Podcasts about upfs

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

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

What's really going on in food and farming? Two farmers – Patrick Holden, founder of the Sustainable Food Trust, and Stuart Oates, founder of the Fossil Free Farm project – get behind the headlines to unpack the biggest stories shaping what we eat, how we farm and the future of the planet. Expect lively debate, real-world experience, and unique insights from some of food and farming's top voices. In this week's episode, Patrick and Stuart talk about forever chemicals and the increasing awareness of their impact on human health – as recently investigated in an episode of the BBC's Panorama. They also discuss the politicisation of regenerative agriculture; Patrick shares his thoughts on the publication of new research reviewing the safety of the widely used herbicide, Roundup, and asks what a post-Roundup farming future might look like; and Stuart reflects on his camel farming journey and how at one point he had the largest camel farm (21 camels!) in mainland Europe. To join in the conversation, get in touch with us at info@sustainablefoodtrust.org – let us know what you'd like to hear Patrick and Stuart talk about in next week's episode!   Follow Patrick and the Sustainable Food Trust: https://www.instagram.com/susfoodtrust/ | https://www.instagram.com/hafodcheese/ https://bsky.app/profile/susfoodtrust.bsky.social https://www.facebook.com/SusFoodTrust https://www.linkedin.com/company/sustainable-food-trust/   Find out more about Stuart and the Fossil Free Farm project: https://fossilfreefarm.com/ https://www.instagram.com/camelstu/ https://www.youtube.com/@farmerstu

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.  

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

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

Ultraprocessed include everything like protein bars, to plant based meats and breakfast cereals foods, they are made with artificial flavourings, emulsifiers, stabilisers, synthetic vitamins and indutstrial oilds. UPFs are a massive contibutor to the epidemic of metabolic disease across the world today. These food like substances dont just mess with your waistline they rewire your hunger cravings, they slow your metabolism, and change the way your body stores fat. People eating a diet laden in ultraprocessed foods will automatically consume 500 cals more per day. Then there are 'healthy' processed food traps like granola and plant based burgers, low calorie ice creams and more ... ultra processed yes .. healthy .. no. In this episode we discover how you navigate your diet in a world laden with so many hidden ultra processed options. The dangers of high carbohyrate foods : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSKlhyEANfi8hZFoFoJun_lLhULcYg5JWWeightloss series : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSKlhyEANfi-pO3W2hejnDUsgMQ9GPvpZThe health benefits fo exercise : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSKlhyEANfi_vM1nbpcV-PlvWjSZ872ECOrder Happy Habits for Mind and Body Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3KeQmGrOrder Kindle copy of Happy Habits for Mind and Body : https://amzn.to/4c9T38fOrder US paperback of Happy Habits for Mind and Body : https://amzn.to/4bxczeTOrder UK paperback of Happy Habits for Mind and Body : https://rb.gy/jtfea5Listen to all previous podcast episodes of the Happy Habit Podcast via these podcast platforms :Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/happy-habit-podcastAmazon https://www.amazon.com/Happy-Habit-Podcast/dp/B08K5887J8Amazon music : https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/670836c2-ea4c-4a23-a67d-a54dd804ef61/happy-habit-podcastSpotify https://https://open.spotify.com/show/2VKIhQK6mYTzLCO8haUoRdFollow the Happy Habit Podcast Website: https://happyhabitpodcast.wordpress.com/Music used is Purple planet Music crediit goes to them

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.

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

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 →

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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 

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.

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.

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 →

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:

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.

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.

[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/     

[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/   

[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/   

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

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

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

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.

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.

00:00 Introduction and Setup00:53 Mindset and Routine Disruptions08:29 Nutrition and Ultra-Processed Foods15:01 Aggressive Dieting: Pros and Cons20:43 Hormones and the Menstrual Cycle21:34 Exercise Types and Muscle Building29:55 Maintaining Progress After Group Programs

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.

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.

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

In this episode I chat with Nutrition coach and the queen of the easy family recipe Ciara Turley aka @thetummyfairy on Instagram We chat about: your story Meal prep feels like a chore - how do get over this? Any quick and easy things that we can all make from stuff in the cupboards ? You have spoken about cutting out foods in previous chats I have heard you have - where do you stand on the UPFs conversation Advice for someone who doesnt like cooking - on how to break this mindset Your cheap go tos for a healthy gut Do you feel we over complicate food at the moment ? Female Fat Loss Program Priority List is now open  click here Starts 8th September €99 for 8 weeks coaching (normally €149)

On this week's episode of Joint Action discover how ultra-processed foods may be silently contributing to osteoarthritis. Dr Gabby Joseph joins us to discuss her research research linking poor diet quality to greater knee pain, poorer physical function and thinner knee cartilage. Dr Gabby Joseph is a scientist and statistician with over 20 years of experience leading research funded by the US government at the University of California San Francisco, Her work focuses on musculoskeletal imaging, predictive modelling, and clinical study design, with a focus on applying advanced statistical and machine learning methods to improve patient outcomes She is the co-Director of The University of California's Clinical & Translational Musculoskeletal Imaging group and passionate about making sense of complex data so that it can be used to improve real-world care. RESOURCESUltra-processed food consumption is associated with knee osteoarthritis: Data from the Osteoarthritis InitiativeCONNECT WITH USTwitter: @ProfDavidHunter @jointactionorgInstagram: @osteoarthritisresearchgroupEmail: osteoarthritis.research@sydney.edu.auWebsite: www.jointaction.info/podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lots of talk these days about ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Along with confusion about what in the heck they are or what they're not, how bad they are for us, and what ought to be done about them. A landmark in the discussion of ultra-processed foods has been the publication of a book entitled Ultra-processed People, Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. The author of that book, Dr. Chris van Tulleken, joins us today. Dr. van Tulleken is a physician and is professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He also has a PhD in molecular virology and is an award-winning broadcaster on the BBC. His book on Ultra-processed People is a bestseller. Interview Summary Chris, sometimes somebody comes along that takes a complicated topic and makes it accessible and understandable and brings it to lots of people. You're a very fine scientist and scholar and academic, but you also have that ability to communicate effectively with lots of people, which I very much admire. So, thanks for doing that, and thank you for joining us. Oh, Kelly, it's such a pleasure. You know, I begin some of my talks now with a clipping from the New York Times. And it's a picture of you and an interview you gave in 1995. So exactly three decades ago. And in this article, you just beautifully communicate everything that 30 years later I'm still saying. So, yeah. I wonder if communication, it's necessary, but insufficient. I think we are needing to think of other means to bring about change. I totally agree. Well, thank you by the way. And I hope I've learned something over those 30 years. Tell us, please, what are ultra-processed foods? People hear the term a lot, but I don't think a lot of people know exactly what it means. The most important thing to know, I think, is that it's not a casual term. It's not like 'junk food' or 'fast food.' It is a formal scientific definition. It's been used in hundreds of research studies. The definition is very long. It's 11 paragraphs long. And I would urge anyone who's really interested in this topic, go to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization website. You can type in NFAO Ultra and you'll get the full 11 paragraph definition. It's an incredibly sophisticated piece of science. But it boils down to if you as a consumer, someone listening to this podcast, want to know if the thing you are eating right now is ultra-processed, look at the ingredients list. If there are ingredients on that list that you do not normally find in a domestic kitchen like an emulsifier, a coloring, a flavoring, a non-nutritive sweetener, then that product will be ultra-processed. And it's a way of describing this huge range of foods that kind of has taken over the American and the British and in fact diets all over the world. How come the food companies put this stuff in the foods? And the reason I ask is in talks I give I'll show an ingredient list from a food that most people would recognize. And ask people if they can guess what the food is from the ingredient list. And almost nobody can. There are 35 things on the ingredient list. Sugar is in there, four different forms. And then there are all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce. There are lots of strange things in there. They get in there through loopholes and government regulation. Why are they there in the first place? So, when I started looking at this I also noticed this long list of fancy sounding ingredients. And even things like peanut butter will have palm oil and emulsifiers. Cream cheese will have xanthum gum and emulsifiers. And you think, well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to make your peanut butter out of peanuts. In fact, every ingredient is in there to make money in one of two ways. Either it drives down the cost of production or storage. If you imagine using a real strawberry in your strawberry ice cream. Strawberries are expensive. They're not always in season. They rot. You've got to have a whole supply chain. Why would you use a strawberry if you could use ethyl methylphenylglycidate and pink dye and it'll taste the same. It'll look great. You could then put in a little chunky bit of modified corn starch that'll be chewy if you get it in the right gel mix. And there you go. You've got strawberries and you haven't had to deal with strawberry farmers or any supply chain. It's just you just buy bags and bottles of white powder and liquids. The other way is to extend the shelf life. Strawberries as I say, or fresh food, real food - food we might call it rots on shelves. It decays very quickly. If you can store something at room temperature in a warehouse for months and months, that saves enormous amounts of money. So, one thing is production, but the other thing is the additives allow us to consume to excess or encourage us to consume ultra-processed food to excess. So, I interviewed a scientist who was a food industry development scientist. And they said, you know, most ultra-processed food would be gray if it wasn't dyed, for example. So, if you want to make cheap food using these pastes and powders, unless you dye it and you flavor it, it will be inedible. But if you dye it and flavor it and add just the right amount of salt, sugar, flavor enhancers, then you can make these very addictive products. So that's the logic of UPF. Its purpose is to make money. And that's part of the definition. Right. So, a consumer might decide that there's, you know, beneficial trade-off for them at the end of the day. That they get things that have long shelf life. The price goes down because of the companies don't have to deal with the strawberry farmers and things like that. But if there's harm coming in waves from these things, then it changes the equation. And you found out some of that on your own. So as an experiment you did with a single person - you, you ate ultra-processed foods for a month. What did you eat and how did it affect your body, your mood, your sleep? What happened when you did this? So, what's really exciting, actually Kelly, is while it was an n=1, you know, one participant experiment, I was actually the pilot participant in a much larger study that we have published in Nature Medicine. One of the most reputable and high impact scientific journals there is. So, I was the first participant in a randomized control trial. I allowed us to gather the data about what we would then measure in a much larger number. Now we'll come back and talk about that study, which I think was really important. It was great to see it published. So, I was a bit skeptical. Partly it was with my research team at UCL, but we were also filming it for a BBC documentary. And I went into this going I'm going to eat a diet of 80% of my calories will come from ultra-processed food for four weeks. And this is a normal diet. A lifelong diet for a British teenager. We know around 20% of people in the UK and the US eat this as their normal food. They get 80% of their calories from ultra-processed products. I thought, well, nothing is going to happen to me, a middle-aged man, doing this for four weeks. But anyway, we did it kind of as a bit of fun. And we thought, well, if nothing happens, we don't have to do a bigger study. We can just publish this as a case report, and we'll leave it out of the documentary. Three big things happened. I gained a massive amount of weight, so six kilos. And I wasn't force feeding myself. I was just eating when I wanted. In American terms, that's about 15 pounds in four weeks. And that's very consistent with the other published trials that have been done on ultra-processed food. There have been two other RCTs (randomized control trials); ours is the third. There is one in Japan, one done at the NIH. So, people gain a lot of weight. I ate massively more calories. So much so that if I'd continued on the diet, I would've almost doubled my body weight in a year. And that may sound absurd, but I have an identical twin brother who did this natural experiment. He went to Harvard for a year. He did his masters there. During his year at Harvard he gained, let's see, 26 kilos, so almost 60 pounds just living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But how did you decide how much of it to eat? Did you eat until you just kind of felt naturally full? I did what most people do most of the time, which is I just ate what I wanted when I felt like it. Which actually for me as a physician, I probably took the breaks off a bit because I don't normally have cocoa pops for breakfast. But I ate cocoa pops and if I felt like two bowls, I'd have two bowls. It turned out what I felt like a lot of mornings was four bowls and that was fine. I was barely full. So, I wasn't force feeding myself. It wasn't 'supersize' me. I was eating to appetite, which is how these experiments run. And then what we've done in the trials. So, I gained weight, then we measured my hormone response to a meal. When you eat, I mean, it's absurd to explain this to YOU. But when you eat, you have fullness hormones that go up and hunger hormones that go down, so you feel full and less hungry. And we measured my response to a standard meal at the beginning and at the end of this four-week diet. What we found is that I had a normal response to eating a big meal at the beginning of the diet. At the end of eating ultra-processed foods, the same meal caused a very blunted rise in the satiety hormones. In the 'fullness' hormones. So, I didn't feel as full. And my hunger hormones remained high. And so, the food is altering our response to all meals, not merely within the meal that we're eating. Then we did some MRI scans and again, I thought this would be a huge waste of time. But we saw at four weeks, and then again eight weeks later, very robust changes in the communication between the habit-forming bits at the back of the brain. So, the automatic behavior bits, the cerebellum. Very conscious I'm talking to YOU about this, Kelly. And the kind of addiction reward bits in the middle. Now these changes were physiological, not structural. They're about the two bits of the brain talking to each other. There's not really a new wire going between them. But we think if this kind of communication is happening a lot, that maybe a new pathway would form. And I think no one, I mean we did this with very expert neuroscientists at our National Center for Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, no one really knows what it means. But the general feeling was these are the kind of changes we might expect if we'd given someone, or a person or an animal, an addictive substance for four weeks. They're consistent with, you know, habit formation and addiction. And the fact that they happened so quickly, and they were so robust - they remained the same eight weeks after I stopped the diet, I think is really worrying from a kid's perspective. So, in a period of four weeks, it re-altered the way your brain works. It affected the way your hunger and satiety were working. And then you ended up with this massive weight. And heaven knows what sort of cardiovascular effects or other things like that might have been going on or had the early signs of that over time could have been really pretty severe, I imagine. I think one of the main effects was that I became very empathetic with my patients. Because we did actually a lot of, sort of, psychological testing as well. And there's an experience where, obviously in clinic, I mainly treat patients with infections. But many of my patients are living with other, sort of, disorders of modern life. They live with excess weight and cardiovascular disease and type two diabetes and metabolic problems and so on. And I felt in four weeks like I'd gone from being in my early 30, early 40s at the time, I felt like I'd just gone to my early 50s or 60s. I ached. I felt terrible. My sleep was bad. And it was like, oh! So many of the problems of modern life: waking up to pee in the middle of the night is because you've eaten so much sodium with your dinner. You've drunk all this water, and then you're trying to get rid of it all night. Then you're constipated. It's a low fiber diet, so you develop piles. Pain in your bum. The sleep deprivation then makes you eat more. And so, you get in this vicious cycle where the problem didn't feel like the food until I stopped and I went cold turkey. I virtually have not touched it since. It cured me of wanting UPF. That was the other amazing bit of the experience that I write about in the book is it eating it and understanding it made me not want it. It was like being told to smoke. You know, you get caught smoking as a kid and your parents are like, hey, now you finish the pack. It was that. It was an aversion experience. So, it gave me a lot of empathy with my patients that many of those kinds of things we regard as being normal aging, those symptoms are often to do with the way we are living our lives. Chris, I've talked to a lot of people about ultra-processed foods. You're the first one who's mentioned pain in the bum as one of the problems, so thank you. When I first became a physician, I trained as a surgeon, and I did a year doing colorectal surgery. So, I have a wealth of experience of where a low fiber diet leaves you. And many people listening to this podcast, I mean, look, we're all going to get piles. Everyone gets these, you know, anal fishes and so on. And bum pain it's funny to talk about it. No, not the... it destroys people's lives, so, you know, anyway. Right. I didn't want to make light of it. No, no. Okay. So, your own experiment would suggest that these foods are really bad actors and having this broad range of highly negative effects. But what does research say about these things beyond your own personal experience, including your own research? So, the food industry has been very skillful at portraying this as a kind of fad issue. As ultra-processed food is this sort of niche thing. Or it's a snobby thing. It's not a real classification. I want to be absolutely clear. UPF, the definition is used by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to monitor global diet quality, okay? It's a legitimate way of thinking about food. The last time I looked, there are more than 30 meta-analyses - that is reviews of big studies. And the kind of high-quality studies that we use to say cigarettes cause lung cancer. So, we've got this what we call epidemiological evidence, population data. We now have probably more than a hundred of these prospective cohort studies. And they're really powerful tools. They need to be used in conjunction with other evidence, but they now link ultra-processed food to this very wide range of what we euphemistically call negative health outcomes. You know, problems that cause human suffering, mental health problems, anxiety, depression, multiple forms of cancer, inflammatory diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's and dementia. Of course, weight gain and obesity. And all cause mortality so you die earlier of all causes. And there are others too. So, the epidemiological evidence is strong and that's very plausible. So, we take that epidemiological evidence, as you well know, and we go, well look, association and causation are different things. You know, do matches cause cancer or does cigarettes cause cancer? Because people who buy lots of matches are also getting the lung cancer. And obviously epidemiologists are very sophisticated at teasing all this out. But we look at it in the context then of other evidence. My group published the third randomized control trial where we put a group of people, in a very controlled way, on a diet of either minimally processed food or ultra-processed food and looked at health outcomes. And we found what the other two trials did. We looked at weight gain as a primary outcome. It was a short trial, eight weeks. And we saw people just eat more calories on the ultra-processed food. This is food that is engineered to be consumed to excess. That's its purpose. So maybe to really understand the effect of it, you have to imagine if you are a food development engineer working in product design at a big food company - if you develop a food that's cheap to make and people will just eat loads of it and enjoy it, and then come back for it again and again and again, and eat it every day and almost become addicted to it, you are going to get promoted. That product is going to do well on the shelves. If you invent a food that's not addictive, it's very healthy, it's very satisfying, people eat it and then they're done for the day. And they don't consume it to excess. You are not going to keep your job. So that's a really important way of understanding the development process of the foods. So let me ask a question about industry and intent. Because one could say that the industry engineers these things to have long shelf life and nice physical properties and the right colors and things like this. And these effects on metabolism and appetite and stuff are unpleasant and difficult side effects, but the foods weren't made to produce those things. They weren't made to produce over consumption and then in turn produce those negative consequences. You're saying something different. That you think that they're intentionally designed to promote over consumption. And in some ways, how could the industry do otherwise? I mean, every industry in the world wants people to over consume or consume as much of their product as they can. The food industry is no different. That is exactly right. The food industry behaves like every other corporation. In my view, they commit evil acts sometimes, but they're not institutionally evil. And I have dear friends who work in big food, who work in big pharma. I have friends who work in tobacco. These are not evil people. They're constrained by commercial incentives, right? So, when I say I think the food is engineered, I don't think it. I know it because I've gone and interviewed loads of people in product development at big food companies. I put some of these interviewees in a BBC documentary called Irresistible. So rather than me in the documentary going, oh, ultra-processed food is bad. And everyone going, well, you are, you're a public health bore. I just got industry insiders to say, yes, this is how we make the food. And going back to Howard Moskovitz, in the 1970s, I think he was working for the Campbell Soup Company. And Howard, who was a psychologist by training, outlined the development process. And what he said was then underlined by many other people I've spoken to. You develop two different products. This one's a little bit saltier than the next, and you test them on a bunch of people. People like the saltier ones. So now you keep the saltier one and you develop a third product and this one's got a bit more sugar in it. And if this one does better, well you keep this one and you keep AB testing until you get people buying and eating lots. And one of the crucial things that food companies measure in product development is how fast do people eat and how quickly do they eat. And these kind of development tools were pioneered by the tobacco industry. I mean, Laura Schmidt has done a huge amount of the work on this. She's at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in California. And we know the tobacco industry bought the food industry and for a while in the '80s and '90s, the biggest food companies in the world were also the biggest tobacco companies in the world. And they used their flavor molecules and their marketing techniques and their distribution systems. You know, they've got a set of convenience tools selling cigarettes all over the country. Well, why don't we sell long shelf-life food marketed in the same way? And one thing that the tobacco industry was extremely good at was figuring out how to get the most rapid delivery of the drug possible into the human body when people smoke. Do you think that some of that same thing is true for food, rapid delivery of sugar, let's say? How close does the drug parallel fit, do you think? So, that's part of the reason the speed of consumption is important. Now, I think Ashley Gearhardt has done some of the most incredible work on this. And what Ashley says is we think of addictive drugs as like it's the molecule that's addictive. It's nicotine, it's caffeine, cocaine, diamorphine, heroin, the amphetamines. What we get addicted to is the molecule. And that Ashley says no. The processing of that molecule is crucially important. If you have slow-release nicotine in a chewing gum, that can actually treat your nicotine addiction. It's not very addictive. Slow-release amphetamine we use to treat children with attention and behavioral problems. Slow-release cocaine is an anesthetic. You use it for dentistry. No one ever gets addicted to dental anesthetics. And the food is the same. The rewarding molecules in the food we think are mainly the fat and the sugar. And food that requires a lot of chewing and is slow eaten slowly, you don't deliver the reward as quickly. And it tends not to be very addictive. Very soft foods or liquid foods with particular fat sugar ratios, if you deliver the nutrients into the gut fast, that seems to be really important for driving excessive consumption. And I think the growing evidence around addiction is very persuasive. I mean, my patients report feeling addicted to the food. And I don't feel it's legitimate to question their experience. Chris, a little interesting story about that concept of food and addiction. So going back several decades I was a professor at Yale, and I was teaching a graduate course. Ashley Gerhardt was a student in that course. And, she was there to study addiction, not in the context of food, but I brought up the issue of, you know, could food be addictive? There's some interesting research on this. It's consistent with what we're hearing from people, and that seems a really interesting topic. And Ashley, I give her credit, took this on as her life's work and now she's like the leading expert in the world on this very important topic. And what's nice for me to recall that story is that how fast the science on this is developed. And now something's coming out on this almost every day. It's some new research on the neuroscience of food and addiction and how the food is hijacking in the brain. And that whole concept of addiction seems really important in this context. And I know you've talked a lot about that yourself. She has reframed, I think, this idea about the way that addictive substances and behaviors really work. I mean it turns everything on its head to go the processing is important. The thing the food companies have always been able to say is, look, you can't say food is addictive. It doesn't contain any addictive molecules. And with Ashley's work you go, no, but the thing is it contains rewarding molecules and actually the spectrum of molecules that we can find rewarding and we can deliver fast is much, much broader than the traditionally addictive substances. For policy, it's vital because part of regulating the tobacco industry was about showing they know they are making addictive products. And I think this is where Ashley's work and Laura Schmidt's work are coming together. With Laura's digging in the tobacco archive, Ashley's doing the science on addiction, and I think these two things are going to come together. And I think it's just going to be a really exciting space to watch. I completely agree. You know when most people think about the word addiction, they basically kind of default to thinking about how much you want something. How much, you know, you desire something. But there are other parts of it that are really relevant here too. I mean one is how do you feel if you don't have it and sort of classic withdrawal. And people talk about, for example, being on high sugar drinks and stopping them and having withdrawal symptoms and things like that. And the other part of it that I think is really interesting here is tolerance. You know whether you need more of the substance over time in order to get the same reward benefit. And that hasn't been studied as much as the other part of addiction. But there's a lot to the picture other than just kind of craving things. And I would say that the thing I like about this is it chimes with my. Personal experience, which is, I have tried alcohol and cigarettes and I should probably end that list there. But I've never had any real desire for more of them. They aren't the things that tickle my brain. Whereas the food is a thing that I continue to struggle with. I would say in some senses, although I no longer like ultra-processed food at some level, I still want it. And I think of myself to some degree, without trivializing anyone's experience, to some degree I think I'm in sort of recovery from it. And it remains that tussle. I mean I don't know what you think about the difference between the kind of wanting and liking of different substances. Some scientists think those two things are quite, quite different. That you can like things you don't want, and you can want things you don't like. Well, that's exactly right. In the context of food and traditional substances of abuse, for many of them, people start consuming because they produce some sort of desired effect. But that pretty quickly goes away, and people then need the substance because if they don't have it, they feel terrible. So, you know, morphine or heroin or something like that always produces positive effects. But that initial part of the equation where you just take it because you like it turns into this needing it and having to have it. And whether that same thing exists with food is an interesting topic. I think the other really important part of the addiction argument in policy terms is that one counterargument by industrial scientists and advocates is by raising awareness around ultra-processed food we are at risk of driving, eating disorders. You know? The phenomenon of orthorexia, food avoidance, anorexia. Because all food is good food. There should be no moral value attached to food and we mustn't drive any food anxiety. And I think there are some really strong voices in the United Kingdom Eating Disorder scientists. People like Agnes Ayton, who are starting to say, look, when food is engineered, using brain scanners and using scientific development techniques to be consumed to excess, is it any wonder that people develop a disordered relationship with the food? And there may be a way of thinking about the rise of eating disorders, which is parallel to the rise of our consumption of ultra-processed food, that eating disorders are a reasonable response to a disordered food environment. And I think that's where I say all that somewhat tentatively. I feel like this is a safe space where you will correct me if I go off piste. But I think it's important to at least explore that question and go, you know, this is food with which it is very hard, I would say, to have a healthy relationship. That's my experience. And I think the early research is bearing that out. Tell us how these foods affect your hunger, how full you feel, your microbiome. That whole sort of interactive set of signals that might put people in harmony with food in a normal environment but gets thrown off when the foods get processed like this. Oh, I love that question. At some level as I'm understanding that question, one way of trying to answer that question is to go, well, what is the normal physiological response to food? Or maybe how do wild animals find, consume, and then interpret metabolically the food that they eat. And it is staggering how little we know about how we learn what food is safe and what food nourishes us. What's very clear is that wild mammals, and in fact all wild animals, are able to maintain near perfect energy balance. Obesity is basically unheard of in the wild. And, perfect nutritional intake, I mean, obviously there are famines in wild animals, but broadly, animals can do this without being literate, without being given packaging, without any nutritional advice at all. So, if you imagine an ungulate, an herbivore on the plains of the Serengeti, it has a huge difficulty. The carnivore turning herbivore into carnivore is fairly easy. They're made of the same stuff. Turning plant material into mammal is really complicated. And somehow the herbivore can do this without gaining weight, whilst maintaining total precision over its selenium intake, its manganese, its cobalt, its iron, all of which are terrible if you have too little and also terrible if you have too much. We understand there's some work done in a few wild animals, goats, and rats about how this works. Clearly, we have an ability to sense the nutrition we want. What we understand much more about is the sort of quantities needed. And so, we've ended up with a system of nutritional advice that says, well, just eat these numbers. And if you can stick to the numbers, 2,500 calories a day, 2300 milligrams of sodium, no more than 5% of your calories from free sugar or 10%, whatever it is, you know, you stick to these numbers, you'll be okay. And also, these many milligrams of cobalt, manganese, selenium, iron, zinc, all the rest of it. And obviously people can't really do that even with the packaging. This is a very long-winded answer. So, there's this system that is exquisitely sensitive at regulating micronutrient and energy intake. And what we understand, what the Academy understands about how ultra-processed food subverts this is, I would say there are sort of three or four big things that ultra-processed does that real food doesn't. It's generally very soft. And it's generally very energy dense. And that is true of even the foods that we think of as being healthy. That's like your supermarket whole grain bread. It's incredibly energy dense. It's incredibly soft. You eat calories very fast, and this research was done in the '90s, you know we've known that that kind of food promotes excessive intake. I guess in simple terms, and you would finesse this, you consume calories before your body has time to go, well, you've eaten enough. You can consume an excess. Then there's the ratios of fat, salt, and sugar and the way you can balance them, and any good cook knows if you can get the acid, fat, salt, sugar ratios right, you can make incredibly delicious food. That's kind of what I would call hyper palatability. And a lot of that work's being done in the states (US) by some incredible people. Then the food may be that because it's low in fiber and low in protein, quite often it's not satiating. And there may be, because it's also low in micronutrients and general nutrition, it may be that, and this is a little bit theoretical, but there's some evidence for this. Part of what drives the excess consumption is you're kind of searching for the nutrients. The nutrients are so dilute that you have to eat loads of it in order to get enough. Do you think, does that, is that how you understand it? It does, it makes perfect sense. In fact, I'm glad you brought up one particular issue because part of the ultra-processing that makes foods difficult for the body to deal with involves what gets put in, but also what gets taken out. And there was a study that got published recently that I think you and I might have discussed earlier on American breakfast cereals. And this study looked at how the formulation of them had changed over a period of about 20 years. And what they found is that the industry had systematically removed the protein and the fiber and then put in more things like sugar. So there, there's both what goes in and what gets taken out of foods that affects the body in this way. You know, what I hear you saying, and what I, you know, believe myself from the science, is the body's pretty capable of handling the food environment if food comes from the natural environment. You know, if you sit down to a meal of baked chicken and some beans and some leafy greens and maybe a little fruit or something, you're not going to overdo it. Over time you'd end up with the right mix of nutrients and things like that and you'd be pretty healthy. But all bets are off when these foods get processed and engineered, so you over consume them. You found that out in the experiment that you did on yourself. And then that's what science shows too. So, it's not like these things are sort of benign. People overeat them and they ought to just push away from the table. There's a lot more going on here in terms of hijacking the brain chemistry. Overriding the body signals. Really thwarting normal biology. Do you think it's important to add that we think of obesity as being the kind of dominant public health problem? That's the thing we all worry about. But the obesity is going hand in hand with stunting, for example. So, height as you reach adulthood in the US, at 19 US adults are something like eight or nine centimeters shorter than their counterparts in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, where people still eat more whole food. And we should come back to that evidence around harms, because I think the really important thing to say around the evidence is it has now reached the threshold for causality. So, we can say a dietary pattern high in ultra-processed food causes all of these negative health outcomes. That doesn't mean that any one product is going to kill you. It just means if this is the way you get your food, it's going to be harmful. And if all the evidence says, I mean, we've known this for decades. If you can cook the kind of meal, you just described at home, which is more or less the way that high income people eat, you are likely to have way better health outcomes across the board. Let me ask you about the title of your book. So, the subtitle of your book is Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. So, what is it? The ultra-processed definition is something I want to pay credit for. It's really important to pay a bit of credit here. Carlos Montero was the scientist in Brazil who led a team who together came up with this definition. And, I was speaking to Fernanda Rauber who was on that team, and we were trying to discuss some research we were doing. And every time I said food, she'd correct me and go, it is not, it's not food, Chris. It's an industrially produced edible substance. And that was a really helpful thing for me personally, it's something it went into my brain, and I sat down that night. I was actually on the UPF diet, and I sat down to eat some fried chicken wings from a popular chain that many people will know. And was unable to finish them. I think our shared understanding of the purpose of food is surely that its purpose is to nourish us. Whether it's, you know, sold by someone for this purpose, or whether it's made by someone at home. You know it should nourish us spiritually, socially, culturally, and of course physically and mentally. And ultra-processed food nourishes us in no dimension whatsoever. It destroys traditional knowledge, traditional land, food culture. You don't sit down with your family and break, you know, ultra-processed, you know, crisps together. You know, you break bread. To me that's a kind of very obvious distortion of what it's become. So, I don't think it is food. You know, I think it's not too hard of a stretch to see a time when people might consider these things non-food. Because if you think of food, what's edible and whether it's food or not is completely socially constructed. I mean, some parts of the world, people eat cockroaches or ants or other insects. And in other parts of the world that's considered non-food. So just because something's edible doesn't mean that it's food. And I wonder if at some point we might start to think of these things as, oh my God, these are awful. They're really bad for us. The companies are preying on us, and it's just not food. And yeah, totally your book helps push us in that direction. I love your optimism. The consumer facing marketing budget of a big food company is often in excess of $10 billion a year. And depends how you calculate it. I'll give you a quick quiz on this. So, for a while, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was by far the biggest funder of research in the world on childhood obesity. And they were spending $500 million a year to address this problem. Just by which day of the year the food industry has already spent $500 million just advertising just junk food just to children. Okay, so the Robert V. Wood Foundation is spending it and they were spending that annually. Annually, right. So, what's, by what day of the year is the food industry already spent that amount? Just junk food advertising just to kids. I'm going to say by somewhere in early spring. No. January 4th. I mean, it's hysterical, but it's also horrifying. So, this is the genius of ultra-processed food, of the definition and the science, is that it creates this category which is discretionary. And so at least in theory, of course, for many people in the US it's not discretionary at all. It's the only stuff they can afford. But this is why the food industry hate it so much is because it offers the possibility of going, we can redefine food. And there is all this real food over there. And there is this UPF stuff that isn't food over here. But industry's very sophisticated, you know. I mean, they push back very hard against me in many different ways and forms. And they're very good at going, well, you're a snob. How dare you say that families with low incomes, that they're not eating food. Are you calling them dupes? Are you calling them stupid? You know, they're very, very sophisticated at positioning. Isn't it nice how concerned they are about the wellbeing of people without means? I mean they have created a pricing structure and a food subsidy environment and a tax environment where essentially people with low incomes in your country, in my country, are forced to eat food that harms them. So, one of the tells I think is if you're hearing someone criticize ultra-processed food, and you'll read them in the New York Times. And often their conflicts of interest won't be reported. They may be quite hidden. The clue is, are they demanding to seriously improve the food environment in a very clear way, or are they only criticizing the evidence around ultra-processed food? And if they're only criticizing that evidence? I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of salt they'll be food-industry funded. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that a little more. So, there's a clear pattern of scientists who take money from industry finding things that favor industry. Otherwise, industry wouldn't pay that money. They're not stupid in the way they invest. And, you and I have talked about this before, but we did a study some years ago where we looked at industry and non-industry funded study on the health effects of consuming sugar sweetened beverages. And it's like the ocean parted. It's one of my favorites. And it was something like 98 or 99% of the independently funded studies found that sugar sweetened beverages do cause harm. And 98 or 99% of the industry funded studies funded by Snapple and Coke and a whole bunch of other companies found that they did not cause harm. It was that stark, was it? It was. And so you and I pay attention to the little print in these scientific studies about who's funded them and who might have conflicts of interest. And maybe you and I and other people who follow science closely might be able to dismiss those conflicted studies. But they have a big impact out there in the world, don't they? I had a meeting in London with someone recently, that they themselves were conflicted and they said, look, if a health study's funded by a big sugary drink company, if it's good science, that's fine. We should publish it and we should take it at face value. And in the discussion with them, I kind of accepted that, we were talking about other things. And afterwards I was like, no. If a study on human health is funded by a sugary drink corporation, in my opinion, we could just tear that up. None of that should be published. No journals should publish those studies and scientists should not really call themselves scientists who are doing it. It is better thought of as marketing and food industry-funded scientists who study human health, in my opinion, are better thought of as really an extension of the marketing division of the companies. You know, it's interesting when you talk to scientists, and you ask them do people who take money from industry is their work influenced by that money? They'll say yes. Yeah, but if you say, but if you take money from industry, will your work be influenced? They'll always say no. Oh yeah. There's this tremendous arrogance, blind spot, whatever it is that. I can remain untarnished. I can remain objective, and I can help change the industry from within. In the meantime, I'm having enough money to buy a house in the mountains, you know, from what they're paying me, and it's really pretty striking. Well, the money is a huge issue. You know, science, modern science it's not a very lucrative career compared to if someone like you went and worked in industry, you would add a zero to the end of your salary, possibly more. And the same is true of me. I think one of the things that adds real heft to the independent science is that the scientists are taking a pay cut to do it. So how do children figure in? Do you think children are being groomed by the industry to eat these foods? A senator, I think in Chile, got in hot water for comparing big food companies to kind of sex offenders. He made, in my view, a fairly legitimate comparison. I mean, the companies are knowingly selling harmful products that have addictive properties using the language of addiction to children who even if they could read warning labels, the warning labels aren't on the packs. So, I mean, we have breakfast cereals called Crave. We have slogans like, once you stop, once you pop, you can't stop. Bet you can't just eat one. Yeah, I think it is predatory and children are the most vulnerable group in our society. And you can't just blame the parents. Once kids get to 10, they have a little bit of money. They get their pocket money, they're walking to school, they walk past stores. You know, you have to rely on them making decisions. And at the moment, they're in a very poor environment to make good decisions. Perhaps the most important question of all what can be done. So, I'm speaking to you at a kind of funny moment because I've been feeling that a lot of my research and advocacy, broadcasting... you know, I've made documentaries, podcasts, I've written a book, I've published these papers. I've been in most of the major newspapers and during the time I've been doing this, you know, a little under 10 years I've been really focused on food. Much less time than you. Everything has got worse. Everything I've done has really failed totally. And I think this is a discussion about power, about unregulated corporate power. And the one glimmer of hope is this complaint that's been filed in Pennsylvania by a big US law firm. It's a very detailed complaint and some lawyers on behalf of a young person called Bryce Martinez are suing the food industry for causing kidney problems and type two diabetes. And I think that in the end is what's going to be needed. Strategic litigation. That's the only thing that worked with tobacco. All of the science, it eventually was useful, but the science on its own and the advocacy and the campaigning and all of it did no good until the lawyers said we would like billions and billions of dollars in compensation please. You know, this is an exciting moment, but there were a great many failed lawsuits for tobacco before the master settlement agreement in the '90s really sort of changed the game. You know, I agree with you. Are you, are you optimistic? I mean, what do you think? I am, and for exactly the same reason you are. You know, the poor people that worked on public health and tobacco labored for decades without anything happening long, long after the health consequences of cigarette smoking were well known. And we've done the same thing. I mean, those us who have been working in the field for all these years have seen precious little in the ways of policy advances. Now tobacco has undergone a complete transformation with high taxes on cigarettes, and marketing restrictions, and non-smoking in public places, laws, and things like that, that really have completely driven down the consumption of cigarettes, which has been a great public health victory. But what made those policies possible was the litigation that occurred by the state attorneys general, less so the private litigating attorneys. But the state attorneys general in the US that had discovery documents released. People began to understand more fully the duplicity of the tobacco companies. That gave cover for the politicians to start passing the policies that ultimately made the big difference. I think that same history is playing out here. The state attorneys general, as we both know, are starting to get interested in this. I say hurray to that. There is the private lawsuit that you mentioned, and there's some others in the mix as well. I think those things will bring a lot of propel the release of internal documents that will show people what the industry has been doing and how much of this they've known all along. And then all of a sudden some of these policy things like taxes, for example, on sugared beverages, might come in and really make a difference. That's my hope. But it makes me optimistic. Well, I'm really pleased to hear that because I think in your position it would be possible. You know, I'm still, two decades behind where I might be in my pessimism. One of the kind of engines of this problem to me is these conflicts of interest where people who say, I'm a physician, I'm a scientist, I believe all this. And they're quietly paid by the food industry. This was the major way the tobacco industry had a kind of social license. They were respectable. And I do hope the lawsuits, one of their functions is it becomes a little bit embarrassing to say my research institute is funded [by a company that keeps making headlines every day because more documents are coming out in court, and they're being sued by more and more people. So, I hope that this will diminish the conflict, particularly between scientists and physicians in the food industry. Because that to me, those are my biggest opponents. The food industry is really nice. They throw money at me. But it's the conflicted scientists that are really hard to argue with because they appear so respectable. Bio Dr. Chris van Tulleken is a physician and a professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He trained at Oxford and earned his PhD in molecular virology from University College London. His research focuses on how corporations affect human health especially in the context of child nutrition and he works with UNICEF and The World Health Organization on this area. He is the author of a book entitled Ultraprocessed People: Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. As one of the BBC's leading broadcasters for children and adults his work has won two BAFTAs. He lives in London with his wife and two children.

The FDA recently put out a report stating that Children receive more than 60 % of their calories from UPFs - Ultra Processed Foods. UPFs contain industrial formulations including chemicals, manufactured sweeteners, flavor enhancers, colorants, emulsifiers, thickeners, anti-foaming agents, bulking or gelling agents—to make them highly palatable, visually appealing, and shelf-stable. That all happens to also make food highly toxic to our bodies. It's no wonder why almost 20% of our children are obese and trends put that number growing annually.   So WHY has this mock-food been allowed - and WHAT can we do about it? That's what the BrainStim gang is delving into in today's epsiode. We hope you listen and start a health revolution in your town to change the generational cycle of sickness.   As always, if you want more information or have questions, please visit us at www.invisionchiropractic.com. 

Welcome to another special live episode of The Wellness Scoop. We're starting with a calming five-minute meditation led by Cordelia Simpson to help you pause, breathe and refill your cup before diving in. Then we're tackling one of the most confusing topics in nutrition: ultra processed foods (UPFs). From the additives hiding in our everyday favourites to the impact on gut health, inflammation and chronic disease, we're breaking down what the science actually says and where the gaps still are. We're looking at how UPFs are defined, the most common ones in our diets, and how our eating habits today compare to our grandparents' generation. We're also exploring the links with obesity, mental health and cancer risk, plus why cost and access play such a big role in the conversation. Most importantly, we're sharing simple, realistic swaps that make a difference without cutting out joy, from building more meals around whole foods to knowing when an additive is worth paying attention to. Get your copy of Rhi's book, The Unprocessed Plate To get the exclusive gift box from Shokz, order via this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/44MSOxI⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scientists agree that processed foods are contributing to poor health — but when it comes to ultra-processed foods (UPFs), there's growing confusion. The term is now used so broadly that it includes everything from crisps and sweets to wholemeal bread and plant-based milks. So what do we really know about the health effects of UPFs? And is the label actually making it harder for us to eat well? In this episode, Jonathan is joined by Dr. Sarah Berry, ZOE's Chief Scientist. Sarah is a professor of nutrition at King's College London who has run some of the world's largest human nutrition studies. Her work explores how different foods — and how they're processed — impact metabolism, fat storage, and long-term health. Sarah shares insights from her recent global conference talks, breaking down the good, the bad, and the misunderstood sides of ultra-processed food. By the end, you'll have a clearer, more nuanced view of how to eat for your health — without falling for the hype. Unwrap the truth about your food

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

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

Story at-a-glance More than 85% of high ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumers meet clinical criteria for food addiction, including symptoms like cravings, withdrawal and loss of control People who eat more UPFs report higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress, confirming that these foods worsen mood and emotional health UPFs hijack your brain's reward system, overstimulating feel-good chemicals like dopamine, opioids and endocannabinoids, which makes quitting feel nearly impossible Damage to the gut microbiome caused by UPFs alters how your brain handles cravings and stress, increasing emotional eating and reducing impulse control Cutting out vegetable oils, which are high in linoleic acid, going cold turkey for five days and rebuilding gut health with whole foods helps break the addiction cycle and restore mood balance