The Leading Voices in Food

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

In this episode of the 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.

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

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

The gut is in the news. It's really in the news. Catapulted there from exciting developments coming from laboratories all around the world. Links of gut health with overall health are now quite clear and surprising connections are being discovered between gut health and things like dementia and Alzheimer's. But how does the gut communicate with other parts of the body in ways that make it this important, and where does the brain figure into all this? Well, there's some interesting science going on in this topic, and a leading person in this area is Dr. Diego Bohorquez. Dr. Bohorquez is the associate professor of medicine, of molecular genetics and microbiology and of cell biology at the Duke University School of Medicine.
Interview Transcript
Diego, your bio shows that you blend work in nutritional biochemistry, gastrointestinal physiology, and sensory neurobiology. It took me a little time to figure out just what these things are, but what this represents, to be a little more serious, is a unique ability to understand that the different parts of the body, the gut and the brain in particular, interact a lot. And you're in a very good position to understand how that happens. Let's dive in with the kind of a basic question. What got you interested in this interaction of the gut with the brain and why care about it?
Yes. Kelly, I think that that's all technicalese for saying that we are at the interface of food, the gut, and the brain. Apart from the fact that we are what we eat and if we truly believe that then food will be shaping us. Not only our body, but also like our belief systems, our societal systems, and so on and so forth. I don't think that that is anything new. However, what is new is the ability of the gut to guide our decision making. And it was interesting to hear in your introduction that now the gut is all in the news. In 2005 when I came to the United States, and I was at North Carolina State University, and I joined a graduate school. I remember taking a graduate course in physiology in 2007. And when the professor opened the session on gastrointestinal physiology, he said the gut is one of the most misunderstood and mysterious organs. It has almost as many neurons as the spinal cord, or more. But honestly, we don't give a lot of respect to the gut. We only think that it does some digestion and absorption, and we judge it more for the value of its products of digestion than what it does for the entire body.
And fast forward almost 20 years later now, partly my laboratory and other laboratories that have entered this field since some of our discoveries started to emerge, it's very clearly showing that the gut not only has its own sensory system that is behind what we call gut feelings. The gut feelings are actually real. But it actually can influence our decision making. Like specifically, we have shown that our ability to choose sugars and consume sugars and feel sugars and choose them over sweeteners, it can be pinpointed to a specific set of cells in the intestine called neuropod cells and specific receptors in those cells. And the intestine is right after the stomach. And this is where these cells are exposed to the surface of the gut and detect the chemical composition of food to guide our decision making.
Let's talk about that a little bit more. So, you've got this axis, or this means of communication between the gut and the brain going on. And let's talk about how it affects what we eat. You just alluded to the fact that it's pretty important. What does it tell us? What to eat, how much to eat? What we like to eat? When we're hungry, when we've had enough? How does this affect our eating?
We are beginning to understand how much it affects this eating. And obviously we are departing from understanding, right? And an understanding is cognitive. In the 1500s is when the idea of 'we think therefore we are,' came online. And we needed to think things before we actually will understand them. But well before thinking them, we actually feel them. And you probably have noticed that. If anybody offers you maybe a cup of water at 5:00 AM, 6:00 AM, it will be very welcome. Especially with it's a little bit warm. If they offer you a steak at 5:00 AM you will run away from that. But in fact, you'll create distress I think unless you are like severely jet lagged. And a lot of those feelings not only come from the experience, but even if you blind are blindfolded, your gut will be able to evaluate what you just ingested.
And it is because the intestine, it is the point where those molecules in the meal or in the drink, will be either absorbed to become part of who we are, or will be excreting and expelled. And that absorption of who we are is dependent on the context. Like for instance, the part of the month, morning versus afternoon, health status, age, will influence specifically like at the molecular level, what it is that we need to continue to thrive.
It sounds like there's lots of potential for the gut and its interaction with the brain working in concert with the rest of the body. Things are in balance and working like they should be. But there are lots of things going on out there that disrupt that. Tell us more about that and how it affects eating. For example, the levels of obesity have risen so much in the past decades. How does the gut figure into that, for example. Could there be environmental things like the microplastics or exposure to toxins like pesticides and things that might be affecting the gut that throws the system off?
I think that that is a very timely question for the days. Over the last 10 years, we have documented that the gut has its own sensory system. And in fact, it's one of the most ancient sensory systems. At the very beginning, 600 million years ago, when cells started to coalesce into animals, multicellular organisms, they needed to eat. And they needed to not only find the food but create a sensory representation of the food. What do I mean by that? Eating algae is very different than eating bacteria, for instance. And the gut needed to have these sensors to be able to rapidly create first a representation, this is bacteria. And then put out the molecules to digest that bacterium or those bacteria. And then ultimately absorb them, turn them into metabolites and continue to thrive, right? Perhaps reproduce, coalesce and so on and so forth. This is a very important concept because our reality, the reality that you and I are having right now, it is guided by our senses. And we have multiple senses. Like for instance, we are able to communicate partly because of the sound that is going through our ears. And then there are inner hair cells that are picking up those waves. Passing that information to the brain, decoding it, and then the brain coalesces with everything else and saying like, 'okay, Diego, you're in a podcast. Make sure that you say something hopefully reasonable, right?' What the gut is doing, as a true sensory system, is also detecting the food that we have ingested, creating a rapid representation. It's not the reality itself. It is a representation of the reality. Because when we eat an apple, ultimately the gut, what it's doing is creating a representation that was an apple and not an orange. And then telling the brain, look, you're going to get some glucose, some fiber, a little bit of a skin. And you may need to adjust it with water, right? And then that will trigger the desire to, 'oh, maybe I should have also a cup of water.' Why does that have to do with, the societal issues that we are facing? Since the 1970s, we learned to disentangle the sensory experience of food, not only as humans or scientists, but also that was extrapolated to the society. So, if you go and look, and it is not a secret, it has been very well documented. For instance, the ability to put artificial sweeteners out there. It has really changed the health landscape. And it was just a normal progression of how it is that we humans think. We thought well, people consume sugars because they're sweet. If we take out the calorie and we just leave the sweetness, it will be totally fine because it's benign. You're not consuming anything else. However, the gut, you have promised the gut something sweet. That it has always, or almost always, invariably, been associated with a nutritional value. Then the gut is fed this information that is skewed. Then it has to go and adjust. And we actually have demonstrated that in the laboratory that when the neuro pods detect a non-caloric sweetener, they actually release a different neurotransmitter that communicates to the brain that artificial sweeteners have arrived at the gut, as opposed to glucose, which triggers the release of glutamate. And that glutamate is essential for the organism to know that we have consumed sugar.
Is it safe to say then that the body has evolved to be able to have effective signaling and feedback systems with things that are found out there in nature, like sugar or an apple or an orange. But when you start introducing things that don't exist in nature, like the artificial sweeteners, then bad things can happen.
Yes. Because imagine right now your brain will swap the reality and you will transport yourself or the beach. You may not even have the clothing ready to confront the breeze of the beach, right? Or the salt. You would have not been prepared, right? We evolved around nature because nature was there before us. Therefore, we had gradually adjusted to what nature had to offer. Eventually we introduced fire, and we were able to transform simple or complex carbohydrates into something digestible. And then the body had the ability to adjust to it. And not only the body, but also the microbiota in the gut. Now we are talking about like the transformation of foods. And especially I think in the last 30 years we have been able to transform those foods. Beverages have sweeteners now. We have energy drinks that have a composition of vitamins and other things. And while those things individually perhaps are not innocuous, we haven't explored what is the conglomerate effect on long-term health.
When we talk about these things being added to foods, I mean, there are whole classes of things like colorings and dyes and artificial sweeteners and things. And then there are processing things that go on, like extrusion and different things that take something like wheat or corn and turn it into something that the body is not accustomed to dealing with. Is the body incapable of perceiving what these things are? Does it get send out wrong signals? Why should we be worried about these things?
I don't think that we should be worried necessarily because that's alarming, right? But we should be aware, certainly, that the body keeps tabs on it. Something very simple. If you rub water on your skin versus if you rub oil on your skin, your brain already starts to perceive that substance as different. Now, imagine the gut is going to know exactly the same thing. It knows what water is. It knows what oil is. It knows what carbs are. It knows what protein is. And depending on what it has been fed for, thousands of years, it will be able to create that representation as I alluded to. And therefore, if there is a foreign composition, it's going to have to adjust to the situation. And that is how you can end up altering the composition of a regular body. Because like, for instance, in nature if you go and look at native populations that live very close to nature, you know, the body composition is in a certain form. But in cities where you're exposed to foods that have been transformed, the body composition is very different. And I'm not talking only about body weight, but also height, shape, you know.
That certainly makes sense. You know, something that's been in the news a lot lately are the GLP1 drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound and they have very powerful effects on appetite, satiety, and weight regulation. How is the gut brain axis involved in this?
I would like to make a couple of points in there.The first one is that glucagon-like peptide is obviously is very similar to glucagon. Glucagon is produced in the pancreas. Glucagon-like peptide is actually produced in the gut. And it is produced by these neuro pod cells that also produce some neurotransmitters. And it is produced in response to specific nutrients like glucose. And it is a signal glucagon like peptide 1. It is a signal for not only adjusting insulin release, but it is also a signal for coordinating what has arrived in the gut. It does affect motility. Eventually it is thought that goes into the bloodstream and affects the nervous system. However, and I said it is thought because the brain also produces glucagon-like peptide. There are cells in the skin. There are cells in the urethra. There are cells in the bladder. There are cell cells in the spinal cord in the choroid plexus that is exposed to the cerebral spinal fluid that also produces some of these peptides as signaling molecules. And I have to make that clarification because traditionally it has been thought to be a signal from the gut, per se. But these are just signaling molecules. The second part is that the arrival of Ozempic, I thought that it was obviously a very important step not only scientifically, but also societally. Why? Because up until 1980s and I have thought with many colleagues especially in medicine. And they will say like, when an obese patient will arrive in the office, first of all, there was not a lot of options. One of the recommendations is - are you doing enough dieting or exercise? And if the patient was like, you know, I'm not eating even a lot, but I'm gaining weight. Or it was perhaps psychosomatic because we didn't have the molecular language to be able to explain what was going on. I think that Ozempic clearly has shown that when we are affecting a set of receptors in the body, perhaps in the gut, it's changing many different things. Not only like food intake, but also alcohol intake and how people feel. I think that is definitely a breakthrough. Where are we going from here? I think that this is the beginning of a long conversation in which we are going to be looking for options not only to reduce the amount of food, but actually to steer food choices from the gut. Because the gut is still as an external surface. And that's what I've mentioned that the discovery that these neuro pot cells can guide our food choices, I think that is very attractive for future options on how we are going to steer decision making.
So, let me ask a final question. You partly just answered it, but where do you see this field going? What are you excited about and what do you think the next frontiers will be?
I think that I'm a little bit more close to nature. I think that on moving forward, there's all obviously a lot of technologies and molecules that are going to be developed to perhaps treat some disorders. Not only related to the body, but also to the mind. Chronic depression and so on and so forth. But I think a lot of these elements have already been explored in nature. And if we look back anthropologically, people were solving the issue of medicine with their environment. In fact, what we call metropolitan medicine evolved largely from natural medicine. And in fact, today, 80% of the world, they still rely directly on plants and other compounds that are directly from plants for healthcare. I think that there is a lot to learn in there and a lot to merge, especially with the new technologies on diagnostics. And I think that that's a very exciting area to keep nature in mind. And when I said nature is like our relationship with environment, right?
Bio
Diego V. Bohorquez is an associate professor of medicine, associate professor in molecular genetics and microbiology, associate professor of cell biology, associate research professor in neurobiology, and an associate professor in pathology at Duke University's Department of Medicine. Bohorquez is a gut-brain neuroscientist and holds a Ph.D. from North Carolina State University. His research focus is to unveil how the brain perceives what the gut feels, how food in the intestine is sensed by our body, and how a sensory signal from a nutrient is transformed into an electrical signal that alters behavior.