Podcasts about UPF

Tobacco industry contributions to the development of ultraprocessed food in the United States, 1985–2007: A case study of Lunchables American Journal of Public Health Tobacco firms began acquiring US food companies in the 1960s-1990s to increase revenues and leverage research and development across holdings in tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed foods (UPF) subsidiaries. In this case study, the authors examine the development of Lunchables® following Phillip Morris (PMC) acquisition of Kraft and General Foods (KGF). PMC applied a “consumer-driven product development” strategy, previously used for tobacco, in the development process to maximize consumer appeal. PMC also used technologies from KGF to make lower-nicotine cigarettes and then low-fat versions of Lunchables®, in a “better-for-you” strategy to preserve market share in the face of health concerns about both products. The authors suggest public health strategies and policies used to address tobacco could be expanded to UPFs to reduce harm to children.   Read this issue of the ASAM Weekly Subscribe to the ASAM Weekly Visit ASAM

Summer isn't just a season; it's a high-stakes training block. In this episode, we break down the science of marathon heat training and why you should view these humid months as the "Poor Man's Altitude." We move past the marketing hype to explore the physiological reality of thermal stress, plasma volume expansion, and why your watch data needs a serious reality check when the mercury rises.In this episode, we cover:The Physiology of the Heat: Why your heart rate changes which isn't a loss of fitness, blood plasma volume and how you can take advantage of that. Safety & Red Lines: The critical differences between heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and how to spot the "hidden" dangers of hyponatremia.The Gear Audit: We demystify fabric technology—why GSM (Grams per Square Meter) matters more than branding, the science behind polyester vs. nylon, and why going shirtless is actually less efficient than wearing high-performance UPF 50+ gear.Actionable Protocols: How to calculate your personal sweat rate, the 1000mg-per-liter sodium rule, and the "slushie" pre-cooling method to buy yourself an extra 10–15 minutes of threshold performance.The Effort-First Override: Why you should ditch "Current Pace" on your watch, embrace the 15–40 second per mile "heat tax," and how to use run-walk cycles to stay under your critical temperature ceiling.Our website: https://www.marathonjournal.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/runningpodcastYouTube: https://youtube.com/@marathonjournalFollow us on Strava: https://www.strava.com/athletes/30798607Our website: https://www.marathonjournal.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/runningpodcastConnect with Us:Connect with Us:Follow us on Strava: https://www.strava.com/athletes/30798607

Recorded live on the floor of Food Matters Live at Olympia, London, this episode is a snapshot of the conversations happening right now across the food industry.We catch up with speakers fresh from the stage or on their stand at the event: a food historian making the case for forgotten ingredients, a Michelin-starred chef turning industrial waste into meal kits, a consumer researcher on why flavour will always win, and two researchers pushing back on the way we talk about ultra-processed food.We hear from food historian Annie Grey on what sourdough bread actually tells us about class, why 'authenticity' is a dirty word in food marketing, and the forgotten British ingredients that deserve a comebackFrank Lantz, Michelin-starred chef and founder of Uhhmami on the waste he witnessed in professional kitchens, and why upcycled sunflower protein might be one of the most practical sustainability solutions on the market right nowAnd researchers Chris Bryant and Jules Griffin debate UPF.Food Matters Live brings together the food and drink industry's brightest minds across innovation, sustainability, health, and technology. Find out more and register for upcoming events on our website.

Después de un 2025 de velocidades vertiginosas, el mercado inmobiliario baja revoluciones. El año ha arrancado con una caída del 2,6% en la compra de vivienda y los precios ralentizan su subida. ¿Es un cambio de ciclo o una desaceleración progresiva? Lo analizamos con José García Montalvo, profesor de la UPF. 

Después de un 2025 de velocidades vertiginosas, el mercado inmobiliario baja revoluciones. El año ha arrancado con una caída del 2,6% en la compra de vivienda y los precios ralentizan su subida. ¿Es un cambio de ciclo o una desaceleración progresiva? Lo analizamos con José García Montalvo, profesor de la UPF. 

In this episode, Prof Clare Collins interviews Associate Professor Phillip Baker from Sydney University about ultra-processed foods, their health impacts, and how to make healthier food choices. They explore the science, policy, and practical strategies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption for better health and planetary sustainability.Key topicsDefinition and identification of ultra-processed foods2. Health risks associated with ultra-processed dietsThe role of food processing in modern dietPolicy and labeling challengesStrategies for healthier eating and cookingThe Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health https://www.thelancet.com/series-do/ultra-processed-foodMore on ultra-processed foods: No Money No Time Ultra-Processed, Ultra-Common: What are Australians Eating?To access the Healthy Eating Quiz: Click on the top right hand 'green button' called 'How healthy is my diet' https://nomoneynotime.com.au/Want a more Personalised Food, Nutrient Assessment Report? Use our Australian Eating Survey - For a 50% discount enter the 'DietCheck' code at the checkout! Purchase here https://australianeatingsurvey.com.au/Here's the link to the No Money No Time closed Facebook group (be sure to take the Healthy Eating Quiz first) https://www.facebook.com/groups/386824626838448Our No Money No Time email: nmnt@newcastle.edu.au and our Nutrition Science Bites email: nutritionsciencebites@newcastle.edu.au Yuka App for food labeling - https://yuka.io/en/UNICEF State of the Art Report on ultra-processed foods and children https://knowledge.unicef.org/resource/ultra-processed-foods-and-children-state-art-review Are you in a position to make donation to support our No Money No Time website? Donate hereKeywords: #ultraprocessedfood, #UPF, #health, #nutrition, #foodpolicy, #dietaryhabits ,#healthpolicy, #publichealth, #foodindustry, #diet, #dietaryguidelines, #NOVA Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ultra-processed food makes up over half the calories Americans eat - and over 60% for kids. Here's what the research shows happens inside your body in the first 5 days after you quit. In this episode of Health Longevity Secrets, Dr. Robert Lufkin walks through the hour-by-hour timeline: the glucose spikes that disappear within 24 hours, the insulin resistance that drops 30%+ in 48 hours, the gut microbiome that reorganizes in 3 days, the blood pressure that falls 6-8 mmHg in a week, and the NIH metabolic ward data showing a 500+ calorie daily swing driven entirely by food processing - not willpower. CHAPTERS 00:00 - Introduction: Why Ultra-Processed Food Matters 00:47 - Part 1: What Happens in the First 24 Hours 01:30 - Sodium, Water Retention and the Real Reason You Lose 1-3 lbs 02:10 - Part 2: 48 Hours - Insulin Sensitivity Returns Within Days 02:45 - Gut Microbiome Shifts in 24 Hours (David et al., Nature 2014) 03:23 - Taste Receptors Recalibrate: Why Fruit Tastes Sweeter Again 03:55 - Part 3: 72 Hours - Blood Pressure Drops 6-8 mmHg 04:34 - Inflammation Falls 35-43% in One Week (CRP Data) 05:30 - Part 4: 5 Days - Kevin Hall's NIH Metabolic Ward Trial 06:58 - Part 5: The Framework - 120 Hours to Reset Your Biology KEY TAKEAWAYS Glucose stabilizes within 24 hours when fiber and food matrix are restored 3 low-carb meals can reduce post-meal insulin resistance by over 30% in a day Gut bacterial composition shifts within 24 hours of dietary change Sodium reduction lowers systolic BP 6-8 mmHg in 70-75% of people in one week CRP drops 35-43% in 7 days on a whole-food, vegetable-rich diet Kevin Hall's 2019 NIH RCT: ultra-processed diet drove 500+ extra calories/day with zero awareness STUDIES AND SOURCES Hall et al., Cell Metabolism 2019 - NIH metabolic ward UPF trial David et al., Nature 2014 - diet alters gut microbiome Shukla et al., 2019 - meal sequence and postprandial glucose American Journal of Medicine 2026 - UPF and 47% increased CV risk AHA Scientific Sessions 2023 - sodium and BP in one week Lin and Borer, PLOS ONE 2016 - ⭐ Enjoying the show? Please leave a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts — it takes 30 seconds and helps more people discover the science of health and longevity. Thank you!New episodes every Tuesday & Thursday. Subscribe so you don't miss one.Continue this conversation on Substack: https://robertlufkinmd.substack.comLies I Taught In Medical School — Free sample chapter: https://www.robertlufkinmd.com/lies/Web: https://www.robertlufkinmd.comYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/robertlufkinmdX: https://x.com/robertlufkinmdInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/robertlufkinmd/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertlufkinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertlufkinmd/

Ever thought about how irresistible junk food is? New research from Auckland University has found that Ultra Processed food or UPF is designed and marketed to achieve exactly those emotional and biological reaction. So, it raises the question; is over consumption of junk food just about personal choice or is big food taking advantage of how people think feel and behave? University of Auckland's Dr Joshua Clark spoke to Lisa Owen.

España es un país con alta presión fiscal: más de una tercera parte de la renta de los hogares se destina al pago de tributos. Muchas decisiones vitales tienen un precio impositivo, desde hacer la compra o adquirir una vivienda hasta recibir una herencia o poner fin a una relación de pareja. “Algo que la gente suele pasar por alto y que tiene muchas consecuencias fiscales son los divorcios”, comenta Carmen Jover, economista especializada en tributación. Sin embargo, a menudo el contribuyente solo se preocupa de ello cuando tiene la confirmación que debe desembolsar varios centenares o miles de euros. IRPF, plusvalía municipal, ITP o impuesto de donaciones forman parte de la lista de tributos que pueden devengarse a raíz de una ruptura matrimonial. Es por ello que tanto este momento vital como otros “deben planificarse” teniendo en cuenta el impacto fiscal, recomienda en el podcast 'Bolsillo' la presidenta de la Comisión Fiscal del Col·legi d'Economistes de Catalunya y docente universitaria.Jover enumera las principales decisiones que engrosan la factura con Hacienda en un contexto de presión fiscal al alza. En este sentido, lamenta que los tramos estatales del IRPF no se hayan actualizado conforme a la subida de los precios desde el 2008, lo que implica que, a igual poder adquisitivo que antes, se paguen más impuestos. “Y también lleva 20 años sin tocarse el mínimo por descendientes y ascendientes”, advierte.  El contribuyente, no obstante, tiene margen de maniobra para reducir la factura fiscal. “¿Me compro una vivienda o alquilo? ¿Puedo vender mi casa para comprarme otra? ¿Es momento de rescatar ahora mi plan de pensiones? Primero haz números, no solo financieros sino también fiscales”, avisa la economista. De lo contrario, como ocurre a veces con los productos de ahorro-inversión que desgravan en la renta, el ahorro fiscal puede “desaparecer” porque se ha rescatado “sin hacer un análisis previo”.  Además, la profesora de la Barcelona School of Management de la UPF detalla cuáles son los productos de inversión más ventajosos fiscalmente. La diferencia, explica, puede ser notable entre un depósito a plazo o un fondo de inversión. “Es evidente que hay productos financieros con una ventaja fiscal”. Cronología: 3:38 — España y la alta presión fiscal: impacto en los contribuyentes4:19 — Consecuencias de una mala planificación fiscal 6:20 — Decisiones vitales con mayor impacto fiscal8:11 — Casos reales de problemas fiscales tras un divorcio mal planificado9:13 — Diferencias entre comunidades autónomas en el impuesto de sucesiones11:07 — Problema de no deflactar el IRPF y pérdida de poder adquisitivo14:13 — Importancia de decisiones financieras cotidianas en la factura fiscal15:00 — Productos de ahorro o inversión con beneficios fiscales17:44 — Ventajas fiscales de los fondos de inversión19:51 — Fiscalidad de planes de pensiones 23:36 — Seguros de ahorro y rentas vitalicias27:01 — Mitos sobre la declaración de la renta y el borrador de Hacienda30:15 — ¿Hay que confiar en Hacienda para hacer la declaración?31:26 — Riesgos de la desinformación fiscal en redes sociales33:24 — ¿Es necesario que contrate a un asesor fiscal si solo tengo una nómina?34:48 — Principales errores en planificación fiscalMucho más en la Sección Bolsillo de La Vanguardia.

Ultraforarbejdet mad (UPF) fylder mere og mere i vores kost – ofte uden vi tænker over det. Det er fabriksfremstillede produkter skabt til at få dig til at spise mere, igen og igen. I denne episode dykker vi ned i, hvordan UPF påvirker din krop, dit humør og din sundhed.Du får indsigt i, hvordan du genkender UPF, hvorfor det er så vanedannende, hvorfor det er så svært at undgå i den madkultur, vi lever i og hvad du selv kan gøre for ikke at forblive forsøgsrotte for store skrubbelløse madproducenterSpoiler: det handler ikke om perfektion – det handler om bevidsthed.

He de reconocer que no me sorprende. Me han hablado mucho y mal de Teresa Peramato, porque es de formas amables pero implacable a la hora de cumplir las órdenes del Gobierno y colocar a sus compañeros de la minoritaria UPF. No hay que olvidar que ha sido nombrada con el objetivo de que el Gobierno mantenga el control del Ministerio Fiscal. No es necesaria la sutileza, sino, como les gusta a los sanchistas, a lo bruto. A estas alturas me sigo reafirmando en que en ninguna circunstancia la Fiscalía tiene que asumir la instrucción de los procesos. Es fácil imaginar lo que sucedería con un Gobierno que tiene como juristas de cabecera al fanático y sectario Cándido Conde-Pumpido y sus clones. No es casual, también, que quieran reducir la acción popular a la mínima expresión, aunque los socialistas la utilizan siempre que tienen oportunidad para politizar la Justicia. No vamos a esperar a estas alturas ningún ejercicio de coherencia. El Estado de Derecho tiene la suerte de que Sánchez no cuenta con una mayoría suficiente en el Congreso para imponer sus leyes de ingeniería social.

Returning guest, coach Colleen Miracle, joins us to talk about something many trail runners know they should care about but often ignore: sun protection. The conversation is based on Colleen's UltraSignup article "Why Ultrarunners Face a Higher Risk of Skin Cancer and Decreased Running Performance." Colleen shares her own experience with stage-one skin cancer on her lip, which began as what looked like a small freckle but turned out to be a wound that would not heal. The episode gets practical fast, covering SPF 30, UPF clothing, sun hoodies, lip sunscreen, reapplication during races, altitude exposure, cloudy-day risk, and why a "base tan" is not real protection. For endurance athletes, the biggest takeaway is that sun damage is not just a long-term health issue; during long efforts, your body may divert energy toward cooling and repairing damaged skin instead of helping you keep moving. It is a useful, slightly uncomfortable reminder that protecting your skin may be as important to longevity in the sport as shoes, fueling, or strength work. Resources & Links: Check out Boundless Coaching Sunbeam Sunscreen Super Goop Episode Sponsors: Tifosi Optics - CLARITY ON THE TRAIL: Post your Golden Nugget of wisdom that helps you recover after a huge effort on Instagram, tag @TifosiOptics, @TrailRunnerNation, and use the hashtag #ClarityOnTheTrail.  OR try texting us (within the USA) with your tip: 916-235-3928. If we use yours on a weekly episode, you get a pair of the new Sanctum SL glasses! Peluva - Footwear that let your feet be feet.  Get 10% off on our DEALS page  Timestamps 00:00 – The Sun as a Performance Threat Scott introduces the idea that UV exposure may affect not only skin cancer risk and aging, but also long-term running performance. 02:45 – Colleen's Skin Cancer Wake-Up Call Colleen shares how her own stage-one skin cancer diagnosis on her lip led her to interview her dermatologist and write about sun risk for ultrarunners. 05:30 – How Sun Damage Can Drain Your Body The group discusses how damaged skin may force the body to spend energy on cooling and repair when runners need that energy for movement, fueling, and staying strong. 07:15 – SPF, UPF, and What Actually Works Colleen explains the practical options runners can use, including SPF 30 or higher sunscreen, UPF clothing, sun hoodies, arm sleeves, and SPF lip protection. 14:25 – Why Sun Hoodies Are Showing Up More in Ultras The conversation turns to lightweight sun hoodies, why runners in hot and exposed environments use them, and why you should practice with them before race day. 17:50 – The Base Tan Myth and Other Bad Ideas Colleen pushes back on the idea that a base tan protects runners and explains why tanning still means skin damage. 31:45 – Timing, Altitude, Clouds, and Race-Day Habits They cover how early morning runs reduce exposure, why altitude increases risk, why cloudy days still matter, and how runners can build sunscreen reapplication into race routines.

What if every time you reached for a packaged snack… you were quietly increasing your risk of a heart attack? In this urgent and deeply personal solo episode, Darin breaks down groundbreaking new research showing that each serving of ultra-processed food may increase cardiovascular risk by over 5%, not over time, but every single time you eat it. This isn't about calories. It's about chemistry, biology, and a system engineered for convenience at the expense of your health. From the shocking data to the underlying mechanisms: gut destruction, visceral fat accumulation, brain hijacking, and toxic exposure, this episode exposes the real cost of ultra-processed food and gives you the tools to reclaim control of your health and your life. What You'll Learn The shocking stat: 5% increased heart risk per serving of ultra-processed food Why ultra-processed foods act like compounding debt on your health The difference between calories vs chemical toxicity in food How emulsifiers and additives destroy your gut microbiome Why ultra-processed foods increase visceral fat around your organs How these foods are engineered to override your brain's satiety signals The hidden toxins from processing and packaging (PFAS, bisphenols, AGEs) Why this crisis disproportionately impacts certain communities The truth: you can't "out-exercise" ultra-processed food damage Practical ways to transition back to real, whole foods Chapters 00:00:04 – Opening: SuperLife mission and setting the stage 00:00:33 – Sponsor: Alkemis Paint and hidden indoor toxicity 00:01:24 – Why conventional paints off-gas harmful chemicals for years 00:02:27 – Cradle-to-Cradle certification and non-toxic living 00:03:24 – Entering the episode: the 5% heart risk question 00:03:34 – The shocking claim: every serving increases heart risk 00:04:16 – Ultra-processed food as "compounding debt" 00:05:08 – Leaning into discomfort as a path to growth 00:06:33 – The convenience trap: food delivered instantly 00:07:15 – The real cost: trading time for lifespan 00:08:07 – 2026 study overview (MESA dataset, 6,800 participants) 00:09:01 – 5.1% increased cardiovascular risk per serving explained 00:09:29 – 66.8% higher risk in high-consumption groups 00:10:08 – Risk is independent of calories, weight, and fitness 00:10:56 – "This is not a calorie story—it's a chemistry story" 00:11:10 – Racial disparities and food system inequality 00:12:08 – Additional studies confirm elevated heart risk 00:13:04 – Global meta-analysis: over 1 million participants 00:13:26 – The conclusion: the science is no longer debatable 00:14:18 – Sponsor: Shakeology and nutrient density 00:15:36 – What is ultra-processed food? (NOVA classification) 00:16:18 – Examples: chips, cereals, protein bars, fast food 00:16:57 – "These foods are engineered—not real food" 00:17:00 – Mechanism #1: gut microbiome disruption 00:18:03 – Emulsifiers and inflammation explained 00:18:49 – Gut inflammation triggers systemic disease 00:19:18 – Mechanism #2: visceral fat accumulation 00:19:56 – Why visceral fat is more dangerous than visible fat 00:20:18 – Mechanism #3: brain hijacking and satiety override 00:20:47 – Engineered foods and addictive eating patterns 00:21:04 – Mechanism #4: toxins from processing and packaging 00:21:30 – PFAS, bisphenols, and chemical contamination 00:21:37 – The solution: whole food first 00:22:02 – Breaking habits and reclaiming control 00:22:20 – Simple swaps: fruit, nuts, whole ingredients 00:23:00 – "If you can't trace it back to a real food, put it down" 00:23:32 – Making whole food convenient 00:24:06 – Batch cooking and preparation strategies 00:24:16 – Personal story: losing a friend to diet-related illness 00:24:40 – The emotional reality: this is life or death 00:25:00 – Community support and accountability 00:25:25 – Call to action: share this message 00:25:41 – Closing: courage, awareness, and living a SuperLife 00:26:23 – Outro Thank You to Our Sponsors: Shakeology: Get 15% off with code DARINO1BODI at Shakeology.com. Alkemis Paint: Go to https://alkemispaint.com/ and use code DARIN10 for 10% off your order. Join the SuperLife Patreon: This is where Darin now shares the deeper work: - weekly voice notes - ingredient trackers - wellness challenges - extended conversations - community accountability - sovereignty practices Join now for only $7.49/month at https://patreon.com/darinolien Connect with Darin Olien: Website: darinolien.com Instagram: @darinolien Book: Fatal Conveniences Platform & Products: superlife.com New Show: Roadmap to Happiness Key Takeaway "Every time you reach for ultra-processed food, you're not just making a small decision—you're compounding a biological cost that your body has to pay later. But the moment you become aware, you reclaim your power. Because the same way those choices can slowly take your health away… different choices, repeated daily, can give it all back." Bibliography/Sources Primary Study — News Hook Haidar, A., Rikhi, R., Watson, K. E., Wood, A. C., & Shapiro, M. D. (2026). Association between ultraprocessed food consumption and cardiovascular disease risk: MESA. JACC: Advances. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102516 Supporting Studies — 2026 Willett, Y., Yang, C., Dunn, J., et al. (2026). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and increased risks of cardiovascular disease in U.S. adults. The American Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2026.01.012 Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Dose-response meta-analysis: UPF consumption and cardiovascular events risk — 20 studies, 1.1M participants. (2024). eClinicalMedicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102480 Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease: Analysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2024). The Lancet Regional Health – Americas. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(24)00186-8/fulltext Mechanisms — Gut, Inflammation & Additives Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular diseases: Potential mechanisms of action. (2021). Advances in Nutrition. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8483964/ Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease. (2024). Nature Reviews. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38388570/ Ultra-processed foods and incident cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. (2021). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.047 Ultraprocessed foods and their association with cardiometabolic health: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. (2023). Circulation. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001365 Visceral Fat Konieczna, J., et al. (n.d.). Contribution of ultra-processed foods in visceral fat deposition: Prospective analysis nested in the PREDIMED-Plus trial. Clinical Nutrition. https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/edd/Article/100523 NOVA Classification Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Levy, R. B., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30744710/ Policy & Public Health Context American College of Cardiology. (2025). ACC 2025 concise clinical guidance: Front-of-package labeling endorsement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov General Coverage — News Hook Food Safety Magazine. (2026, April). Study links diets high in ultra-processed foods to increased heart attack, stroke risk. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11290-study-links-diets-high-in-ultra-processed-foods-to-increased-heart-attack-stroke-risk ScienceDaily. (2026, March). Ultra-processed foods linked to 67% higher risk of heart attack and stroke. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319074604.htm

Today, we're diving into autoimmunity—what it actually is, why it happens, and how ultra-processed foods may be contributing to the problem. Autoimmune disease is often misunderstood. Some will tell you diet has nothing to do with it. Others claim diet is the cure. The truth is more nuanced—and that's exactly what we explore in this episode. You'll learn: What autoimmunity really is (and why it's a case of mistaken identity) How inflammation and the immune system interact The critical role of gut health and the microbiome How ultra-processed foods disrupt intestinal integrity and immune signaling Why stress and hyper-palatable foods create a harmful cycle A practical experiment you can try to see how diet impacts your own biomarkers This isn't about selling supplements or pushing extremes. It's about understanding the science so you can make informed decisions about your health. As always, this episode is backed by scientific literature. Full citations are included below, with abbreviated versions available on shorter clips. If you're dealing with autoimmune symptoms—or just want to better understand how food impacts your immune system—this episode is for you.   Full citation list: Hall KD, et al. “Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake.” Cell Metabolism, 2019.     Supports the formulation argument: UPF intake increased spontaneous calorie intake and weight gain even with diets matched for presented calories, sugar, fiber, sodium, and macronutrients. This is your anchor for “hyper-palatability and formulation change physiology, not just psychology.”   Narula N, et al. “Association of Ultra-Processed Food Intake With Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Prospective Cohort Study.” BMJ, 2021.     Best human disease-level citation for the episode. Supports the claim that higher UPF intake is associated with greater IBD risk, making the gut-immune link clinically meaningful rather than purely theoretical.   Chassaing B, et al. “Randomized Controlled-Feeding Study of Dietary Emulsifier Carboxymethylcellulose Reveals Detrimental Impacts on the Gut Microbiota and Metabolome.” Gastroenterology, 2022.     Best emulsifier paper for human translation. Supports the claim that CMC can perturb the microbiota and metabolome and may contribute to barrier-hostile gut ecology in susceptible individuals.   Daniel N, et al. “Human Intestinal Microbiome Determines Individualized Responses to Dietary Emulsifier Carboxymethylcellulose.” Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2024.     Useful nuance paper. Supports the point that emulsifier sensitivity is not identical across all people and that host-microbiome context matters.   Shil A, et al. “Artificial Sweeteners Disrupt Tight Junctions and Barrier Function in the Intestinal Epithelium Through Activation of the Sweet Taste Receptor T1R3.” Nutrients, 2020.     Best citation for the “sugar-free does not mean barrier-neutral” point. Supports direct epithelial barrier effects of common artificial sweeteners in experimental models.   Peng L, et al. “Butyrate Enhances the Intestinal Barrier by Facilitating Tight Junction Assembly via Activation of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers.” Journal of Nutrition, 2009.     Classic mechanistic citation for butyrate. Supports the claim that loss of fermentable fiber and reduced butyrate production can weaken barrier function.   Kumar KP, et al. “The Interplay Between the Microbiota, Diet and T Regulatory Cells in Maintaining Intestinal Homeostasis.” Frontiers in Microbiology, 2023.     Useful for the tolerance language. Supports the argument that diet and microbial metabolites shape Treg biology and mucosal tolerance.   Haase S, et al. “Sodium Chloride Triggers Th17 Mediated Autoimmunity.” Frontiers in Immunology, 2019.     Key citation for high salt and autoimmune-prone immune skewing. Supports the claim that excess salt can promote pathogenic Th17 biology relevant to autoimmune disease.   Wilck N, et al. “Salt-Responsive Gut Commensal Modulates TH17 Axis and Disease.” Nature, 2017.     Strong bridge between salt, microbiome, and Th17 signaling. Supports the point that salt is not just a blood pressure story; it is also an immune-story.   Vitales-Noyola M, et al. “Analysis of Sodium Chloride Intake and Treg/Th17 Lymphocytes in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.” Journal of Immunology Research, 2018.     Helpful human-facing citation for salt and immune skewing in autoimmune populations. Use cautiously, but it strengthens translation from theory to autoimmune terrain.   Phuong-Nguyen K, et al. “Advanced Glycation End-Products and Their Effects on Gut Health.” Nutrients, 2023.     Good review for the AGE section. Supports the argument that AGE-rich processed foods may worsen oxidative stress, microbiota balance, and barrier function.   Chen Y, et al. “Dietary Advanced Glycation End-Products Elicit Toxicological Effects by Disrupting Gut Microbiota and Increasing Colon Permeability in Rats.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 2021.     Useful mechanistic support for the processing-chemistry section. Reinforces the claim that dietary AGEs can alter microbial ecology and increase permeability.   Monteiro CA, et al. “Ultra-Processed Foods: What They Are and How to Identify Them.” Public Health Nutrition, 2019.   Dr. Brendan McCarthy is the founder and Chief Medical Officer of Protea Medical Center in Arizona. With over two decades of experience, he's helped thousands of patients navigate hormonal imbalances using bioidentical HRT, nutrition, and root-cause medicine. He's also taught and mentored other physicians on integrative approaches to hormone therapy, weight loss, fertility, and more. If you're ready to take your health seriously, this podcast is a great place to start.  

What Civil Defense Got Right Episode Description This week, we dug into the old Civil Defense system and looked past the duck-and-cover jokes to see what it actually got right. Under all the 1950s style and Cold War weirdness was a pretty serious preparedness framework built around homes, neighborhoods, warning systems, and clear simple actions. We talked about what still holds up, what was overhyped, and why modern preppers may have more gear but a lot less structure. Episode Breakdown

Ultra-Processed Food – kurz UPF – ist in den letzten Jahren zu einem der meistdiskutierten Themen der Ernährungswissenschaft geworden. Manche sprechen sogar von einem der größten Gesundheitsprobleme unserer Zeit. Doch was steckt wirklich dahinter? In dieser Episode spreche ich mit dem Ernährungswissenschaftler Dr. Malte Rubach darüber, was Ultra-Processed Food eigentlich ist, warum diese Lebensmittel aktuell so intensiv erforscht werden und wie belastbar die wissenschaftlichen Daten wirklich sind. Wir schauen uns an, welche Rolle der Grad der Verarbeitung für unsere Gesundheit spielen könnte, warum viele Studien Zusammenhänge zwischen UPF und Erkrankungen zeigen – und wo man bei der Interpretation vorsichtig sein sollte. Außerdem klären wir, warum die Einordnung von Lebensmitteln manchmal komplizierter ist, als es in der öffentlichen Diskussion wirkt. Denn stark verarbeitet bedeutet nicht automatisch ungesund – und unverarbeitet nicht automatisch besser. Wenn du dich also fragst, wie problematisch Fertiggerichte, Frühstückscerealien, Ersatzprodukte oder Proteinprodukte wirklich sind, bekommst du in dieser Episode eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Einordnung.

Is weight gain really about willpower… or is something deeper going on? In this episode, Dr. Brendan McCarthy, Chief Medical Officer at Protea Medical Center, breaks down the real biology behind stress, cravings, and weight gain—and why blaming yourself (or cortisol) is missing the point. You'll learn: Why chronic stress rewires your metabolism How stress drives cravings for ultra-processed foods The truth about cortisol and fat storage Why “just have more discipline” is bad medicine How ultra-processed foods hijack your hunger and reward systems The key to rebuilding control and agency This isn't about motivation—it's about understanding your biology so you can finally work with your body instead of against it. If you've ever felt stuck, frustrated, or blamed for your weight… this episode is for you.   Mechanism-Anchored References     1.    Glucocorticoids, stress, and eating Kuckuck S, van der Valk ES, Scheurink AJW, et al. Glucocorticoids, stress and eating: the mediating role of appetite-regulating hormones. Obesity Reviews. 2023. Supports the claim that stress biology and glucocorticoid signaling can alter appetite regulation and eating behavior.       2.    Stress-level glucocorticoids can increase hunger Bini J, et al. Stress-level glucocorticoids increase fasting hunger and alter cerebral blood flow in neural regions that regulate food intake. 2022. Supports the claim that stress-level glucocorticoid exposure can increase hunger and affect food-intake regulation.       3.    Stress-obesity link / HPA-axis context Lengton R, et al. Glucocorticoids and HPA axis regulation in the stress-obesity link. 2024. Supports the broader claim that chronic stress and glucocorticoid biology are relevant to obesity risk and metabolic dysregulation.       4.    Sleep loss changes appetite and metabolism Van Cauter E, et al. Metabolic consequences of sleep and sleep loss. 2008. Supports the claim that inadequate sleep alters appetite regulation and harms carbohydrate metabolism.       5.    Sleep deprivation impairs glucose handling and raises appetite pressure Knutson KL. The metabolic consequences of sleep deprivation. 2007. Supports the claim that sleep loss can worsen glucose metabolism, appetite drive, and obesity risk.       6.    Circadian disruption and metabolic dysfunction Depner CM, et al. Metabolic consequences of sleep and circadian disorders. 2014. Supports the claim that circadian disruption and sleep deficiency contribute to metabolic dysregulation and weight gain risk.       7.    Ultra-processed food and reward-system activation Calcaterra V, et al. Ultra-Processed Food, Reward System and Childhood Obesity. 2023. Supports the claim that ultra-processed foods interact with reward pathways in ways that can drive intake beyond simple calorie math.       8.    Ultra-processed food and metabolic dysfunction Vitale M, et al. Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2023. Supports the claim that higher UPF consumption is associated with obesity and metabolic disease risk.       9.    Stress and poorer diet quality / emotional eating Shatwan IM, et al. Association between perceived stress, emotional eating, and diet quality. 2024. Supports the claim that higher perceived stress is associated with worse dietary patterns and emotional eating.       10.    Compassion-based framing and adherence Sirois FM, et al. Self-Compassion and Adherence in Five Medical Samples. 2018. Supports the closing point that shame is a weak intervention model and that compassion-linked framing may better support adherence and change.     Dr. Brendan McCarthy is the founder and Chief Medical Officer of Protea Medical Center in Arizona. With over two decades of experience, he's helped thousands of patients navigate hormonal imbalances using bioidentical HRT, nutrition, and root-cause medicine. He's also taught and mentored other physicians on integrative approaches to hormone therapy, weight loss, fertility, and more. If you're ready to take your health seriously, this podcast is a great place to start.  

A discussion about ultra processed foods (UPF) and their affect on our health. We also talk about the history of UPF, how they ended up on our plates, climate change impacts on getting fresh foods and relying on UPF, policy and diet, etc…GUESTS - Rachel Prowse, registered dietitian and assistant professor of nutrition and dietetics at Memorial University; Daniel Zaltz, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health; Sarah Parsons, registred dietitian and postdoctoral fellow at MUN's biochemestry department; and Nicholas Fairbridge, Research Associate within the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University.

Hi! Carmel Valley schools are operating on a half-day schedule all week, and we're in the middle of an extreme heat wave, so it feels like a mini spring break before real spring break is upon us in April. I know a lot of your kids have spring break this month (my friend Mary Pell is visiting from North Carolina right now for her daughter's spring break!), so today we're sharing a few spring break-related things, should it be on your radar right now, too.Whether or not you're in a spring break time of life: spring as a season will be official on Friday! To celebrate, Saturday's new recipe includes my favorite spring vegetable, asparagus, but in the meantime, we wanted to share our team's personal favorite super-springy recipes from the archives to welcome the new season. And lest you forget: there's a whole “spring” section in the What to Cook recipe index — along with many, many more categories based on cook time, protein, and mood. If you're ever needing inspiration for dinner, let the index be your guide. Also worth noting if you're a Substack app user: we are VERY happy to report that the WTC index is pinned again under “posts” when you're on the WTC homepage within the app. The pinned posts went missing for a few weeks but they're back, baby!Caro's: sheet-pan spring salmonThis is perhaps the springiest weeknight dinner recipe I've ever written. Dilly sauce, asparagus, roasted potatoes, and salmon with lots of lemon… it's so fresh and delicious. It's also both gluten- and dairy-free as written and is delicious served either right out of the oven or at room temp, so you could cook the entire meal ahead of time, let it cool, and store it covered in the fridge. Bring it out 30-ish minutes before dinner to let it come to room temperature, then dig in! It's a total crowd pleaser. There's an even simpler version of this meal — it omits the potatoes — in WTC the book on page 40! Jillian's: crispy artichoke and chicken saladArtichokes are one of my favorite spring vegetables! This is a good-all-week salad that combines roasted marinated artichokes with chicken that you marinate in the artichoke brine, a can of white beans, kale, homemade croutons, and the most addicting, springy lemon-Parm dressing out there. I typically eat vegetarian and highly endorse the mushroom vegetarian riff that Caro suggests! Molly's: roasted asparagus farrottoI cooked this meal one day last week after the time change and it was a perfect springy experience. I sipped a glass of white wine (the same wine I used later for the recipe!) while the asparagus and farro roasted away in the oven and the evening sunlight (!!) poured through the windows. It's VERY tasty, and Caro's asparagus-roasting hack in this recipe — you cook it on an inverted pot lid! — always makes me feel like a pro. Do you have a favorite springy WTC recipe?!Whether you're traveling this season or not, these “vacation house” meal plans will get you in the springy and/or spring break spirit! Version one + version two. I'm taking my older boys on a very adventure-heavy spring break trip with Lonely Planet Journeys (formerly known as Elsewhere, the travel company that sent me on the Camino and to Patagonia!) next month. It'll be my first real trip with kids that isn't a plop vacation by the pool/beach — we are going to be making our own chocolate from native cacao! Snorkeling in cenotes! Exploring ancient ruins! We are all so excited and grateful for the opportunity.That said, my typical spring break plan is to go somewhere that I can plop in front of a body of water (pool, beach, lake, etc.) with the kids, and have easy access to a house or hotel room with all the creature comforts we may need. Other years, we hang at home and go to the pool after work and/or on local outings that we can't usually do when the kids are in school. Whatever your plans may be, here's a random collection of spring break tips and things we are loving.* I've said this before but one of my favorite vacation tricks is shipping a Thrive order to the rental house with pantry staples, kids snacks and meals (like Goodles!), and any other miscellaneous things we'll need during the trip like sunscreen, dish soap, diapers, etc. I love that when I'm filling my Thrive box I don't have to study the ingredients lists — they have a strict vetting process to ensure that everything they carry is organic and free from more than 1,000 artificial, synthetic, and GMO ingredients. It also saves me money!!! The membership's only $5 a month, they run sales all the time within their membership, and the items are already priced up to 30% off retail. Click here to get 30% off your first order and a free $60 gift of your choice when you sign up. And as a reminder, new-to-Thrive WTC Insiders get $25 off their first four orders (plus lots of other perks)! * I got this suit in black for Mexico and it's a really nice middle ground between mom suit and sexy suit. It's definitely VERY SNUG in my normal size, so size up if you're on the fence about going up or down!* At the pool this week three of my friends had this sun hat and it looked so good on everyone! I'm a ball cap person but I know I need to become a sun hat person for more coverage, ugh. * I continue to be obsessed with this glowy face sunscreen. It's honestly helping me remember to wear SPF every day because I love the way it brightens up my face when I'm not wearing makeup!* Loeffler Randall gifted me a really great travel tote bag and it got a lot of use in February. I love that it slides onto the handle of my roller bag and actually stays in place, it fits under the airplane seat nicely, and has tons of storage compartments. And it's nylon, so it transitions from airplane to poolside splashes nicely.* Speaking of roller bags, I just got a new one and I'm VERY into it. I really prefer a hard shell when I'm trying to cram WAY too much stuff into a carry-on (like for my 10-day business trip in February!), and this one has tons of great storage compartments and glides really nicely.* I just ordered these Bermuda shorts! In black. I'm very excited about them!! * From Molly: I went shopping at Vuori this past weekend in NYC and found another pair of my all-time favorite shorts, the Villa, in this new color. I wear them everywhere — exercise classes, my kids' sports practices and games, and as a coverup at the beach and pool. They have a wonderfully roomy thigh, dry quickly, and are just the comfiest. I also got this tee — I'm a shorty and the crop hits perfectly with high-waisted bottoms like the Villas. (From Caro: I've been thinking about ordering these!! We love a roomy thigh. I've been getting a lot of wear out of my fave $20 shorts but they're more athletic looking than the Villa.)* Speaking of coverups…* From Caro: I've been wearing this button-up dress to the pool (and around town) all week (and I wore it all last summer while pregnant and postpartum!).* From Molly: I shared this Quince coverup last year but can update that it held up well all summer (and we live at the beach so I wore it a ton!). It stretches out/gets weighed down a bit when it's wet, but shrinks back up once washed and dried. I love this one, too, that's similar but collared. I'm also excited for an order from this sister-owned small business to arrive soon — I'm trying to invest in more UPF-50 coverups!* From Molly: One last staple I'll be packing for beach outings this spring: my Reefs! The back strap makes them easy to walk through soft sand in (I hate it when flip flops fling sand up my legs!), and you can hose them down afterward.Every week, we dig into the What to Cook archives to see what we were cooking this time in years past — the recipes worth bringing back into your rotation. Here's this week's lineup.1. farro fattoush, 2025Here's another springy good-all-week salad that will hold up well in the fridge for days! This one packs farro, chickpeas, tons of herbs, crunchy veg, a punchy lemony dressing, and poached chicken for protein. It's fresh, herby, and satisfying in a way that makes a lunch (or dinner!) salad feel like a real meal, not a side dish.2. the ultimate easy-but-fancy spring menu, 2024Your blueprint for a special occasion spring meal that comes together with zero stress: slow-roasted lamb, lemony potatoes, a bright salad, asparagus, and Gruyère & black pepper biscuits with hot honey butter! It comes with a full plan of attack to keep things seamless, but you can also mix and match pieces for a simpler, just-as-delicious meal.3. rotisserie-ish chicken with schmaltzy frizzled cabbage, 2023A sheet-pan dinner where the chicken does double duty — roasting on top of cabbage so all that schmaltzy goodness drips down and transforms it. Add buttery sweet potatoes and you've got a cozy, low-effort, high-reward situation. From WTCer Jill: “Wow. My husband kept saying, ‘this is restaurant quality'… The cabbage is SO GOOD… And the chicken was so moist and flavorful. First time cooking a whole chicken and this recipe made it so easy.”4. roasted harissa chicken and sweet potato bowls, 2022Jammy, caramelized sweet potatoes and harissa-roasted chicken layered over a cool, creamy swoop of yogurt or labne — then finished with crunchy nuts, pops of sweet dried fruit, and a squeeze of lemon. This meal hits every note (spicy, creamy, tangy, crunchy) and is endlessly adaptable depending on what you have.5. one-skillet crispy chicken burrito bowls, 2021So many of you have this recipe on repeat — it's easy, reliable, and a total crowd-pleaser. Rice cooks in salsa until it's rich and flavorful, chicken gets golden and crispy on top, and everything finishes with melty, bubbly cheese under the broiler.We use affiliate links when sharing product recs, which means we may earn a small commission off of purchases you make through those links. This does not cost you anything extra and is a way to support the production of and team behind What to Cook. Sponsorships are another way we partner with brands that we authentically love and can personally vouch for. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whattocook.substack.com/subscribe

Three ordinary habits—puzzling, pouring, and brushing—carry extraordinary power over long-term health. We unpack new and notable research on cognitive health, colorectal cancer risk, and cardiovascular disease, then turn it into simple actions you can actually keep.First, we explore why puzzles and other structured brain challenges may strengthen executive function, attention, and visuospatial skills. Large-scale studies of board games and crosswords point to lower dementia risk, and the mindfulness angle is compelling: focused, tactile tasks can quiet stress cycles and improve mood. We're honest about the evidence gaps too—puzzles haven't been trialed as formal stress therapies—but the low-friction habit still earns a spot in your daily routine, especially if you crave small wins or navigate ADHD.Next, we challenge the comfort of “moderate” drinking by looking at lifetime alcohol intake and colorectal cancer. The dose-response signal is clear: more drinks over more years raise risk, with rectal cancer showing the steepest climb. There's practical hope as well—former drinkers see fewer precancerous adenomas—so dialing back weekly totals, adding alcohol-free days, and keeping up with screening can move the needle. The takeaway isn't alarm; it's agency.We close with two underappreciated drivers of heart disease: ultra-processed foods and gum health. Evidence now ties higher UPF intake to more cardiovascular events, while updated scientific statements map how periodontal bacteria and chronic inflammation stress blood vessels, elevate clotting risk, and push up heart attack and stroke rates. The fix is refreshingly doable: shift groceries toward minimally processed staples, build batch-cook routines, brush and clean between teeth daily, and keep regular dental visits. We also name the inequities—insurance gaps, limited access, time off work—and why better oral care access belongs in any heart health strategy.If this helped you rethink one small daily choice, tap follow, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review so others can find the show. Your next healthy habit might start right here.Send us a message with this link, we would love to hear from you. Standard message rates may apply.Support the showProduction and Content: Edward Delesky, MD, DABOM & Nicole Aruffo, RN Artwork Rebrand and Avatars: Vantage Design Works (Vanessa Jones) Website: https://www.vantagedesignworks.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vantagedesignworks?igsh=aHRuOW93dmxuOG9m&utm_source=qr Original Artwork Concept: Olivia Pawlowski

Ever feel like you have zero willpower around certain foods? You're not alone, and it's not your fault. Modern food has been scientifically engineered to hijack your biology, keeping you hooked and wanting more. These aren't just foods; they're industrial formulations designed for profit, not health.   In this episode, we pull back the curtain on the ultra-processed lie. You'll discover: - The shocking truth about how much of our diet (nearly 60% for adults, 70% for kids!) is made up of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). - The deceptive science of the "bliss point" and "health halos" used to make you overeat. - How UPFs can systematically wreck your gut health, thin your intestinal lining, and fuel chronic inflammation. - The scary links between a high-UPF diet and chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even depression and anxiety.   But this isn't about fear. It's about empowerment. We'll give you simple, practical, and guilt-free strategies to take back control, including: - How to become an "ingredient detective." - Easy swaps you can make today. - The sustainable 80/20 rule for long-term health.   It's time to stop blaming yourself and start understanding the rigged game you've been forced to play. Join us to learn how to reclaim your health.   What's one food you were shocked to learn was ultra-processed? Share in the comments!   #UltraProcessedFood #GutHealth #Nutrition #HealthyEating #FoodScience #BigFood #HealthLies #Documentary Health Declassified is brought to you by Peter Wright & Kathleen Beauvais https://HealthDeclassified.com  peter@healthdeclassified.com    kathleen@healthdeclassified.com  Get our weekly newsletter for links to articles mentioned on the show, holistic health tips and news of future guests. Subscribe here   Content on our website, in our newsletter, in our audio and video episodes has been obtained from reliable sources, is for information only and should not be taken as medical advice. Check with your doctor before starting a new exercise or supplement programme especially if you have any joint, skeletal, mobility or digestive issues.

A University of Auckland researcher is calling for tougher regulations around marketing ultra processed food to kiwi kids. Dr Kelly Garton says kai is political and she's urging people to scrutinse party policies around access to healthy affordable food with the consumption of ultra processed food, or UPF's growing. Checkpoint did a shop around to see how much UPF's are infiltrating supermarket shelves, and Dr Kelly Garton joined Lisa Owen in the studio to decipher the contents.

El catedrático de Economía de la UPF, José García-Montalvo, analiza el récord histórico de precios y la crisis de acceso a la vivienda en España.

Proteinriegel im Büro. Light-Joghurt am Abend. Fertiggericht nach einem langen Arbeitstag. Alles wirkt praktisch, kalorienkontrolliert und „gesund“. Und trotzdem bleibt das Gewicht – oder steigt sogar. In dieser Folge sprechen wir über hochverarbeitete Lebensmittel (Ultra-Processed Food) und ihren Einfluss auf deinen Stoffwechsel, Insulin, Heißhunger und Bauchfett.  Du erfährst: •Was hochverarbeitete Lebensmittel wirklich sind (NOVA-Klassifikation einfach erklärt) •Warum sie deine Sättigung und Hungerregulation stören •Wie sie Blutzucker und Insulin beeinflussen •Warum sie metabolische Flexibilität verschlechtern •Welche Rolle Darmflora und Entzündungsprozesse spielen •Warum Frauen ab 35 besonders sensibel darauf reagieren •Und wie du deinen Stoffwechsel wieder stabilisieren kannst – ohne radikale Verbote  Viele Frauen glauben, sie müssten weniger essen. In Wahrheit reagieren ihre Körper auf Lebensmittel, die industriell so konstruiert sind, dass sie mehr Hunger erzeugen als Sättigung. 

Once Upon a Farm is officially public — and it could mark a turning point for better-for-you brands. In this episode, the hosts break down the baby food company's $198 million IPO, what its $724 million valuation signals for the CPG landscape, and why going public may be emerging as a viable alternative to traditional acquisition. Is this the start of a new era for mission-driven food brands looking to scale on their own terms? Plus, they dig into the growing battle over how "healthy" gets defined at retail. Kroger adopted FoodHealth's nutrient scoring system, which aims to guide shoppers with a balanced approach to nutrient density and ingredient quality. Meanwhile, the Non-GMO Project's stricter Non-UPF Verified certification draws a hard line against processed oils, gums, and natural flavors. Are these systems complementary, competitive, or just confusing? Show notes: 0:23: Fiber Bowl. AMA In MIA. OFRM's IPO. UPF, Maybe Or No? A Burst Of Mayo, Protein & Powder. –  The hosts kick things off with lighthearted Super Bowl banter and a recap of their game-day food spreads before previewing the upcoming Taste Radio Miami Meetup at Casa La Rubia on Feb. 18. The team highlights event features including live podcast interviews, networking, brand sampling, and a new "Ask Me Anything" table hosted by Atomos Strategic Marketing, encouraging founders and industry professionals to attend. The conversation then shifts to industry news, notably Once Upon a Farm's IPO, which raised $198 million and valued the baby and kids food brand at over $724 million. The hosts discuss the rarity of successful CPG IPOs, the tradeoffs between going public and selling to a strategic buyer, and what the move could signal for other better-for-you brands. From there, they explore evolving nutrition standards, comparing FoodHealth's nutrient scoring system with the stricter Non-UPF Verified certification from the Non-GMO Project, touching on hot-button topics like processed oils, natural flavors, and consumer education. The episode also features commentary on innovative products such as Graza's olive oil mayonnaise strategy, protein soda from Joyburst, protein-enhanced fruit spreads from BamJam, and the straightforward drink mix brand Fave. Brands in this episode: Royo Bread, Once Upon a Farm, Annie's, Vita Coco, Bai, Graza, Koia, Joyburst, BamJam, Drippy, Dappie, Fave, BTR Nation, Cadence, Spindrift, Duke's

What is needed to truly move the needle on health? Create more research, more trials on nutrient density, more advocacy? Or, as Martin Reiter, founder of RARE argues, create the next regen Nestlé or Unilever: a 100 billion (yes, that's a B) regenerative consumer goods conglomerate, with only better-for-you and better-for-the-planet brands. The demand is there; the current incumbents are unable to innovate in regen, as they are built on chemical ingredients.The story usually goes like this: a group of people sets up a food (or cosmetics) brand that is better for you and better for the planet. Much better ingredients, honest sourcing, actually healthy, not UPF, etc. Then they need some money and raise funds, keep building, scaling, and at some point, 10–15 years down the road, the founders get tired and want to take some money off the table. and their existing investors need to get out and return money to their LPs.Currently, their only option is to sell to an incumbent, which then unfortunately usually screws it up. They start tweaking the ingredients, squeezing farmer margins, etc. The original founders leave after a few frustrating years.Is there a better way? A permanent home for regen, good-for-you, good-for-the-planet brands? A regen Nestlé or Unilever, if you will?More about this episode.==========================In Investing in Regenerative Agriculture and Food podcast show we talk to the pioneers in the regenerative food and agriculture space to learn more on how to put our money to work to regenerate soil, people, local communities and ecosystems while making an appropriate and fair return. Hosted by Koen van Seijen.==========================

Eating five or more servings of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) a day nearly doubles your risk of developing Crohn's disease Additives like emulsifiers, thickeners, and artificial sweeteners found in ultraprocessed foods break down the gut's protective mucus barrier and fuel chronic inflammation High intake of UPFs is linked to changes in gut bacteria that reduce diversity and promote the growth of harmful strains associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare-ups Common UPFs like white bread, frozen meals, sauces, and breakfast cereals show the strongest links to increased Crohn's risk Removing seed oils, emulsifiers, and UPF-heavy meals while focusing on gut-repairing whole foods can help reduce flare frequency and support long-term healing

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.  

Melanoma survivor Leah Koskinen joins me to break down what every family needs to know about sun safety. We talk about the real risks behind sunburns and tanning, how to spot concerning moles early, and why year-round protection matters more than most people realize. Leah also shares practical, mom-friendly strategies for choosing sunscreen, using UPF clothing, and getting enough vitamin D without damaging your skin. Click HERE to access the show notes for this episode. 

This is a Premium-exclusive episode of the podcast. To listen to the full episode you need to be subscribed to Sigma Nutrition Premium. Recently we (Danny Lennon & Alan Flanagan) were invited to 'Processing the Evidence', a "behind closed doors" workshop to discuss the latest scientific evidence on the role of processed foods in human health. The event was organized by Professors Ciarán Forde and Vincenzo Fogliano of Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The workshop attendees included a range of prominent researchers across a range of domains related to food processing, nutrition science, and public health. The sessions included open discussions on current evidence, knowledge gaps and challenges within the UPF debate. There were several structured sessions looking at different sub-topics, such as: Emulsifier-gut interactions Ultra-processing and its effect on food matrix and bioavailability Food liking and hedonic overeating UPFs: Interpreting nutritional epidemiology and RCTs New trial data: the PROMENADE trial, the RESTRUCTURE Trial, etc. In this episode, Alan and Danny review some of the key talking points and their takeaways from this event. Timestamps [00:31] Event overview: processing the evidence [04:44] Conference insights with Dr. Alan Flanagan [07:52] Hypotheses on ultra processed foods [11:53] Microbiome and additives panel [21:51] Food science and technology panel [33:21] Behavioral aspects of food consumption [38:10] Nutritional epidemiology session [47:19] Discussion on dietary pattern classification [50:19] The role of ultra-processed foods in public health policy [54:18] Clinical and metabolic data on processed foods [01:00:55] Critique of the NOVA classification system [01:08:03] Concluding thoughts on ultra-processed foods [01:23:12] Key ideas and methodological standpoints Related Resources Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Go to episode page Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, Norbert Wilson of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy speaks with researchers Jean Adams from the University of Cambridge and Mike Essman from Duke's World Food Policy Center. They discuss the mandatory calorie labeling policy introduced in England in April 2022 for large food-away-from-home outlets. The conversation covers the study recently published in the British Medical Journal, exploring its results, strengths, limitations, and implications within the broader context of food labeling and public health policies. Key findings include a slight overall reduction in calorie content offered by food outlets, driven by the removal of higher-calorie items rather than reformulation. The discussion also touches on the potential impacts on different consumer groups, the challenges of policy enforcement, and how such policies could be improved to more effectively support public health goals. Interview Summary Now everyone knows eating out is just part of life. For many, it's a place to make connections, can be a guilty pleasure, and sometimes it's just an outright necessity for busy folks. But it is also linked to poor dietary quality, weight gain, and even obesity. For policymakers, the challenge is identifying what policy changes can help improve population health. Jean, let's begin with you. Can you tell our listeners about the UK's menu labeling intervention and what change did you hope to see? Jean - Yes, so this was a policy that was actually a really long time in coming and came in and out of favor with a number of different governments. So maybe over the last 10 years we've had various different suggestions to have voluntary and/or mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector. Eventually in April, 2022, we did have new mandatory regulations that came into a force that required large businesses just in England - so not across the whole of the UK, just in England - if they sold food and non-alcoholic drinks and they had to display the calories per portion of every item that they were selling. And then have alongside that somewhere on their menu, a statement that said that adults need around 2000 calories per day. The policy applied just to large businesses, and the definition of that was that those businesses have 250 or more employees, but the employees didn't all have to be involved in serving food and drinks. This might apply also to a large hotel chain who just have some bars or something in their hotels. And the food and drinks covered were things that were available for immediate consumption. Not prepackaged. And then there was also this proviso to allow high-end restaurants to be changing their menus regularly. So, it was only for things that were on the menu for at least 30 days. You mentioned that this policy or a menu labeling might have at least two potential modes of impacts. There's first this idea that providing calories or any sort of labeling on food can somehow provide information for consumers to make what we might hope would be better choices. Might help them choose lower calorie options or healthier options. And then the second potential impact is that businesses might also use the information to change what sort of foods they're serving. It might be that they didn't realize how many calories were in the foods and they're suddenly embarrassed about it. Or as soon as their customers realize, they start to put a little bit of pressure on, you know, we want something a little bit lower calorie. So, there's this potential mechanism that operates at the demand side of how consumers might make choices. And another one at the supply side of what might be available to consumers. And we knew from previous evaluations of these sorts of interventions that there was some evidence that both could occur. Generally, it seems to be that findings from other places and countries are maybe null to small. So, we were thinking that maybe we might see something similar in England. Thank you for sharing that background. I do have a question about the length of time it took to get this menu labeling law in place. Before we get into the results, do you have a sense of why did it take so long? Was it industry pushback? Was it just change of governments? Do you have a sense of that? Jean - Yes, so I think it's probably a bit of both. To begin with, it was first proposed as a voluntary measure actually by industry. So, we had this kind of big public-private partnership. What can industry do to support health? And that was one of the things they proposed. And then they didn't really do it very well. So, there was this idea that everybody would do it. And in fact, we found maybe only about 20% of outlets did it. And then definitely we have had government churn in the UK over the last five years or so. So, every new prime minister really came in and wanted to have their own obesity policy threw out the last one started over. And every policy needs consulted on with the public and then with industry. And that whole process just kind of got derailed over and over again. Thank you. That is really helpful to understand that development of the policy and why it took time. Industry regulated policy can be a tricky one to actually see the results that we would hope. You've already given us a sort of insight into what you thought the results may be from previous studies - null to relatively small. So, Mike, I want to turn to you. Can you tell us what came out of the data? Mike - Thank you, yes. So, we found a small overall drop in average calories offered per item. That amounts to a total of nine calories per item reduction in our post policy period relative to pre policy. And this is about a 2% reduction. It was statistically significant and we do in public health talk about how small effects can still have big impacts. So, I do want to sort of put that out there, but also recognize that it was a small overall drop in calories. And then what we did is we looked at how different food groups changed, and also how calories changed at different types of restaurants, whether it was fast food, restaurants, sit downs that we call pubs, bars, and inns. And then also other different types of takeaways like cafes and things like that where you might get a coffee or a cappuccino or something like that. What we found was driving the overall reduction in calories was a reduction in higher calorie items. So, as Jean mentioned at the outset, one of the things we were trying to identify in this analysis was whether we saw any evidence of reformulation. And we defined reformulation as whether specific products were reduced in their calories so that the same products were lower calories in the post period. We define that as reformulation. And that would be different from, say, a change in menu offering where you might identify a high calorie item and take it off the menu so that then the overall calories offered goes down on average. We found more evidence for the latter. Higher calorie items were removed. We separated into categories of removed items, items that were present in both periods, and new items added in the post period. There were higher calorie items in the removed group. The items that were present in both periods did not change. The new items were lower calorie items. What this says overall is this average reduction is driven by taking off high calorie items, adding some slightly lower calorie items. But we did not find evidence for reformulation, which is a crucial finding as well. We saw that the largest reductions occurred in burgers, beverages and a rather large mixed group called Mains. So, burgers reduced by 103 calories per item. That's pretty substantial. One of the reasons that's so large is that burgers, particularly if they're offered at a pub and might even come with fries or chips, as they say in the UK. And because they have such a high baseline calorie level, there's more opportunity to reduce. So, whether it's making it slightly smaller patty or reducing the cheese or something like that, that's where we saw larger reductions among the burgers. With beverages, typically, this involved the addition of lower calorie options, which is important if it gives an opportunity for lower calorie selections. And that was the main driver of reduction there. And then also we saw in Mains a reduction of 30 calories per item. A couple of the other things we wanted to identify is whether there was a change in the number of items that were considered over England's recommended calories per meal. The recommended calories per meal is 600 calories or less for lunch and dinner. And we saw no statistical change in that group. So overall, we do see a slight reduction in average calories. But this study did not examine changes in consumer behavior. I do want to just briefly touch on that because this was part of a larger evaluation. Another study that was published using customer surveys that was published in Nature Human Behavior found no change in the average calories purchased or consumed after the policy. This evaluation was looking at both the supply and the demand side changes as a result of this policy. Thanks, Mike and I've got lots of questions to follow up, but I'll try to control myself. The first one I'm interested to understand is you talk about the importance of the really calorie-heavy items being removed and the introduction of newer, lower calorie items. And you said that this is not a study of the demand, but I'm interested to know, do you have a sense that the higher calorie items may not have been high or top sellers. It could be easy for a restaurant to get rid of those. Do you have any sense of, you know, the types of items that were removed and of the consumer demand for those items? Mike - Yes. So, as I mentioned, given that the largest changes were occurring among burgers, we're sort of doing this triangulation attempt to examine all of the different potential impacts we can with the study tools we have. We did not see those changes reflected in consumer purchases. So, I think sticking with the evidence, the best thing we could say is that the most frequently purchased items were not the ones that were being pulled off of menus. I think that would be the closest to the evidence. Now, no study is perfect and we did in that customer survey examine the purchases and consumption of about 3000 individuals before and after the policy. It's relatively large, but certainly not fully comprehensive. But based on what we were able to find, it would seem that those reductions in large calorie items, it's probably fair to say, were sort of marginal choices. So, we see some reduction in calories at the margins. That's why the overall is down, but we don't see at the most commonly sold. I should also mention in response to that, a lot of times when we think about eating out of home, we often think about fast food. We did not see reductions in fast food chains at all, essentially. And so really the largest reductions we found were in what would be considered more sit-down dining establishment. For example, sit-down restaurants or even pubs, bars and ends was one of our other categories. We did see average reductions in those chains. The areas you kind of think about for people grabbing food quickly on the go, we did not see reductions there. And we think some of this is a function of the data itself, which is pubs, bars and inns, because they offer larger plates, there's a little bit more space for them to reduce. And so those are where we saw the reductions. But in what we might typically think is sort of the grab and go type of food, we did not see reductions in those items. And so when we did our customer surveys, we saw that those did not lead to reductions in calories consumed. Ahh, I see this and thank you for this. It sounds like the portfolio adjusted: getting rid of those heavy calorie items, adding more of the lower calorie items that may not have actually changed what consumers actually eat. Because the ones that they typically eat didn't change at all. And I would imagine from what you've said that large global brands may not have made many changes, but more local brands have more flexibility is my assumption of that. So that, that's really helpful to see. As you all looked at the literature, you had the knowledge that previous studies have found relatively small changes. Could you tell us about what this work looks like globally? There are other countries that have tried policy similar to this. What did you learn from those other countries about menu labeling? Jean - Well, I mean, I'm tempted to say that we maybe should have learned that this wasn't the sort of policy that we could expect to make a big change. To me one of the really attractive features of a labeling policy is it kind of reflects back those two mechanisms we've talked about - information and reformulation or changing menus. Because we can talk about it in those two different ways of changing the environment and also helping consumers make better choices, then it can be very attractive across the political landscape. And I suspect that that is one of the things that the UK or England learned. And that's reflected in the fact that it took a little while to get it over the line, but that lots of different governments came back to it. That it's attractive to people thinking about food and thinking about how we can support people to eat better in kind of a range of different ways. I think what we learned, like putting the literature all together, is this sort of policy might have some small effects. It's not going to be the thing that kind of changes the dial on diet related diseases. But that it might well be part of an integrated strategy of many different tools together. I think we can also learn from the literature on labeling in the grocery sector where there's been much more exploration of different types of labeling. Whether colors work, whether black stop signs are more effective. And that leads us to conclusions that these more interpretive labels can lead to bigger impacts and consumer choices than just a number, right? A number is quite difficult to make some sense of. And I think that there are some ways that we could think about optimizing the policy in England before kind of writing it off as not effective. Thank you. I think what you're saying is it worked, but it works maybe in the context of other policies, is that a fair assessment? Jean - Well, I mean, the summary of our findings, Mike's touched on quite a lot of it. We found that there was an increase in outlets adhering to the policy. That went from about 20% offered any labeling to about 80%. So, there were still some places that were not doing what they were expected to do. But there was big changes in actual labeling practice. People also told us that they noticed the labels more and they said that they used them much more than they were previously. Like there was some labeling before. We had some big increases in noticing and using. But it's... we found this no change in calories purchased or calories consumed. Which leads to kind of interesting questions. Okay, so what were they doing with it when they were using it? And maybe some people were using it to help them make lower calorie choices, but other people were trying to optimize calories for money spent? We saw these very small changes in the mean calorie of items available that Mike's described in lots of detail. And then we also did some work kind of exploring with restaurants, people who worked in the restaurant chains and also people responsible for enforcement, kind of exploring their experiences with the policy. And one of the big conclusions from that was that local government were tasked with enforcement, but they weren't provided with any additional resources to make that happen. And for various reasons, it essentially didn't happen. And we've seen that with a number of different policies in the food space in the UK. That there's this kind of presumption of compliance. Most people are doing it all right. We're not doing it a hundred percent and that's probably because it's not being checked and there's no sanction for not following the letter of the law. One of the reasons that local authorities are not doing enforcement, apart from that they don't have resources or additional resources for it, is that they have lots of other things to do in the food space, and they see those things as like higher risk. And so more important to do. One of those things is inspecting for hygiene, making sure that the going out is not poisonous or adulterated or anything like that. And you can absolutely understand that. These things that might cause acute sickness, or even death in the case of allergies, are much more important for them to be keeping an eye on than labeling. One of the other things that emerged through the process of implementation, and during our evaluation, was a big concern from communities with experience of eating disorders around kind of a greater focus on calorie counting. And lots of people recounting their experience that they just find that very difficult to be facing in a space where they're maybe not trying to think about their eating disorder or health. And then they're suddenly confronted with it. And when we've gone back and looked at the literature, there's just not very much literature on the impact of calorie labeling on people with eating disorders. And so we're a little bit uncertain still about whether that is a problem, but it's certainly perceived to be a problem. And lots of people find the policy difficult for that reason because they know someone in their family or one of their friends with an eating disorder. And they're very alert to that potential harm. I think this is a really important point to raise that the law, the menu labeling, could have differential effects on different consumers. I'm not versed in this literature on the triggering effects of seeing menu labeling for people with disordered eating. But then I'm also thinking about a different group of consumers. Consumers who are already struggling with obesity, and whether or not this policy is more effective for those individuals versus folks who are not. In the work that you all did, did you have any sense of are there heterogeneous effects of the labeling? Did different consumers respond differentially to seeing the menu label? Not just, for example, individuals maybe with disordered eating? Mike - In this work, we mostly focused on compliance, customer responses in terms of consumption and purchases, changes in menus, and customers reporting whether or not they increase noticing and using. When we looked at the heterogeneous effects, some of these questions are what led us to propose a new project where we interviewed people and tried to understand their responses to calorie labeling. And there we get a lot of heterogenous groups. In those studies, and this work has not actually been published, but should be in the new year, we found that there's a wide range of different types of responses to the policy. For example, there may be some people who recently started going to the gym and maybe they're trying to actually bulk up. And so, they'll actually choose higher calorie items. Conversely, there may be people who have a fitness routine or a dieting lifestyle that involves calorie tracking. And they might be using an app in order to enter the calories into that. And those people who are interested in calorie counting, they really loved the policy. They really wanted the policy. And it gave them a sense of control over their diet. And they felt comfortable and were really worried that if there was evidence that it wouldn't work, that would be taken away. Then you have a whole different group of people who are living with eating disorders who don't want to interact with those numbers when they are eating out of home. They would rather eat socially and not have to think about those challenges. There's really vast diversity in terms of the responses to the policy. And that does present a challenge. And I think what it also does is cause us just to question what is the intended mechanism of action of this policy? Because when the policy was implemented, there's an idea of a relatively narrow set of effects. If customers don't understand the number of calories that are in their items, you just provide them with the calories that are in those items, they will then make better choices as rational actors. But we know that eating out of home is far more complex. It's social. There are issues related to value for money. So maybe people want to make sure they're purchasing food that hasn't been so reduced in portions that now they don't get the value for money when they eat out. There are all sorts of body image related challenges when people may eat out. We didn't find a lot of evidence of this in our particular sample, but also in some of our consultation with the public in developing the interview, there's concern about judgment from peers when eating out. So, it's a very sensitive topic. Some of the implications of that are we do probably need more communication strategies that can come alongside these policies and sort of explain the intended mechanism impact to the public. We can't expect to simply add numbers to items and then expect that people are going to make the exact choices that are sort of in the best interest of public health. And that sort of brings us on to some potential alternative mechanisms of impact and other modes of labeling, and those sorts of things. Mike, this has been really helpful because you've also hinted at some of the ways that this policy as implemented, could have been improved. And I wonder, do you have any other thoughts to add to how to make a policy like this have a bigger impact. Mike - Absolutely. One of the things that was really helpful when Jean laid out her framing of the policy was there's multiple potential mechanisms of action. One of those is the potential reformulation in menu change. We talked about those results. Another intended mechanism of action is through consumer choice. So, if items have fewer calories on average, then that could reduce ultimately calories consumed. Or if people make choices of lower calorie items, that could also be a way to reduce the overall calories consumed. And I would say this calorie labeling policy, it is a step because the calories were not previously available. People did not know what they were eating. And if you provide that, that fulfills the duty of transparency by businesses. When we spoke to people who worked in enforcement, they did support the policy simply on the basis of transparency because it's important for people to understand what they're consuming. And so that's sort of a generally acceptable principle. However, if we want to actually have stronger population health impact, then we do need to have stronger mechanisms of action. One of the ways that can reduce calories consumed by the consumers, so the sort of demand side, would be some of the interpretive labels. Jean mentioned them earlier. There's now a growing body of evidence of across, particularly in Latin America. I would say some of the strongest evidence began in Chile, but also in Mexico and in other Latin American countries where they've put warning labels on items in order to reduce their consumption. These are typically related to packaged foods is where most of the work has been done. But in order to reduce consumer demand, what it does is rather than expecting people to be sort of doing math problems on the fly, as they go around and make their choices, you're actually just letting them know, well, by the way, this is an item that's very high in calories or saturated fat, or sodium or sugars. Or some combination of those. What that does is you've already helped make that decision for the consumers. You've at least let them know this item has a high level of nutrients of concern. And you can take that away. Conversely, if you have an item that's 487 calories, do you really know what you're going to do with that information? So that's one way to have stronger impact. The other way that that type of policy can have stronger impact is it sets clear thresholds for those warnings. And so, when you have clear thresholds for warnings, you can have a stronger mechanism for reformulation. And what companies may want to do is they may not want to display those warning labels, maybe because it's embarrassing. It makes their candy or whatever the unhealthy food look bad. Sort of an eyesore, which is the point. And what they'll do is they can reformulate those nutrients to lower levels so that they no longer qualify for that regulation. And so there are ways to essentially strengthen both of those mechanisms of action. Whereas when it's simply on the basis of transparency, then what that does is leave all of the decision making and work on the consumer. Mike, this is great because I've worked with colleagues like Gabby Fretes and Sean Cash and others on some menu labeling out of Chile. And we're currently doing some work within the center on food nutrition labels to see how different consumers are responding. There's a lot more work to be done in this space. And, of course, our colleagues at UNC (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) have also been doing this work. So, this work is really important because it tells us how it can help consumers make different choices, and how it can affect how companies behave. My final question to the two of you is simply, what would you like policymakers to learn from this study? Or maybe not just this study alone, but this body of work. What should they take away? Jean - Well, I think there's lots of information out there on how to do food labeling well, and we can certainly learn from that. And Mike talks about the work from South America particularly where they're helping people identify the least healthy products. And they're also providing messaging around what you should do with that - like choose a product with fewer of these black symbols. But I think even if labeling is optimized, it's not really going to solve our problem of dietary related diseases. And I think I always want policymakers to know, and I think many of them do understand this, that there is no one magic solution and we need to be thinking about labeling as part of a strategy that addresses marketing in its entirety, right? Companies are using all sorts of strategies to encourage us to buy products. We need to be thinking of all sorts of strategies to support people to buy different products and to eat better. And I think that focuses on things like rebalancing price, supporting people to afford healthier food, focusing advertising and price promotions on healthier products. And I also think we need to be looking even further upstream though, right? That we need to be thinking about the incentives that are driving companies to make and sell less healthy products. Because I don't think that they particularly want to be selling less healthy products or causing lots of illness. It's those products are helping them achieve their aims of creating profit and growth for their shareholders. And I think we need to find creative ways to support companies to experiment with healthier products that either help them simultaneously achieve those demands of profit or growth. Or somehow allow them to step away from those demands either for a short period or for a longer period. I think that that requires us to kind of relook at how we do business in economics in our countries. Mike? Yes, I think that was a really thorough answer by Jean. So, I'll just add a couple points. I think most fundamentally what we need to think about when we're doing policy making to improve diet is we need to always think about are we helping to make the healthier choice the easier choice? And what that means is we're not implementing policies that merely provide information that then require individuals to do the rest of the work. We need to have a food environment that includes healthier options that are easily accessible, but also affordable. That's one thing that's come through in quite a lot of the work we've done. There are a lot of concerns about the high cost of food. If people feel like the healthier choices are also affordable choices, that's one of many ways to support the easier choice. And I really just want to reiterate what Jean said in terms of the economics of unhealthy food. In many ways, these large multinational corporations are from their perspective, doing right by their shareholders by producing a profitable product. Now there are debates on whether or not that's a good thing, of course. There's quite a lot of evidence for the negative health impacts of ultra-processed (UPF) products, and those are getting a lot more attention these days and that's a good thing. What we do need to think about is why is it that UPFs are so widely consumed. In many ways they are optimized to be over consumed. They're optimized to be highly profitable. Because the ingredients that are involved in their production means that they can add a lot of salt, sugar, and fat. And what that does is lead to overconsumption. We need to think about that there's something fundamentally broken about this incentive structure. That is incentivizing businesses to sell unhealthy food products with these food additives that lead to over consumption, obesity, and the associated comorbidities. And if we can start to make a little progress and think creatively about how could we incentivize a different incentive structure. One where actually it would be in a food business's best interest to be much more innovative and bolder and produce healthier products for everyone. That's something that I think we will have to contend with because if we are thinking that we are only going to be able to restrict our way out of this, then that's very difficult. Because people still need to have healthy alternatives, and so we can't merely think about restricting. We also have to think about how do we promote access to healthier foods. This is great insight. I appreciate the phrasing of making the healthy choice the easy choice, and I also heard a version of this making the healthy choice the affordable choice. But it also seems like we need to find ways to make the healthy choice the profitable choice as well. Bios: Jean Adams is a Professor of Dietary Public Health and leads the Population Health Interventions Programme at the University of Cambridge MRC Epidemiology Unit. Adams trained in medicine before completing a PhD on socio-economic inequalities in health. This was followed by an MRC Health of the Population fellowship and an NIHR Career Development Fellowship both exploring influences on health behaviours and socio-economic inequalities in these. During these fellowships Jean was appointed Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in Public Health at Newcastle University. Jean moved to Cambridge University to join the MRC Epidemiology Unit and CEDAR in 2014 where she helped establish the Dietary Public Health group. She became Programme Leader in the newly formed Population Health Interventions programme in 2020, and was appointed Professor of Dietary Public Health in 2022. Mike Essman is a Research Scientist at Duke University's World Food Policy Center. His background is in evaluating nutrition and food policies aimed at improving diets and preventing cardiometabolic diseases. His work employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore drivers of dietary behavior, particularly ultra-processed food consumption, across diverse environments and countries. Mike earned his PhD in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his research focused on evaluating the impacts of a sugary beverage tax in South Africa. He completed MSc degrees in Medical Anthropology and Global Health Science at the University of Oxford through a fellowship. Prior to joining Duke, he conducted research at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, where he evaluated the impacts of calorie labeling policies in England and led a study examining public perceptions of ultra-processed foods.  

Jeff “Trip” Tripician has played in nearly every sandbox in the meat industry: Conventional animal proteins to claims-based brands, the meat industry's bleeding edge of technology — cultivated meat — to, most recently, a step back in time as CEO of Charcuterie Artisans. In this position, Tripician oversees the storied Daniele and Creminelli brands of salumi and charcuterie.Charcuterie is exploding as a consumer category, spurred on by beautiful images of assembled charcuterie boards on Instagram and TikTok, especially among younger millennials and Gen Z. Boards can be made for large parties, or in grab-and-go packages for individual meals. And Charcuterie Artisans' brands should not get the dreaded “UPF” tag, Tripician contends, because of the centuries-old recipes and techniques used to make them and their lack of industrial additives.Tripician joined MeatingPod to discuss the twists and turns of his career, the state of salumi, charcuterie and cured meats now, and how he expects the sector to develop in the years ahead.Note: In the discussion, Tripician refers to the Dukcevich family, which oversaw the U.S. part of the Daniele brand from 1976 to 2019, and Cristiano Creminelli, who founded his eponymous company in 2006.

This episode breaks down what truly defines an ultra-processed food—from industrial manufacturing and artificial additives, to products stripped of whole-food nutrition. We explore why these foods can be harmful, including their links to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, gut disruption, and chronic inflammation. You'll also hear simple strategies for spotting ultra-processed items and practical ways to shift toward more whole-food choices.Can't get enough FUNC YOU UP!? Follow @michellemiller_msacn, @kbova_nutrition, and @physiologicnyc for more functional nutrition and health. In the meantime, leave us a review on iTunes, follow us on Spotify and share! FUNC YOU UP! is a Physio Logic wellness podcast covering the best in wellness, nutrition, and functional medicine in twenty minutes or less with hosts Michelle Miller, Functional Nutritionist, and Kendra Bova, Functional Medicine Registered Dietitian. https://physiologicnyc.com/func-you-up-podcast #IntegrativeNutrition #FunctionalMedicine #UltraProcessedFoods

Brian P. Sylvester, J.D. is a Partner and Head of Food Regulatory in Morrison Foerster's FDA and Healthcare Regulatory and Compliance Group, and is an influential thought leader and practitioner in food tech regulation. Brian counsels clients across the full lifecycle of regulated products, serving global brands, startups, life sciences companies, investors, and trade associations. In the area of food and beverage, Brian develops regulatory strategies to commercialize a range of food tech innovations, including transgenic crops and alternative proteins, such as cultivated meat and fermentation-derived food ingredients, among others. He has been recognized by several legal industry awards and publications such as Chambers USA, Bloomberg Law, and The National Law Journal. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Brian [35:44] about: State-level food additive regulatory developments since the passage of the California Food Safety Act in October 2023 How the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement is shaping federal food additive and nutrition regulations Challenges and questions that arise from the growing number of state-level food regulations, including legality and constitutionality, implications for interstate commerce, and ensuring compliance Industry responses to FDA's push to phase out synthetic food dyes from the U.S. food supply California's recently passed legislation to establish a legal definition for ultra-processed foods (UPFs), and how it might affect a federally recognized UPF definition to be established in the future Practical recommendations for companies navigating the rapidly evolving U.S. regulatory landscape around food. News and Resources News USDA Indefinitely Delays Enforcement of Salmonella as Adulterant in Raw Breaded, Stuffed Chicken [4:41] Contamination in Infant Formula as Botulism Outbreak Grows; FDA Publishes Inspection Reports [18:38] Unsolved German E. coli Outbreak Grows, Sickening Hundreds [28:52] Codex Commission Adopts New International Food Standards at 48th Session [32:37]Codex Committee Discussions Held at CAC48 Cover Key Fishery Initiatives Resources Ep. 162. Brian Sylvester: How the California Food Safety Act is Shaping U.S. Food Additives Regulation  We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

San Francisco is suing the makers of ultra processed food or UPFs, arguing local government is picking up the bill for the serious health consequences from their products; including conditions like obesity, diabetes, fatty liver disease & cancer. 10 companies including Nestle, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez are targeted in the legal action. Professor Boyd Swinburn from the University of Auckland's school of population health spoke to Lisa Owen.

In this episode, we sit down with integrative oncologist and metabolic health pioneer Dr. Nasha Winters (who insists we call her Nasha) to explore the powerful intersection of cancer, ultra-processed foods, metabolism, and sovereignty. Nasha shares her astonishing personal story: years of dismissed symptoms, normalized suffering, and relentless gaslighting that culminated in a diagnosis of end-stage ovarian cancer at age 19—and being sent home to die. Thirty-four years later, she's very much alive and leading a global movement to rethink cancer as a metabolic, terrain-driven disease rather than a purely genetic accident. We talk about how ultra-processed foods don't just starve our mitochondria—they starve our sovereignty, hijack our decision-making, and fracture our relationship with our own bodies. Along the way, Nasha invites us to move away from perfectionism and fragility and toward aligned, values-based choices and fierce self-responsibility. In this episode, we explore: Nasha's "pain to purpose" story Chronic health issues from infancy through adolescence: PCOS, endometriosis, autoimmune issues, RA, IBS, thyroid dysfunction, and more—constantly normalized and medicated. Being diagnosed with end-stage ovarian cancer at 19, with full bowel obstruction, organ failure, metastasis, and "3 months to live." How being sent home to die became the catalyst for asking "Why?" and beginning her life's work. A metabolic and psychological reset Why a prolonged period of fasting (due to bowel obstruction) functioned as an unplanned metabolic intervention. How an accidental very high-dose psilocybin experience in 1991 fundamentally changed her perspective, reduced her fear of death, and gave her a will to live. The insight that cancer is not just genetic—but deeply tied to environment, metabolism, trauma, and disconnection from nature. Cancer as an ecosystem, not a battlefield What Nasha means by seeing the body as an ecosystem instead of a war zone. How we are in constant relationship with our internal and external environments—our bodies, food systems, and the land all reflecting each other. Ultra-processed foods and cancer terrain Why ultra-processed foods are "as genetically mismatched as it gets" for humans. How UPFs impact all the hallmarks of cancer—driving inflammation, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and brain hijacking. The role of emulsifiers, preservatives, seed oils, and other additives in damaging the gut, microbiome, and immune surveillance. Why "a little" ultra-processed food isn't neutral for people with a vulnerable system—and why in her oncology population, UPF often has to be all-or-nothing. Metabolic sovereignty vs. perfectionism Nasha's powerful idea that UPFs don't just starve our mitochondria—they starve our sovereignty. What it means to choose health as alignment, not achievement. How social pressure, cultural norms, and "moderation" language rob people of agency. Practical examples of reclaiming sovereignty: bringing your own wine, your own safe foods, and modeling a different way without preaching. Working with food addiction and emotional eating (without shame) How she meets people gently where they are, especially those whose only "comfort" has been food. "Upgrading" comfort foods and using cooking and eating as a creative, relational, and communal act rather than a shame-based one. Her boundary as a clinician: "I'm not willing to work harder than you." How that shifted outcomes and reduced codependency. Community, clinicians, and doing this together How she used farmers' markets and health-food store "field trips" as non-shaming education: reading labels together, swapping recipes, and making it fun. Seasonal group cleanses and experiments that removed UPFs without moralizing and re-connected people to real food. Justice, food deserts, and real solutions Stories from working in Indigenous and low-resource communities and helping reintroduce native seeds and traditional foodways. The Food-as-Medicine movement: projects like FreshRx, where CSA boxes for people with type 2 diabetes significantly lowered A1C and healthcare costs. Why she believes, increasingly, that the resources are there—and the work now is connection, awareness, and community organizing. A hopeful vision for the next 5 years Policy shifts around dietary guidelines and school food. Regenerative agriculture movements, farmer-led organizations, and bringing environmental, metabolic, mental health, and food systems together under one roof. Her dream project: a 1,200-acre regenerative farm, intentional community, and metabolic oncology hospital in Arizona. One small step you can take this week Start with non-judgmental awareness: a simple food and feeling diary. Her "triage" before reaching for UPFs: Big glass of water A bit of protein A bit of fat Then the UPF if you still truly want it—no self-punishment. How small wins ("I didn't eat the thing") build fierceness and confidence over time. Our signature question What Nasha would tell her younger self about ultra-processed foods: "I'm choosing health as alignment, not as achievement." Using food choices to align with who you really are and who you're becoming, rather than chasing perfection or performance. Connect with Dr. Nasha Winters Website, offerings, and clinician training: DrNasha.com Podcast: Metabolic Matters Social: Dr. Nasha / Nasha Winters across platforms Facebook Instagram Book: Metabolic Approach to Cancer: Integrating Deep Nutrition, The Ketogenic Diet, and Nontoxic Bio-Individualized Therapies   The content of our show is educational only. It does not supplement or supersede your healthcare provider's professional relationship and direction. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified mental health providers with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, substance use disorder, or mental health concern.

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.

In this episode, Laura speaks with three-time stage-four cancer survivor Paloma Soledad, the creator of Luxcare Clothing—chemical-free, Sun-safe, adaptive, and sustainably made pieces designed for women in cancer treatment and recovery. Paloma shares her story of immunotherapy, lymphedema, and living in a post-cancer body, and how her background in fashion led her to create clothing that honors both comfort and beauty.   Topics include: • How cancer inspired her slow-fashion brand • The hidden chemicals in fabrics and why they matter for survivors • UPF 50+ fabrics and sun safety during treatment • The emotional impact of clothing during recovery • Meditation, healing, and living fully after cancer   Listen now + shop Luxcare Clothing: Website: https://www.luxcare-clothing.com/   Instagram https://www.instagram.com/luxcareclothing/   YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@luxcareclothing   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LuxCareClothing   Let's Connect! If this episode helped you breathe a little easier, please share it with a friend or leave a review. Every share helps spread this message of hope, healing, and whole-person wellness.

The new Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods offers a striking insight: as UPFs rise globally, traditional whole-food diets decline—bringing nutrient imbalance, overeating, toxic exposures, and hyper-palatable formulations that quietly reshape health trajectories.

Send us a textI unpack what “ultra-processed” really means, why these foods are so easy to overeat, what the best evidence shows (including metabolic-ward studies), and how I personally navigate them without fear or perfectionism. Key topics & evidence (in plain English):What counts as “ultra-processed”? I walk through the NOVA system—useful, not perfect—and where borderline items (frozen meals, boxed mixes) fit. See an overview of NOVA classifications here. How we got here: post-WWII abundance of refined flour, cheap sugars, oils, and a cultural push for convenience—now ~60% of the U.S. diet comes from UPFs (study). Additives: stabilizers, emulsifiers, preservatives, and colors are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). I explain why, on their own, they're probably not the main health issue. The bigger problem: UPFs are energy-dense, engineered for bliss (fat/sugar/salt + perfect texture), and easy to eat quickly—driving higher calorie intake.  • Metabolic-ward crossover trial: +~508 kcal/day when participants ate UPFs vs minimally processed (Cell 2019). • Overweight adults in a crossover design: +~814 kcal/day on the UPF week (PubMed). • Another recent crossover RCT reports ~300 kcal/day higher on UPFs (Nature Medicine 2025). What I recommend (and what I do):Prioritize whole foods most of the time; shop the perimeter; cook when you can. Canned tomatoes/beans and frozen fruits/peas are fine helpers. If weight, diabetes, or blood pressure are concerns, be extra cautious with UPFs—they're designed to be irresistible and calorie-dense. Moderation wins: I enjoy favorites (yes, even boxed mac 'n' cheese and crunchy peanut butter) without letting them dominate my plate. Takeaways you can use today:Build meals around minimally processed proteins, veggies, fruits, and beans; let convenience items support—not star—in your diet. Watch “calorie-dense + easy to overeat” combos (chips, sweets, fast food). If you have them, portion once, then put the package away. If symptoms or inflammation are puzzling you, try a short UPF-light experiment (2–4 weeks) and see how you feel. If this episode helped, please follow and leave a quick review—and share it with a friend who's curious about UPFs. For my newsletter and resources, visit drbobbylivelongandwell.com.

Join us for an insightful conversation with Brian Zieroth, Senior Program Manager at the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at Y-12. Discover the pivotal role UPF plays in supporting the nation's nuclear deterrent and global security missions. Brian shares the challenges and triumphs of modernizing uranium processing capabilities, emphasizing the importance of safety and innovation. With construction set to complete in 2027, UPF is poised to be a cornerstone of national security infrastructure. Don't miss this deep dive into a project that ensures our strategic deterrent remains robust and reliable.Brian is the senior project manager for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a plant designed to replace older, outdated facilities and meet modern safety and environmental standards. He is responsible for all engineering, procurement, construction, and startup activities. He has nearly 30 years' experience with Bechtel, and is a Bechtel Principal Vice President. Brian brings diverse industry experience to his leadership role for the UPF project. He has held project management roles of increasing responsibility at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Project (CMRR) at Los Alamos National Laboratory, UPF, and as Director for Enterprise Line-Item Projects at Consolidated Nuclear Security, where he provided oversight for the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, TX. In 2022, he became area project manager for the main processing building at UPF, before being named to his current role in 2024.He joined Bechtel in 1997 in the Information Systems and Technology group for Bechtel Enterprises. In 2003, he became deputy IS&T manager on the Iraq reconstruction project in Baghdad. In 2006, he moved to the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project in Idaho. He was then named plant automation manager at the Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant in 2010 and chief information officer at WTP in 2012.Socials:Follow on Twitter at @NucleCastFollow on LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/nuclecastpodcastSubscribe RSS Feed: https://rss.com/podcasts/nuclecast-podcast/Rate: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nuclecast/id1644921278Email comments and topic/guest suggestions to NucleCast@anwadeter.org

Full shownotes, transcript and resources here: https://soundbitesrd.com/296                   Are processed foods truly undermining our health, or are they an essential part of a safe, nutritious, and affordable food supply? Should the way we classify foods based on processing outweigh decades of national dietary guidelines—or are these systems flawed from the start? And what happens to public health policy when decisions hinge on classifications that may not be scientifically sound? Tune in to this episode to learn more about: ·       how UPFs are defined ·       the NOVA classification system ·       how much of our diet is UPF ·       benefits of UPFs in the diet ·       how and why the current public discourse on UPFs is “superficial” ·       growing global distrust of science ·       how the food industry is responding to criticisms around UPFs ·       actions the food industry has taken to improve products ·       how the food industry gains insights into consumer preferences ·       the roles and responsibilities of food companies to educate and inform consumers ·       collaboration between the food industry and policymakers ·       what the future of UPFs might look like ·       resources for more information 

In this special Fashion Friday episode of Skin Anarchy, Dr. Ekta Yadav sits down with actress-turned-entrepreneur Lois Robbins, founder of WATSKIN, the sun-protective lifestyle brand that proves fashion and function can coexist beautifully.Lois's journey began with a personal health scare that forced her to rethink her relationship with the sun. Diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma and genetically predisposed to melanoma, she was determined to protect her skin without giving up her love for chic, sophisticated style. When she couldn't find options that matched her needs, she designed her own—and strangers quickly began asking where they could buy them. That moment sparked the birth of WATSKIN.Unlike traditional swimwear or activewear, WATSKIN bridges the gap with UPF 50+ designs that feel like a second skin while offering body-inclusive fits and effortless sophistication. From the pool to dinner, each piece is made to transition seamlessly, creating a new category in fashion: stylish sun-protective lifestyle wear.In this episode, Lois opens up about what it takes to build a brand with purpose, the cultural shift toward prioritizing sun safety, and how WATSKIN is reshaping the way we think about skin health and everyday style. She also shares candid lessons from her own entrepreneurial journey—why resilience, curiosity, and the courage to ask the right questions matter most.

Today, Erik sits down with Lois Robbins, founder of WATSKIN—an elevated UPF sunwear brand dedicated to empowering women to enjoy the sun with confidence, without compromising style. After experiencing a skin cancer scare, Lois launched WATSKIN and has since turned it into a household name, revolutionizing UPF clothing to be both chic and sexy. Erik and Lois discuss her journey from diagnosis to entrepreneurship, the inspiration behind the brand, behind-the-scenes stories from Lois' acting career, the meaning behind the name WATSKIN, challenges she's faced along the way, and much more. More about Lois Robbins: Lois is also quite the accomplished actress and producer, best known for her roles in One Life to Live, Loving, Ryan's Hope, and All My Children She is currently in the play, Other Desert Cities at Coachella Valley repertory. Robbins is also actively involved in philanthropic work with the Melanoma Research Alliance, Evelyn H. Lauder's Breast Cancer Center, the Dubin Breast Center, Alzheimer's Drug Foundation, and the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Social Handles: https://www.instagram.com/loisrobbins21/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/watskinofficial/?hl=en Website: https://www.loisrobbins.com/ https://www.watskinsunwear.com/   Is there a guest you want Equalman to interview on the podcast? Do you have any questions you wish you could ask an expert? Send an email to our team: Equalman@equalman.com   5x #1 Bestselling Author and Motivational Speaker Erik Qualman has performed in over 55 countries and reached over 50 million people this past decade. He was voted the 2nd Most Likable Author in the World behind Harry Potter's J.K. Rowling.   Have Erik speak at your conference: eq@equalman.com   Motivational Speaker | Erik Qualman has inspired audiences at FedEx, Chase, ADP, Huawei, Starbucks, Godiva, FBI, Google, and many more on Focus and Digital Leadership.   Learn more at https://equalman.com

Recently a new trial was published in Nature Medicine comparing the effect of ultra-processed versus minimally processed diets. Specifically, the UPDATE trial compared these two diets in the context of a healthy dietary pattern (in line with the UK's EatWell Guide). This eight-week randomized, crossover trial generated a lot of discussion and was largely seen as being a really useful addition to the evidence base, and providing answers to some previously unexamined questions. In this episode the study's lead author, Dr. Samuel Dicken, explains the background context for the UPDATE trial, provides an insight into its execution, and puts some of the results in context. There is also a discussion about the current state of evidence more broadly and the leading hypotheses around the mechanisms that drive the observations seen with consuming ultra-processed foods. This episode is particularly noteworthy because it provides fresh evidence on an important question: does following dietary guidelines with minimally processed foods confer extra benefits over following the same guidelines with ultra-processed foods? Timestamps [02:48] Interview with Dr. Samuel Dicken [03:08] Background and research interests of Dr. Samuel Dicken [04:31] Details of the update trial [09:48] Trial design and methodology [15:45] Results and findings of the update trial [18:46] Secondary outcomes and craving control [25:43] Hypotheses and mechanisms behind UPF effects [40:28] Policy implications and future research directions Related Resources Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Go to episode page Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course Study: Dicken et al., 2025 – Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial LinkedIn: Samuel Dicken X: @SamuelDickenUK

Articles about food and eating are always the most read and circulated – let's run through the food news headlines!

Dr. Vera Tarman sits down with Dr. Bart Kay—former professor of health sciences turned “nutrition science watchdog”—to unpack a big, practical question for people in recovery from ultra-processed food use: If sugar needs to go, what about other carbs? And where does dietary fat fit in? We explore Dr. Kay's perspective on the Randle (Randall) cycle, insulin resistance, mixed macro diets, seed oils, ketogenic/carnivore patterns, and real-world considerations for folks with sugar/UPF addiction who struggle to “moderate.” We also discuss staged change (don't flip your diet overnight), what “abstainer vs. moderator” can mean in food recovery, and how to keep any nutrition experiment aligned with your health team and your recovery plan. What we cover The “Randle cycle,” plain-English: why mixing higher carbs and higher fats may worsen metabolic friction, and why choosing one dominant fuel is central to Dr. Kay's model. Insulin resistance re-framed: why Dr. Kay views it as a protective cellular response (his position) and how that informs low-carb/carnivore advocacy. Carbs in recovery: “quit sugar” vs. “how low is low?”—Dr. Kay's thresholds (e.g., ≤50 g/day unlikely to cause problems in his view) and why many with UPF addiction do better with abstinence than moderation. Fats & satiety: why dietary fat often increases fullness cues; practical guardrails; “can you eat too much fat or protein?” Seed oils: Dr. Kay's strong critique of industrial seed oils and his inflammation concerns. Cholesterol worries on low-carb/carnivore: why lipid numbers may rise and how Dr. Kay interprets A1C and lipid changes (controversial; see note below). GLP-1s, metformin & meds: Dr. Kay's take on drug mechanisms vs. root-cause nutrition changes. Change management: why he recommends a 4–6 week ramp instead of an overnight switch to very low-carb/carnivore; supporting thyroid, energy, and the microbiome while you transition. Recovery lens: abstainer vs. moderator, harm-reduction steps when “only food will regulate,” and building a plan that supports mental health and addiction recovery. Key takeaways Abstinence can be a kindness. If you're a “can't moderate sugar” person, treating sugar/UPFs as an abstinence-worthy trigger can protect your recovery. Don't crash-diet your microbiome. If you're experimenting with lower-carb or carnivore, step down over 4–6 weeks with plenty of electrolytes, hydration, and support. Pick a lane with macros. In Dr. Kay's model, mixing higher carbs with higher fats is the most metabolically problematic; choosing one dominant fuel source may reduce friction. Numbers are data, not destiny. Lipids and A1C can shift on low-carb—interpret changes with a clinician who understands your whole picture (medical history, meds, symptoms, goals). Harm-reduction still counts. If full abstinence isn't feasible today: remove red-light foods first, shrink access, use “pause + plan” tools, and reach out before the binge. About our guest Dr. Bart Kay is a former professor of human physiology, nutrition, and vascular pathophysiology with teaching/research stints in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the US. He's consulted for elite sport and defense organizations and now educates the public on YouTube as a self-described nutrition myth-buster. One of his core topics is the Randle cycle and its implications for diet composition. Dr. Kay's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Professor-Bart-Kay-Nutrition   The content of our show is educational only. It does not supplement or supersede your healthcare provider's professional relationship and direction. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified mental health providers with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, substance use disorder, or mental health concern.

IQBAR is offering our special podcast listeners 20% OFF all IQBAR products, plus get FREE shipping. To get your 20% off, text VANESSA to 64000. That's VANESSA to sixty-four thousand. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. In today's episode, Vanessa sits down with Dr. Samuel Dicken, Research Fellow at University College London's Centre for Obesity Research and lead author of the UPDATE Trial — the longest and most rigorous clinical study to date comparing ultra-processed (UPF) vs. minimally processed (MPF) diets. This landmark trial revealed a game-changing finding:

We all want more energy — but what if your fatigue isn't about sleep, diet, or exercise at all? In this solo episode, Darin O'Lien uncovers the invisible drains on your vitality that most people never notice. From blue light to toxic relationships, hidden mold, micro-stress loops, EMF exposure, and even unresolved trauma stored in your body, Darin reveals how your life force is being stolen — and how to take it back. You'll learn the overlooked ways your time, attention, and biology are constantly depleted — and the exact SuperLife Energy Seal Protocol Darin uses to plug those leaks, reclaim his vitality, and live fully charged.     What You'll Learn in This Episode 00:00 – Introduction & Episode Overview Darin introduces the concept of hidden energy leaks and why most fatigue isn't just about lack of sleep. 03:05 – Energy Deposits vs. Withdrawals How every interaction, choice, and environment either builds or depletes your life force. 04:33 – The Overlooked Energy Drains The most common — and invisible — ways energy slips away without your awareness. 06:58 – Blue Light & Circadian Rhythm Disruption The science of how nighttime screen use suppresses melatonin and wrecks your sleep quality. 09:06 – Ultra-Processed Foods & Energy Impact Why “dead calorie” foods cause fatigue and how to build an energy-supportive plate. 11:33 – Hydration & Water Quality Why dehydration is the #1 cause of fatigue, and the importance of filtering and mineralizing your water. 15:06 – Micro-Stress Loops & Mental Background Apps How unresolved thoughts quietly drain your energy — and how to shut them down. 17:28 – Toxic Relationships & Social Friction The measurable toll hostile interactions take on your health and recovery. 19:10 – Indoor Air Quality & Mold Exposure How unseen environmental toxins mimic chronic fatigue symptoms. 21:27 – EMF Exposure & Device Overload The overlooked stressor disrupting your sleep, nervous system, and cellular health. 23:14 – Stillness Breaks & Nature Time The proven stress-relieving effects of short nature “pills” and mindfulness pauses. 25:41 – Past Trauma & Recapitulation How unresolved experiences trap your life force — and the Toltec method to reclaim it. 30:39 – The SuperLife Energy Seal Protocol Darin's complete daily checklist to stop leaks and recharge vitality. 33:08 – Darin's Daily Rituals How he integrates energy-protective practices into his everyday life. 35:33 – Closing Thoughts Why energy isn't something you gain — it's what's left when you stop the leaks.     Thank You to Our Sponsors: Fatty15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/DARIN and using code DARIN at checkout. Therasage: Go to www.therasage.com and use code DARIN at checkout for 15% off     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolienPodcast: superlife.com/podcastsWebsite: superlife.comBook: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway "Energy isn't something you get — it's what remains when you stop the leaks."      Bibliography · Chang AM et al. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders… PNAS, 2015. · Hall KD et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake… Cell Metabolism, 2019. · Ganio MS et al. Mild dehydration impairs vigilance… Br J Nutr, 2011. · McEwen BS. Allostatic load and stress physiology. Ann NY Acad Sci, 1999. · Kiecolt-Glaser JK et al. Hostile behavior slows wound healing… Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2005. · CDC/NIOSH. Health problems in damp buildings. · Satish U et al. CO₂ and decision-making. Environ Health Perspect, 2012. · WHO. Electromagnetic fields and public health. · Hunter MCR et al. Nature pill and stress relief. Front Psychol, 2019. · Levine P. Somatic experiencing and trauma discharge. PubMed, 2012. · · Somatic trauma & release: Levine P. Waking the Tiger; “Trauma creates a permanent imprint… the body can be retrained to discharge it.” (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) · · Recapitulation (Toltec lineage): Ruiz DM. The Four Agreements; narrative recounting as energy reclamation. (Ancestral wisdom, narrative psychology) · · Narrative therapy integration: White M. “Externalizing the problem, reclaiming identity.” (Case-based evidence, therapeutic outcomes) · · (And prior citations as listed—circadian, UPF, hydration, air, mindfulness, social, EMF, stillness—remain intact.)

Story at-a-glance People with the highest consumption of ultraprocessed foods had a 23% higher risk of developing psoriasis compared to those who ate the least, based on a 12-year study of 121,019 participants Replacing just 5% of UPFs with unprocessed foods lowered psoriasis risk by 14%, and replacing 20% dropped it by 18%, making this a powerful prevention strategy Seed oils and additives in UPFs fuel chronic inflammation and increase body mass index (BMI) — two factors that significantly raise your chances of developing autoimmune skin disorders like psoriasis If you're genetically at risk for psoriasis, eating a high-UPF diet increases your likelihood of developing the condition by 2.7 times compared to those with low genetic risk and low UPF intake Reducing seed oil intake and restoring vitamin D levels through safe sun exposure or supplementation helps repair immune function and strengthens your skin's natural defenses