Podcasts about upfs

uk secrets gut health intermittent fasting nutrition myths rhi upfs

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 15, 2026 48:16

This week we're answering your biggest nutrition questions with Professor Sarah Berry, one of the UK's leading nutritional scientists. Together we break down how to really understand UPFs, what the science says about seed oils and how to spot the healthier options, and the simple everyday principles that genuinely support how you feel. We dive into gut health and why diet diversity matters, the myths surrounding glucose, whether intermittent fasting is useful, and the truth about everything from plant points to low-fat foods. It's a clear, practical, myth-busting conversation designed to cut through the confusion and help you feel confident in your everyday choices. Recommendations: Teasy Tea Infuser ⁠Order your copy of Ella's new book: ⁠⁠⁠Quick Wins: Healthy Cooking for Busy Lives⁠⁠⁠ Pre-order your copy of Rhi's upcoming book: ⁠⁠⁠The Fibre Formula⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

E290: Grading the Biggest US Grocery Stores on Healthy Offerings

The Leading Voices in Food

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 15, 2026 39:13

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.

university canada australia europe uk science france action mexico americans society africa food michigan european healthy european union new zealand south africa nutrition policy walmart republicans companies netherlands democrats chile maine boy philippines indonesia kenya retail belgium fda coca cola sort twelve ghana costco groceries consumers oxford university mph ngos msc hygiene london school grading offerings grocery stores pepsico kenyan groundbreaking kroger tufts university drug administration eighty environmental studies program coordinator wesleyan university tropical medicine world trade organization public interest biden harris administration food policy global public health nutri score upf waterville applied nutrition upfs ahold delhaize food lion maine medical center science department cspi children uk carrefours

1220: Industry Influence Behind New Dietary Guidelines

The Nutrition Diva's Quick and Dirty Tips for Eating Well and Feeling Fabulous

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 11:43

'New Dietary Guidelines Were Written by Authors With Strong Ties to the Food Industry' and 'Dietary Guidelines Are a Mixed Bag, Show Industry Influence, Says Physicians Committee' The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans were written by authors with strong ties to the food industry (at least 7 of 9!) and they sidestepped longstanding federal legal protections by ignoring the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's recent scientific report and relying instead on the recommendations of a hastily assembled panel of industry insiders, without any oversight or input by the public. Listen to today's episode from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine at PCRM.org #vegan #plantbased #plantbasedbriefing #DGA #dietaryguidelines #industryinfluence #carnivore #maha #UPFs #processedfoods #naturalfoods #realfood #healthyprocessedfoods ================== Original post: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-dietary-guidelines-were-written-authors-strong-ties-food-industry-doctors https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/dietary-guidelines-are-mixed-bag-show-industry-influence-says-physicians ================== Related Episodes: 966: Prioritizing Plant-Based Protein in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines https://sites.libsyn.com/342677/966-prioritizing-plant-based-protein-in-the-2025-2030-dietary-guidelines-from-pcrmorg ====================== The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Neal Barnard, combining the clout and expertise of more than 12,000 physicians, dietitians, and scientists and almost 200,000 members worldwide. They're changing the way doctors treat chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and cancer - putting prevention over pills,and empowering patients to take control of their own health. And since 1985, the Physicians Committee has worked tirelessly for alternatives to the use of animals in medical education and research, and for more effective scientific methods. The Physicians Committee is dedicated to saving and improving human and animal lives through plant-based diets and ethical and effective scientific research. ============================== FOLLOW THE SHOW ON: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@plantbasedbriefing Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2GONW0q2EDJMzqhuwuxdCF?si=2a20c247461d4ad7 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plant-based-briefing/id1562925866 Your podcast app of choice: https://pod.link/1562925866 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PlantBasedBriefing LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/plant-based-briefing/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plantbasedbriefing/

spotify americans influence original food industry mixed bag dga dietary guidelines neal barnard physicians committee responsible medicine upfs pcrm dietary guidelines advisory committee

Ep. 209. Helena Bottemiller Evich: The MAHA Effect on American Food Policy

Food Safety Matters

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2026 51:45

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

covid-19 founders news americans white house bbc cnn cbs npr fda msnbc trump administration politico nbc news maha james beard award contention shortcomings dietary guidelines food policy american food columbia journalism review george polk award upfs food fix helena bottemiller evich cronobacter

Nutrition's Year in Review: Trends of 2025 and what's coming in 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 31, 2025 9:31

845. A look back at the biggest food and nutrition trends of the last year, plus, a glimpse into my crystal ball.Related episodes:735 - A provocative new study on ultra-processed foods789 - The surprising links between UPFs and diet quality827 - Toxic tea bags? Sorting fact from fear837 - Can healthier soil make food more nutritious? Yes, but…Find a transcript here. New to Nutrition Diva? Check out our special Spotify playlist for a collection of the best episodes curated by our team and Monica herself! We've also curated some great playlists on specific episode topics including Staying Strong as We Age, Diabetes, Weight Loss That Lasts and Gut Health! Also, find a playlist of our bone health series, Stronger Bones at Every Age. Have a nutrition question? Send an email to nutrition@quickanddirtytips.com.Follow Nutrition Diva on Facebook and subscribe to the newsletter for more diet and nutrition tips. Find out about Monica's keynotes and other programs at WellnessWorksHere.comNutrition Diva is a part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

spotify nutrition toxic diabetes gut health sorting simplecast staying strong every age upfs dirty tips nutrition diva

Episodio 89. UPFs: il vero doping legale che mangiamo ogni giorno

Performance 360

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2025 28:06

Bentornati su Performance 360!.In questo episodio, insieme a Federico, affrontiamo un tema scomodo ma fondamentale: gli UPFs (Ultra Processed Foods) e il loro impatto reale su salute, recupero e performance.Non teoria astratta, ma vita quotidiana, scelte concrete e consapevolezza..Parleremo di:

performance cosa perch federico vero doping ogni ascolta parleremo legale bentornati upfs

Ep. 208: Reviewing 2025—A Year of Change for Food Safety Policy

Food Safety Matters

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 23, 2025 91:46

In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we discuss the top food safety stories of 2025 and their implications. We cover: The Trump Administration's impact on federal agencies overseeing food safety [7:52]: FDA, CDC Ordered to Temporarily Pause All External Communications, Obtain Trump Admin Approval RFK Jr. Confirmed as HHS Secretary; Widespread Firings Coming to FDA, CDC USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong Dismissed by Trump Administration Brooke Rollins Confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture, Cites 'Aggressive Plan' to Eliminate USDA Jobs FDA Leader Jim Jones Resigns After 89 'Indiscriminate' Firings in Human Foods Program Attorney Kyle Diamantas Expected to Replace Jim Jones as FDA Deputy Commissioner of Human Foods FDA Spending Freeze Leaves Staffers Feeling 'Dangerously Unprepared' for Next Foodborne Illness Outbreak Federal Workforce Data Reveal Impact of Trump Admin RIFs on USDA Food Safety Expertise More Than 15,000 USDA Employees Take Trump Administration's Resignation Offer FDA Suspends Milk Quality Testing Amid Health and Human Services Cuts Entire Departments of CDC Outbreak Experts Fired, Rehired During Shutdown RIFs FDA Reportedly Reinstating Some Fired Food Safety Scientists, Inspection Support Staff Government Shutdown Affects Food Safety: HHS Furloughs Employees, FDA Pauses CORE Investigation Table Ep. 196. Dr. Lane Highbarger: How the FDA Workforce Cuts May Impact Food Safety Dozens of Prominent Food Safety Stakeholders Call for Reinstatement of NACMCF and NACMPI USDA Withdraws Proposed Regulatory Framework for Salmonella in Poultry After Years of Development USDA Indefinitely Delays Enforcement of Salmonella as Adulterant in Raw Breaded, Stuffed Chicken CDC Slashes FoodNet Surveillance From Eight Foodborne Pathogens to Two Public Health Professionals, Groups Demand Resignation of HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Trump-Appointed CDC Director Dr. Susan Monarez Fired After Clashes With Secretary Kennedy RFK Jr.'s Second in Command Named CDC Acting Director Following Sudden Firing Federal Layoffs to Hit HHS Amid Government Shutdown, May Affect Food Safety Staffers FDA Delays FSMA 204 Traceability Rule Compliance Date by 30 Months States and the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement declare war on "toxic" food chemicals and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) [27:52]: FDA Announces Plan to Phase Out Synthetic, Petroleum-Based Food Dyes From U.S. Food Supply Bonus Episode: Diamantas and Choiniere: FDA Focuses on Produce Safety, MAHA, Culture, and More MAHA Report Sets Stage for Overhaul of Food Chemicals, Environmental Contaminants, and Childhood Nutrition What the Final MAHA Report Could Mean for Food Safety FDA Announces 'Proactive' Post-Market Chemical Review Program to Keep Food Supply Safe FDA Adds Six Artificial Food Dyes to List of Chemicals Under Post-Market Review FDA to Issue Proposed Rule Tightening GRAS Oversight FDA's Developing Rule to Tighten GRAS Oversight Moves to White House FDA, USDA Issue Joint RFI to Address the Risks of Ultra-Processed Foods California Enacts Law Defining Ultra-Processed Foods, Will Ban UPFs in Schools Food Industry Stakeholders Share Input on FDA, USDA's Intent to Define UPFs MAHA Pushback Kills 'Big Food'-Aligned Legislative Effort to Stop State Food Laws Industry Giants Support New Coalition Aimed at Stopping MAHA-Aligned State Food Additive Bans More Than 80 Groups Urge Congress Not to Block State Food Additives Bans Ep. 187. Rainer and Coneski: Evolving Legislation Around Food Packaging Chemicals and Additives—Implications for Industry Ep. 199. George Misko: The Future of Food Regulation Under MAHA Ep. 162. Brian Sylvester: How the California Food Safety Act is Shaping U.S. Food Additives Regulation Ep. 207. Brian Sylvester: Preparing for 'MAHA'-Driven Policy Changes on Food Dyes, UPFs, GRAS FDA's focus on infant formula safety and the infant botulism outbreak linked to ByHeart formula [57:44]: FDA Publishes Long-Term Strategy to Increase Resiliency of U.S. Infant Formula Market FDA Launches 'Operation Stork Speed' to Improve Infant Formula Safety, Including Contaminant Testing Infants Nationwide Hospitalized With Botulism After Consuming ByHeart Formula ByHeart Outbreak Grows: 31 Infants in 15 States Hospitalized for Botulism From Tainted Formula Infant Botulism Spike Exceeds 100 Cases, Extent of ByHeart's Involvement Unclear A History of Food Safety Failures at ByHeart, the Formula Company Behind Infant Botulism Outbreak ByHeart Finds Widespread Contamination in Infant Formula as Botulism Outbreak Grows; FDA Publishes Inspection Reports Coalition Urges RFK Jr. to Fix Infant Formula Oversight Problems that Allowed Infant Botulism Outbreak FDA Urges Industry to Improve Recall Efficiency After Delay in Removing ByHeart Formula from Stores Emerging science on Listeria monocytogenes and biofilms [1:08:26]: Study Shows Water Hoses as Reservoirs for Biofilms in Food Processing Facilities Study Demonstrates Listeria's Ability to Colonize, Survive in Preexisting Multispecies Biofilms First-of-its-Kind Study Shows How Listeria Strains Evolve Into Strong Biofilm Formers Study Explores Sanitizer Limitations Against Listeria Biofilms in Leafy Greens Production Listeria From Multispecies Biofilms More Prone to Growth in RTE Foods, Study Shows Study Shows Combining Antimicrobial Blue Light and Chemical Sanitizers Can Enhance Listeria Inactivation FAO/WHO Developing Risk Assessment Models for Listeria in Four Food Commodity Groups The ongoing Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 (HPAI H5N1) outbreak in U.S. dairy cattle and poultry flocks and continued monitoring to ensure food safety [1:14:09]: California Declares State of Emergency Over HPAI H5N1 Outbreak in Dairy Cows USDA Begins Five-Part National Milk Testing Strategy for HPAI H5N1 USDA Extends H5N1 Testing in Dairy Cattle; EU Releases Guidance on Avian Flu Prevention CDC: Avoid Consuming Raw Milk, as Risk of Bird Flu Infection is Low but Possible FDA-Backed Study Shows Aging Raw Milk Cheese Does Not Inactivate Avian Flu, but Low pH Helps Study Shows Avian Flu Does Not Pose Food Safety Risk in Various Pasteurized Dairy Products USDA to Invest in Farm Biosecurity, Chicken Vaccinations to Combat Avian Influenza Study Shows Acidification is Inexpensive, Easy Way to Inactivate Bird Flu in Raw Waste Milk FDA Now Requires Raw Pet Food Manufacturers to Consider HPAI in Food Safety Plans House Cat Dies After Eating Raw Pet Food Contaminated With HPAI H5N1 FDA-Backed Study Shows Aging Raw Milk Cheese Does Not Inactivate Avian Flu, but Low pH Helps H5N1 and the Growing Risk to Food Safety—Why Raw Milk Requires Special Attention FDA Begins Testing Assignment for HPAI H5N1 in Aged Raw Cow Milk Cheese FAO Encourages All Countries to Monitor for HPAI H5N1 Spread to Cattle Dutch Field Studies Show Promise for Two Experimental Avian Flu H5N1 Vaccines Federal Workforce Data Reveal Impact of Trump Admin RIFs on USDA Food Safety Expertise Growing artificial intelligence (AI) applications for food safety [1:17:57]: FAO Report Highlights Needs for Responsible AI Adoption in Food Safety Fields FDA Announces Completion of First AI-Assisted Scientific Review Pilot and Agency-Wide AI Rollout Timeline Using AI, Researchers Offer Promising Real-Time Mycotoxin Detection Method for Foods Big Data, AI, and the Coming Philosophical Challenges with Food Safety Welcome to the Machine: AI and Potential Implications for the Food Industry Ep. 193. Christian Ararat: A Global Perspective on Auditing, Certifications, AI, and Beyond Ep. 205. Black and Gabor: Digital Transformation and Emerging International Standards for Food Safety We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

2025 Highlights, Red Light Masks, Our Daily Rituals

masks red light daily rituals upfs

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2025 43:20

This week we're closing out the year with the moments that shaped 2025; the trends that genuinely made a difference, the habits that stuck and the simple rituals our whole community kept coming back to. From red light masks and fibre-maxxing to the wellness shifts that actually felt doable, we're sharing what mattered most and why it resonated. We're also diving into your end-of-year questions, from navigating UPFs and building easy plant-forward meals to creating cosy evening rituals and figuring out which habits are really worth prioritising. It's a practical, honest look at what helped us feel grounded this year and the small anchors we're taking with us into 2026. Grab your copy of Ella's new book 'Quick Wins' - out today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Posting calorie counts on menus should be just one strategy of many

The Leading Voices in Food

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2025 33:30

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.

Ep. 297: Engineered to Eat: The Hidden World of UPFs

FUNC YOU UP!

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2025 19:42

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

Ep. 207. Brian Sylvester: Preparing for 'MAHA'-Driven Policy Changes on Food Dyes, UPFs, GRAS

Food Safety Matters

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2025 70:45

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

Companies making ultra processed food sued in the US

RNZ: Checkpoint

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 4, 2025 9:20

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.

university health san francisco food companies coca cola pepsi auckland sued nestle processed food kraft heinz mondelez upf upfs lisa owen

Food, Mood and the 2026 Wellness Trends to Watch!

mood glp wellness trends upfs

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2025 55:59

This week we're unpacking the stories shaping long-term health, from the latest research on ultra-processed foods to the global rise in childhood blood pressure. We look at a major new study linking UPFs to early bowel polyps in women under 50, what the data actually shows and what practical changes matter day to day. We also explore why hypertension in children has almost doubled over the past twenty years, what's driving the trend, and the small, realistic habits that help protect heart health from early life. Alongside the big stories, we dive into two smaller but fascinating pieces of research: how gallery visits can lower cortisol and inflammation, and why speaking more than one language might help slow biological ageing. We pick up on last week's GLP-1 discussion with a thought-provoking piece from The Cut on emotional blunting, appetite and pleasure, and round things off with the seven wellness trends set to shape 2026 including bone health, creatine, fibre, tech boundaries, cellular health and infrared workouts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

EP 73: Decoding Consumers' Food Behaviors, African Food Trend Heats Up, A Food Scientist Processes Nova and UPFs | BEST OF 2025

Omnivore

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2025 44:01

In this “Best of 2025” episode of Omnivore, Food Technology revisits the top food science and thought leader interviews of the year. June Jo Lee explains how food ethnography works and how it can help food companies anticipate the kinds of culture shifts that will shape the marketplace in the years ahead. We chat with … Continue reading EP 73: Decoding Consumers' Food Behaviors, African Food Trend Heats Up, A Food Scientist Processes Nova and UPFs | BEST OF 2025 →

african behavior consumers decoding processes heats food trends omnivores food scientists food technology upfs

Episode 257: Dr. Nasha Winters - Cancer, UPFs, and Metabolic Healing

The Women's Running Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2025 54:13

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.

Ep 6. Am I Nuts... to worry about UPFs

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2025 43:25

Welcome to the second series of Am I Nuts. This is the sixth episode in a series of ten weekly podcasts from us at the Women's Running podcast. I am your host Esther Newman, and she is your other host Holly Taylor. In this series, we wanted to explore some of the things that we've talked about on our big podcast – that's the Women's Running podcast – that don't necessarily have anything to do with running. Hol and I are natural born worriers, and we've realized that in almost every episode, we talk about at least one of those worries – and we also realized that with many of them, we've thought we were the only ones. We thought we were nuts. If you have something you think we should talk about, then please email us at wrpodcast@anthem.co.ukUltra processed foodsWe're talking about ultra processed foods, otherwise known as UPFs – are they the devil incarnate? Can we avoid them? Should we be as worried as the media is making us?Thank you so much for listening. Do please like and subscribe, so that you'll be first to know when the next episode in this special series dropsAm I Nuts has been brought to you by the Women's Running podcast – do please check it out wherever you listen to your podcasts for longer episodes to keep you company while you run. And if running is your thing, or you'd like it to be your thing, check out Women's Running magazine – right now you can save up to 50% off the cover price. Just go to shop.womensrunning.co.uk to find out more. LinksFind out more about the food you're buying at Open Food Facts – you can download the app Holly talks about there. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

women running worry acast nuts hol upfs holly taylor

UPFs, Diets, Disease: The Global Drift

Dr. Baliga's Internal Medicine Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2025 6:26

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.

global disease diets drift upf upfs

Episode 256: Dr. Erica LaFata - Diagnosing Ultra-Processed Food Addiction with FASI

RNZ: Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2025 54:54

On this episode of the Food Junkies Podcast, we welcome back Dr. Erica LaFata to dive into her groundbreaking work developing the Food Addiction Severity Interview (FASI) — a clinician-administered diagnostic tool modeled after the SCID alcohol use disorder module and adapted for ultra-processed foods. Building on self-report tools like the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) and mYFAS, Erica explains why the field urgently needs a structured clinical interview to validate ultra-processed food addiction as a distinct psychiatric presentation and move toward formal recognition in the DSM. Together, we explore the nuance at the intersection of eating disorders and ultra-processed food addiction: where they overlap, where they diverge, and how mislabeling can harm people on both sides. Erica unpacks key addiction mechanisms like withdrawal and tolerance, the risks of false positives and false negatives in screening, and what clinicians should be listening for when trying to tell restrictive eating, binge eating, and addictive patterns apart – especially in youth, men, and other under-researched groups. The conversation also gets practical and hopeful: we talk about the competencies therapists, dietitians, coaches, and other practitioners need before working with ultra-processed food addiction; the tension between abstinence and harm reduction; the "volume addiction" question; and how orthorexia and the "health halo" of protein bars and high-protein UPFs can quietly hijack recovery. Erica closes by sharing how FASI data could inform future public policy and regulation of ultra-processed foods without fueling weight stigma – and gives an exciting update on the DSM submission process for ultra-processed food addiction as a condition for further study. In this episode, we discuss: Why self-report tools (YFAS, mYFAS) were a crucial first step—and why a clinician-administered interview like FASI is the necessary next one How FASI was modeled after the SCID alcohol use disorder module and adapted for ultra-processed foods The core addiction mechanisms (loss of control, withdrawal, tolerance, consequences) and how they show up with ultra-processed foods Key differences between traditional eating disorder frameworks ("all foods fit," no good/bad foods) and an addiction lens focused on specific ultra-processed foods What many food addiction coaches and practitioners may be missing without formal substance use or eating disorder training False positives vs false negatives in food addiction screens—and why missed cases (false negatives) are especially concerning How FASI uses follow-up questions to differentiate restriction, binge eating, and true addictive patterns What we know (and still don't know) about ultra-processed food addiction across sex, age, BMI, and developmental stages Early exposure in childhood and adolescence as a potential public health crisis for lifelong addictive responses to ultra-processed foods The high overlap between binge-type eating disorders (BED, bulimia nervosa) and food addiction—and what to prioritize in treatment "Volume addiction": whether what we call "addicted to volume" may actually be binge eating disorder in disguise Orthorexia, "clean eating," and the health halo of protein bars, high-protein snacks, and dressed-up "safe" foods The tension between abstinence-based and harm reduction approaches for ultra-processed foods, and why different strategies may work for different people How clinician bias (diet culture, anti-addiction frameworks, or rigid abstinence views) can affect assessment—and how FASI creates room for nuance How FASI and future data could support DSM recognition, inform policy, SNAP and marketing regulations, and reduce shame by naming ultra-processed food addiction as real and treatable A hopeful update on the DSM application for ultra-processed food addiction as a condition for further study

building false snap bed bmi diagnosing dsm processed food food addiction orthorexia fasi upfs scid

Ultra Processed Food - what should we be eating instead?

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2025 10:20

Yesterday on the show we started a conversation with Professor Boyd Swinburn about ultra processed foods, and new research he has been part of that shows just how damaging these foods are. Lots of you got in touch to say you want to know more about what constitutes as ultra processed and what we should be eating in its place. So today Jesse is joined by registered dietitian and co-founder of The Food Tree Rachael Wilson.

health science food eating processed food upfs

Playback Daily Podcast Thursday 20 November 2025

Playback Daily

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2025 57:40

On this destination Prague edition of PBD: Czechia for your holidays – the play-off draw as it happened Designing our own demise – how UPFs are even worse for us than we thought And four-legged sabotage – car sensor cables chewed on by... something

designing prague playback czechia pbd upfs

The Panel with Denise L'Estrange Corbet and Peter Field, Part 1

RNZ: The Panel

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 19, 2025 24:28

Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Denise L'Estrange Corbet and Peter Field. First up, ultra processed food has been linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body. That's according to the world's largest review just published in The Lancet. In New Zealand how is our food policy? is it protecting us from UPFs? Then, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that four Uber drivers were employees in a test case, entitling them to benefits such as sick leave, holiday pay and a minimum wage. A win for them, but does this have any implications for future cases?

new zealand uber supreme court panel lancet upfs corbet peter field wallace chapman

#53: Ultra-Processed Foods: How Harmful and Why?

Live Long and Well with Dr. Bobby

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2025 30:14 Transcription Available

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.

english world war ii takeaways foods prioritize healthy eating moderation harmful metabolic overweight gras canned processed food additives pubmed rct upf upfs

Are ultra-processed foods making us ill?

Sensemaker

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2025 9:21

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) make up more than half of all the food we eat in the UK and there are increasing fears about the implications for our health. Host: Ada BaruméWriter & Producer: Amalie SortlandEpisode Photography: Sofia FentonExecutive producer: Katie Gunning Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

uk acast foods processed food upfs

Dr Paul Taylor: Why “Healthy” Foods Are Making You Fat

Lead on Purpose with James Laughlin

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2025 54:28

Order my new book Habits of High Performers here - www.thehabitbook.com What if your health span is shrinking because life got too comfortable?In this episode of Lead on Purpose, I sit down with Dr Paul Taylor to unpack Death by Comfort. We get practical about ultra-processed foods, protein-first meals, and movement habits that rewire your metabolism, brain, and daily energy. Simple, science-backed tools you can use today.We cover:What ultra-processed foods are, the NOVA system, and why supermarket breads and breakfast cereals often mislead.Protein at breakfast, 30 g targets, the 80/20 rule, shopping the perimeter, and keeping “treats” out of the house.Movement that changes your biology: myokines, BDNF, lactate-threshold bursts, movement snacks, and post-meal walks.Making it stick: match exercise to personality, use if-then rules, and model healthy habits for your kids.You will walk away with a clear plan to reduce UPFs, lift protein, move smarter, and build a home environment where better choices become automatic.Listen to Paul's podcast here - https://www.paultaylor.biz/podcastConnect with Paul here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/paultaylor1971/Grab a copy of Paul's book here - https://www.paultaylor.biz/booksLearn more about Paul here -https://www.paultaylor.bizIf you're interested in having me deliver a keynote or workshop for your team contact Caroline at caroline@jjlaughlin.comWebsite: https://www.jjlaughlin.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6GETJbxpgulYcYc6QAKLHA Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JamesLaughlinOfficial Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jameslaughlinofficial/ Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/life-on-purpose-with-james-laughlin/id1547874035 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3WBElxcvhCHtJWBac3nOlF?si=hotcGzHVRACeAx4GvybVOQ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslaughlincoaching/James Laughlin is a High Performance Leadership Coach, Former 7-Time World Champion, Host of the Lead On Purpose Podcast and an Executive Coach to high performers and leaders. James is based in Christchurch, New Zealand.Send me a personal text message - If you're interested in booking me for a keynote or workshop, contact Caroline at caroline@jjlaughlin.comSupport the show

spotify death simple movement new zealand habits comfort apple podcast foods protein executive coach christchurch healthy food high performers paul taylor bdnf podcast connect making you fat time world champion upfs james laughlin high performance leadership coach

296: Ultraprocessed Foods in Focus: How is the Food Industry Responding? – Rocco Renaldi

Sound Bites A Nutrition Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 16, 2025 35:50

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

responding foods food industry upf upfs

How harmful is food fear mongering?

Highlights from Moncrieff

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2025 12:35

We're all well used to being told what we should and shouldn't be eating, and the latest food boogeyman is UPFs, or Ultra Processed Foods.You likely won't have to spend too long on social media to come across an influencer in a supermarket telling you why eating one product or another would be terrible for your health.But, could the fear mongering itself be even more harmful?Richie Kirwan is Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Exercise Physiology at Liverpool John Moores University. He joins Seán to discuss.

nutrition senior lecturer harmful exercise physiology fear mongering liverpool john moores university upfs

Episode 579: Beautiful Trash

Science Faction Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2025 71:27

It's another week in real life for the gang — or at least for most of us. Devon's down sick, so it's a two-man show featuring Steven and Ben navigating the bizarre crossroads of tech, food, and VR golf.

EP 69: UPFs and the Queston of Hyper-Palatability, Revisiting Reusable Packaging

Omnivore

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 13, 2025 30:08

Purdue University's Richard Mattes chats with consulting nutrition scientist Lisa Sanders about the concept of hyper-palatability—foods designed with specific combinations of fat, sugar, and salt that may override natural satiety signals—and discuss what makes a food hyperpalatable, how researchers identify and test for it, and whether evidence exists linking hyperpalatable foods to increased consumption and … Continue reading EP 69: UPFs and the Queston of Hyper-Palatability, Revisiting Reusable Packaging →

hyper packaging purdue university reusable upfs lisa sanders palatability queston

Ultraprocessed Foods (UPFs):

Dr. Baliga's Internal Medicine Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 13, 2025 5:53

public health foods obesity chronic disease perilous packaged upf upfs

#260 - UPFs, Fear, and Food Facts - What You Need to Know About Joe Wicks' Documentary

Think Healthy with Hayley

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 11, 2025 25:17

Joe Wicks' new documentary Licensed to Kill has got lots of people talking about ultra-processed foods (UPFs)... but is it raising awareness, or spreading unnecessary fear?In this episode, Hayley breaks down the truth behind the headlines:

fear documentary joe wicks upf upfs food facts weight loss coaching

What are ultra-processed foods doing to women? – with Milli Hill

Wellness with Liz Earle

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2025 34:38

Do ultra-processed foods affect men and women differently? Journalist Milli Hill joins Liz to reveal how the menopause leaves women vulnerable to the detrimental effects of UPFs.Liz and Milli look at how UPFs are marketed at women with labels such as 'low-calorie' and 'skinny', plus consider how our period symptoms and the menopause are linked to our diet.Milli also walks Liz through other health issues that UPFs may present for women, such as osteoporosis and dementia.Links mentioned in the episode:Ultra-Processed Women: The lies we're fed about what we eat and how to break free by Milli HillFollow Milli Hill on InstagramWhat ultra-processed foods really do to our bodies, with Chris van TullekenA Better Second Half by Liz EarleHave a question for Liz? Send a WhatsApp message or voicenote to 07518 471846, or email us at podcast@lizearlewellbeing.com for the chance to be featured on the showPlease note, on some occasions, we earn revenue if you click the links and buy the products, but we never allow this to bias our coverage and always honestly review. For more information please read our Affiliate Policy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

women whatsapp acast foods processed food upfs

EP 1,252B - Recent Study on Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs)

YOU The Owners Manual Radio Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2025

Jacob Teitelbaum, M.D., is one of the most frequently quoted post viral CFS, fibromyalgia, energy, sleep and pain medical authorities in the world. He is here today to discuss the findings of a recent study on ultra processed foods. Ultra processed foods are becoming dominant in the global food supply. Prospective cohort studies have consistently found an association between high consumption of ultra processed foods and increased risk of several noncommunicable diseases and all-cause mortality. The study aimed to (1) estimate the risk of all-cause mortality for ultra processed foods consumption and (2) estimate the attributable epidemiologic burden of ultra processed food consumption in 8 select countries.

study foods prospective processed food cfs upfs

1160: [Part 3] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 by Dr. Shireen Kassam at PlantBasedHealthProfessionals.com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2025 6:48

[Part 3] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 Part 3 of the August review of lifestyle strategy news and studies for mental health, interventions to prevent cognitive decline, omega-3 fats, the huge benefits of physical activity, UPFs and thumbs up to eating potatoes. Learn more in today's episode, part 3 of 3, written by Dr. Shireen Kassam at Plant Based Health Professionals UK #vegan #plantbased #plantbasedbriefing #wfpb #plantbasednutrition #lifestylemedicine #dietandmentalhealth #hypertension #cognitivedecline ========================== Original post: https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/review-of-the-plant-based-nutrition-and-lifestyle-medicine-news-august-2025 ========================== RELATED EPISODES: Use search field at PlantBasedBriefing.com/episodes ========================== Plant-Based Health Professionals UK is an non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and advocacy on whole food plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine for prevention and treatment of chronic disease. In addition to practicing conventional medicine, they promote health and well-being using a plant-based lifestyle approach. They reaize there is no doubt that conventional medicine has resulted in some astonishing advances in patient care. However, the current model of healthcare in the UK focuses primarily on treating established disease, rather than emphasising interventions that could prevent or reduce the burden of chronic disease. They provide a valuable resource for the education of healthcare professionals and the general public alike and aim to empower individuals to take control of their own health. Dr. Shireen Kassam founded PBHP UK in 2018. She's a certified lifestyle medicine physician and author of the book, Eating Plant-Based, Scientific Answers to Your Nutrition Questions, co-authored with her sister Zahra, was published in January 2022. She has also co-edited the textbook Plant-Based Nutrition in Clinical Practice, published in September 2022. Learn more at https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/ ============================== FOLLOW PLANT BASED BRIEFING ON: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@plantbasedbriefing Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2GONW0q2EDJMzqhuwuxdCF?si=2a20c247461d4ad7 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plant-based-briefing/id1562925866 Your podcast app of choice: https://pod.link/1562925866 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PlantBasedBriefing LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/plant-based-briefing/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plantbasedbriefing/

spotify uk original vegan plant based hypertension lifestyle medicine clinical practice plant based nutrition upfs wfpb shireen kassam

1159: [Part 2] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 by Dr. Shireen Kassam at PlantBasedHealthProfessionals.com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 2, 2025 9:36

[Part 2] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 Part 2 of the August review of lifestyle strategy news and studies for mental health, interventions to prevent cognitive decline, omega-3 fats, the huge benefits of physical activity, UPFs and thumbs up to eating potatoes. Learn more in today's episode, part 2 of 3, written by Dr. Shireen Kassam at Plant Based Health Professionals UK #vegan #plantbased #plantbasedbriefing #wfpb #plantbasednutrition #lifestylemedicine #dietandmentalhealth #hypertension #cognitivedecline ========================== Original post: https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/review-of-the-plant-based-nutrition-and-lifestyle-medicine-news-august-2025 ========================== RELATED EPISODES: Use search field at PlantBasedBriefing.com/episodes ========================== Plant-Based Health Professionals UK is an non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and advocacy on whole food plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine for prevention and treatment of chronic disease. In addition to practicing conventional medicine, they promote health and well-being using a plant-based lifestyle approach. They reaize there is no doubt that conventional medicine has resulted in some astonishing advances in patient care. However, the current model of healthcare in the UK focuses primarily on treating established disease, rather than emphasising interventions that could prevent or reduce the burden of chronic disease. They provide a valuable resource for the education of healthcare professionals and the general public alike and aim to empower individuals to take control of their own health. Dr. Shireen Kassam founded PBHP UK in 2018. She's a certified lifestyle medicine physician and author of the book, Eating Plant-Based, Scientific Answers to Your Nutrition Questions, co-authored with her sister Zahra, was published in January 2022. She has also co-edited the textbook Plant-Based Nutrition in Clinical Practice, published in September 2022. Learn more at https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/ ============================== FOLLOW PLANT BASED BRIEFING ON: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@plantbasedbriefing Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2GONW0q2EDJMzqhuwuxdCF?si=2a20c247461d4ad7 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plant-based-briefing/id1562925866 Your podcast app of choice: https://pod.link/1562925866 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PlantBasedBriefing LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/plant-based-briefing/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plantbasedbriefing/

spotify uk original vegan plant based lifestyle medicine clinical practice plant based nutrition upfs shireen kassam

1158: [Part 1] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 by Dr. Shireen Kassam at PlantBasedHealthProfessionals.com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2025 9:08

[Part 1] Review Of The Plant-Based Nutrition And Lifestyle Medicine News August 2025 This month I cover lifestyle strategies for mental health, interventions to prevent cognitive decline, omega-3 fats, the huge benefits of physical activity, UPFs and thumbs up to eating potatoes. Learn more in today's episode, part 1 of 3, written by Dr. Shireen Kassam at Plant Based Health Professionals UK #vegan #plantbased #plantbasedbriefing #wfpb #plantbasednutrition #lifestylemedicine #dietandmentalhealth #hypertension #cognitivedecline ========================== Original post: https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/review-of-the-plant-based-nutrition-and-lifestyle-medicine-news-august-2025 ========================== RELATED EPISODES: Use search field at PlantBasedBriefing.com/episodes ========================== Plant-Based Health Professionals UK is an non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and advocacy on whole food plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine for prevention and treatment of chronic disease. In addition to practicing conventional medicine, they promote health and well-being using a plant-based lifestyle approach. They reaize there is no doubt that conventional medicine has resulted in some astonishing advances in patient care. However, the current model of healthcare in the UK focuses primarily on treating established disease, rather than emphasising interventions that could prevent or reduce the burden of chronic disease. They provide a valuable resource for the education of healthcare professionals and the general public alike and aim to empower individuals to take control of their own health. Dr. Shireen Kassam founded PBHP UK in 2018. She's a certified lifestyle medicine physician and author of the book, Eating Plant-Based, Scientific Answers to Your Nutrition Questions, co-authored with her sister Zahra, was published in January 2022. She has also co-edited the textbook Plant-Based Nutrition in Clinical Practice, published in September 2022. Learn more at https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/ ============================== FOLLOW PLANT BASED BRIEFING ON: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@plantbasedbriefing Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2GONW0q2EDJMzqhuwuxdCF?si=2a20c247461d4ad7 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plant-based-briefing/id1562925866 Your podcast app of choice: https://pod.link/1562925866 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PlantBasedBriefing LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/plant-based-briefing/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plantbasedbriefing/

spotify uk original vegan plant based hypertension lifestyle medicine clinical practice plant based nutrition upfs wfpb shireen kassam

The 60-Second Secret to Health & Fibremaxxing

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 22, 2025 53:32

This week, we're uncovering the groundbreaking science showing how just 60 seconds of vigorous movement a day could transform your health and even add years to your life. We're also looking at the hidden dangers of gel manicures, and why boosting potassium-rich foods could cut heart failure risk by nearly a quarter. Plus, the Guardian's biggest wellness trends of the year, from dopamine menus to creatine, and our deep dive into fibremaxxing, the viral TikTok craze with over 160 million views that's finally making fibre cool. Could this be the rare wellness trend that's genuinely worth embracing? Catch Rhi discussing UPFs and The Unprocessed Plate at ⁠⁠Waterstones - London Gower Street⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠Chroleywood Library Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

tiktok health secret guardian upfs

Omega 3, Stabilisers & The Nightshade Myth

science myth omega3 quick wins nightshade upfs

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2025 41:27

This week we're tackling your questions on some big wellness topics. We look at whether chia seeds alone can cover your omega 3 needs, what acidity regulators and stabilisers really are, and the myths and benefits around nightshade vegetables. We also clear up confusion around perimenopause and menopause, chat through the reality of nursery food and new government guidance, and answer how much nuts, seeds and chia you really need to reap the benefits without overdoing it. Recommendations: Borna pistachio nut butter Ella's new book, Quick Wins, at 50% off with the code ‘QUICKWINS50' (enter it at checkout) - https://www.waterstones.com/book/quick-wins-healthy-cooking-for-busy-lives/ella-mills/9781529316759 Dr Philippa Kaye's The Science of Menopause Catch Rhi discussing UPFs and The Unprocessed Plate at ⁠Waterstones - London Gower Street⁠ and ⁠Chroleywood Library Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fitting In? Fries & How to Keep Your Holiday High

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2025 40:57

This week, we're unpacking the big stories shaping food, health and how we live. We start with a major BMJ study showing that eating chips three times a week raises type 2 diabetes risk by 20% but baked or boiled potatoes don't carry the same danger. We'll share why the way you cook them matters, plus the genuine health benefits of potatoes when they're not fried. Next, a Guardian feature on “otroverts” — people who don't feel at home in groups but aren't introverts either. Psychiatrist Dr Rami Kaminski explains why this isn't a deficit, how it can be a strength, and what it tells us about solitude, loneliness and connection. And from the Times, the science of the “holiday brain-boost.” We explore how holidays can slow cognitive ageing, why even short breaks matter, and the habits from naps to mindfulness and movement that help the benefits last for weeks after you're home. Plus, the trends: Australia's world-first ban on social media for under 16s, and the UK government's plan to restrict energy drink sales to teenagers. Alongside all that, Ella shares her first weekend in the new house, picking homegrown fruit and veg and welcoming two new puppies, plus a listener story that reveals just how many ultra processed additives can be hiding in a single mini cupcake. Catch Rhi discussing UPFs and The Unprocessed Plate at Waterstones - London Gower Street and Chroleywood Library Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

australia uk holiday guardian fitting fries bmj upfs

Episode 246: Dr. Bart Kay - Quit the Carbs or Quit the Fat? Sorting Strategy from Science

The Exam Room by the Physicians Committee

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2025 53:09

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.

australia english uk science strategy change new zealand recovery numbers quit seed bart harm glp insulin carbs sorting cholesterol fats abstinence randle a1c lipids upf upfs

Eat With Your Body, Not Your Head: UPFs & GLP-1 Truths

The Nutrition Couch

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 9, 2025 29:49 Transcription Available

Struggling to “be good” at restaurants, scanning every barcode, or wondering why your GLP-1 isn’t moving the dial? In this practical, myth-busting episode, Leanne and Susie unpack three big topics that drive real-world results: 1) Head vs body hunger (how to order smarter when eating out) Ditch “shoulds” that trigger later overeating and learn a simple decision flow to feel satisfied without blowing your goals. Real menu tweaks that reduce calories while keeping satisfaction high, plus how to balance the rest of your day when a meal is heavier. 2) Ultra-processed foods (UPFs): what the labels miss Why some cereals, breads, and convenience options can be smart choices despite scary ingredient lists, and when UPFs truly become a problem. A quick guide to reading labels without panic: fibre first, added sugars down, protein where it counts, and context over fear. Recent critiques of NOVA and simplistic scoring apps are pushing for more nuance. 3) GLP-1 reality check: “I’ve only lost a couple of kilos — is it working?” What matters most alongside medication: strength training to protect muscle, appetite awareness to actually reduce intake, and realistic timelines by starting weight. Why results vary, and the red flags that signal you need tailored nutrition support, not just a script. Real-world data and 2025 trend reports show usage is surging — but habits still drive sustainable outcomes. Product watch (no endorsements): we analyse a new supermarket mini muffin aimed at kids. It’s still a packaged treat, but the fibre profile and ingredient order make it a comparatively better pick than many lunchbox snacks — and a handy freezer back-up for busy families. Need support with sleep, recovery, and daily collagen? Explore our Triple-Magnesium blend and Collagen powderfrom Designed by Dietitians — formulated to complement a balanced diet and active lifestyle. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

head body real explore product struggling truths designed ditch leanne glp collagen dietitians upfs

This Is What I Think of Ultra Processed Foods: Dr. Chris Gardner

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 28:19

Nutrition scientist Dr. Christopher Gardner is at the forefront of the debate on ultra processed foods (UPFs). Some experts say you should avoid them entirely, while others (including the American Heart Association) argue that certain processed foods can fit into a healthy diet. Dr. Gardner joins Chuck Carroll at the International Conference on Nutrition and Medicine (ICNM) to help cut through the confusion and conflicting advice. In this episode of The Exam Room Podcast, you'll learn: - What “ultra processed foods” really are - Why not all UPFs are equally harmful - The surprising reasons some healthier foods cost more - The top food additives and ingredients to avoid - How to read labels to make smarter choices If you feel like you've raised your health IQ, please leave a 5-star rating and nice review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Discover Dr. Neal Barnard's advice about which processed foods are healthy. About Us The Physicians Committee is dedicated to saving lives through plant-based diets and ethical and effective scientific research. We combine the clout and expertise of more than 17,000 physicians with the dedicated actions of more than 175,000 members across the United States and around the world.

united states spotify nutrition foods iq gardner american heart association processed food international conference neal barnard chris gardner upfs discover dr christopher gardner chuck carroll

Episode 245: Renae Norton, PhD - Bulimorexia

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 54:07

In this episode, Vera and Renae explore bulimorexia—a term used for people who oscillate between restriction and binge/purge behaviors—and how this mixed pattern might help explain stubborn relapse rates across eating disorders and food addiction. Dr. Norton shares her clinical lens on risks (medical and psychological), why some traditional programs may miss the mark, and what a holistic, skills-based, harm-reduction treatment can look like (family involvement, gentle re-feeding, DBT/EMDR, food quality, and relapse prevention). Note: Some views expressed are the guest's opinions and experience. This episode is educational and not medical advice. Please consult your care team. What we cover Defining “bulimorexia”: alternating restriction with binge/purge; how it differs from anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa; why it's easier to hide than classic anorexia. Continuum vs. categories: where binge eating disorder fits; overlap with food addiction. Why relapse is common: risks of aggressive refeeding; short-stay residential models; lack of individualized care; missing family systems support. Medical risks (high-level): cardiac arrhythmias and hypotension, esophageal tears/GERD, laxative misuse and constipation, electrolyte disturbance, kidney strain, dental/enamel erosion, parotid swelling, menstrual disruption and fertility concerns. Psychological load: anxiety/OCD traits, depression, social avoidance; the “addiction to restricting” and the short-term ‘high' of hunger. Treatment principles Dr. Norton uses: Gentle, stepwise re-feeding (small, frequent meals; stabilize blood sugar; avoid triggering extremes). Skills over meal plans (shop, prep, and eat whole foods; mindful interoception). DBT for arousal regulation, plus EMDR and trauma work as indicated. Family-based involvement (Maudsley-style boundaries and support). Movement re-entry: slow, safe progression; curbing compulsive exercise. Relapse prevention: strong parent/caregiver alignment, food routines, anxiety skills, and ongoing monitoring. Contested terrain: ultra-processed food, additives, and differing regulations by region; the guest's emphasis on “clean/organic” sourcing. Intermittent fasting cautions: for restrict-prone folks, it can mask restriction; prefer regular, structured eating. What recovery can look like: decreased self-hatred, restored relationships, school/work re-engagement, and more flexible functioning. Resources from the guest: forthcoming book Below the Radar: What They're Not Telling You About Your Food; wellness tools she finds helpful. Suggested chapter markers 00:00 Welcome & guest intro 02:20 What is “bulimorexia”? How it differs from AN/BN 10:55 Why relapse stays high; critique of standard programs 18:30 Medical complications: heart, GI, dental, endocrine 28:15 Psychological patterns: anxiety, OCD traits, depression 34:40 Treatment pillars: re-feeding, DBT/EMDR, family work 45:05 Food quality and UPFs: guest's perspective & debate 53:10 Intermittent fasting cautions; safe movement 58:20 Relapse prevention & outcomes 1:04:10 Advice to clinicians, families, and society 1:08:00 What's next for Dr. Norton & closing Key takeaways (listener-friendly) Mixed patterns (restricting and binge/purge) may be under-recognized and can carry high medical risk. Slow, individualized re-feeding plus emotion-regulation skills (DBT) and family involvement improve safety and engagement. If you're prone to restriction, consistent meals beat fasting. Recovery gains include less self-hatred, more connection, and functional life goals—progress over perfection. Sensitive content note This episode discusses eating-disorder behaviors (restriction, purging, laxatives, insulin manipulation) and medical complications. Please use discretion and support. Links & mentions Dr. Renae Norton — Norton Wellness Institute / Mind, Weight & Wellness Pro Book (forthcoming): Below the Radar: What They're Not Telling You About Your Food Maudsley/Family-Based Treatment (FBT) overview DBT skills resources (distress tolerance, emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) If you need help now: NEDA (US), BEAT (UK), local crisis lines, or your clinician. For clinicians Screen for mixed presentations (restrict + purge), including non-vomit purging (laxatives, insulin manipulation). Prioritize medical monitoring (vitals, electrolytes) during re-feeding; avoid one-size-fits-all calorie jumps. Integrate DBT skills, caregiver coaching, and regular eating structure; track arousal and urge patterns. The content of our show is educational only. It does not supplement or supersede your healthcareprovider'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.

How to Cut Cancer Risk, Cellulite and Extra Weight

uk british weight cancer risk quick wins cellulite upfs

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2025 46:43

This week, we're talking about why vegetarian and vegan diets can cut cancer risk by up to a quarter, the “worst foods for cellulite” and what the science actually says, and the first UK trial to prove that home cooking and minimally processed foods lead to twice as much weight loss as ready-made UPFs. We also get into the rise of blueberries, how they went from totally unknown in the UK just a few decades ago to outselling apples, pears and even oranges today, and what that means for British farming. Plus, all our personal updates, this week's wellness trends and news about new Wellness Scoop episodes! For listener questions, please either email ella@deliciouslyella.com or leave them on spotify/apple podcasts and leave your name, we love knowing more about you! And for 50% off Ella's new book ‘Quick Wins' with the code ‘QUICKWINS50' (enter code at checkout) https://www.waterstones.com/book/quick-wins-healthy-cooking-for-busy-lives/ella-mills/9781529316759 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Truth About Ultra Processed Foods