic researchers, and industry to improve foodborne illness surveillance and outbreak investigations. With a background in public health practice, Dr. Hedberg also focuses on public health workforce development and works with state, local, and tribal public health partners to build capacity for preparedness and emergency response. He is a member of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Minnesota Environmental Health Association, and IAFP. Dr. Hedberg holds a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and an M.S. degree in Environmental Health, both from the University of Minnesota. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Mr. Yiannas, Mr. McDonald, Dr. Besser, and Dr. Hedberg [6:43] about: The increasing rate of food recalls issued by federal regulatory agencies, and what that might imply about the current systems for outbreak investigation and disease surveillance How federal and state public health agencies conduct foodborne illness outbreak investigations and the current success rates of these investigations Elements of the foodborne illness outbreak investigation process that are working well Potential areas for improvement for foodborne illness outbreak investigations and the metrics for "success" An idea for a National Foodborne Outbreak Investigation Board, similar to the model used for airlines with the National Transportation Safety Board, and how such a system might help improve food safety in the U.S. Sponsored by: Michigan State University Online Food Safety Program We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

Special Event IFPRI Policy Seminar Shaping Food Policy in a Changing World: Research Priorities for Greater Impact Organized by IFPRI, with support from the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation December 15, 2025 In today's fast-changing world and evolving food systems, the need for evidence-based food policy has never been more urgent – demanding research that is timely, inclusive, and tailored to context. Reliable data and rigorous analysis are essential, but research must also evolve – and become more timely, more relevant, and more inclusive of diverse voices and disciplines. Strengthening how we generate, communicate, and apply evidence is key to ensuring food systems deliver better outcomes for people and the planet. Join us at IFPRI for a high-level seminar that brings together researchers, policymakers, development partners and leading food system thinkers who have helped deliver science-based impact around the world to explore: • The role of food policy research in shaping past policies, programs, and investments • Emerging research questions and challenges in a rapidly shifting global landscape • How research and outreach must adapt to strengthen pathways from evidence to impact • How research institutions can adapt to remain responsive in a rapidly changing world To mark IFPRI's 50th anniversary, the event will also celebrate the contributions of the Institute's alumni and launch the Institute's new research strategy. 00:00:00 - Inaugural Session - https://on.soundcloud.com/hQG0uzZiCahbvJl2nh 01:09:45 - Making an Impact: Successes and Future Approaches - https://soundcloud.com/ifpri/ifpri-special-event-15dec2025?si=6aa560adbae34d58b27556ff6b048009&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing#t=01%3A09%3A45 02:11:13 - Accelerating Research-to-Impact Pathways - https://on.soundcloud.com/4EYzsVYT2iJsK8ozIf 02:57:44 - IFPRI Alumni Roundtable on Food Policy Research Opportunities and Challenges - https://on.soundcloud.com/ormRkwIbioYaCBBAwV 04:19:22 - Launch of the New IFPRI Strategy - https://on.soundcloud.com/WT0KvQVucGjr81xEV1 05:59:54 - Closing Session - https://on.soundcloud.com/IUw6Lzy3Avpqe3HJRf More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/shaping-food-policy-in-a-changing-world-research-priorities-for-greater-impact/ Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Host McGraw Milhaven is joined by Charlie Mattos, Host of the Grand Ole Opry and Co-Host/Producer of Coffee, Country & Cody on WSM Nashville, to celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the Grand Ole Opry, exploring its legacy, legendary performers, and enduring impact on American music. Later, McGraw welcomes Dan Glickman, Chair of the Board of Hunger Free America, former USDA Secretary, and former U.S. Representative from Kansas, to discuss the state of American farming, national food challenges, and his new book “Laughing at Myself.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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!

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

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.