The Leading Voices in Food

Transcript
Paper: Gearhardt AN, Brownell KD, Brandt AM. From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease. Milbank Q. 2026;104(1):0202.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.70066
https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/from-tobacco-to-ultraprocessed-food-how-industry-engineering-fuels-the-epidemic-of-preventable-disease/
Ashley, let's talk a little bit about, just set the stage for what this paper was all about, and since it was your brainchild, you approached Allan and me about being involved. Tell us what you set out to do and why you thought these issues were worth digging into.
Ashley - You know, I've just been so struck that when we think of cigarettes, they were something that's so common, so normal that we kind of think, oh, they've always just sort of been there. But truly, they're just taking a natural plant from the ground and through advancements and corporate engineering and technology and knowhow, they took a poisonous plant and made it into the most deadly and addictive drug in human history. And yet that was, you know, just accompanied by tons of debate. It didn't look like other addictive substances. And I just really felt like, man, we're reliving this history right now when it comes to how we've altered our food supply. I wanted to really bring you all together and see if we could really lay that story out of the, the parallels of these two public health crises.
We'll get in a minute into the issue of what you discovered, but tell us what you covered, what the paper was meant to do.
Ashley - The paper really goes back from how you take the tobacco plant in the field, or the corn in the field, and walks essentially through all the kind of levers that are being pulled to transform it in very specific ways. And through specific technologies and corporate practices that are being shared by modern cigarettes and ultra processed foods. These products maybe look harmless on their face initially, or don't look like they're just maybe pleasurable or craveable. But truly, I would argue that they've crossed thresholds into things that are addictive and clearly damaging many people's lives.
Okay, so several decades ago, I don't know who came up with a term, but there was a lot of discussion about similarities between tobacco industry behavior and food industry behavior. And the press started publishing cover pieces that would say food is the next tobacco. And it was a term that the food industry really didn't like, and they don't want that comparison at all. It'll be interesting to see whether they deserve it. You clearly made that connection in this paper.
Allan, let's turn to you. Oh my God. I mean, we could do a 15-hour podcast and not cover the history of the tobacco industry. There's so much to say, enough that you wrote a massive book about it. But give an overall sense, if you will, of the kind of tactics and morality of that industry.
Allan - Well, as Ashley already mentioned, early in the 20th Century we wouldn't really be thinking much of cigarettes, and they were just a very peripheral sales consumer item. And over the course of the 20th Century, we came to a point in the middle of the century of the 1970s, and '80s where about half of all American adults were smoking cigarettes regularly. I wanted to understand that. How do you take something that's at the very margin of the economy and culture and make it a dominant consumer force? And I think in that way, we have certain parallels to ultra processed foods. But then there were the questions, how do you make it so popular? Is it dangerous to use? Is it addictive? Does it cause disease? And how do you resist regulation and other public health approaches to try to keep people smoking? And I found a lot of evidence in each of those areas, both of how the industry acted. And when you say, you know, it's ultra processed food like cigarettes, we're learning a lot about ultra processed foods. But we know a ton about what the industry did to make the 20th Century what I call the Cigarette Century. And we have seen really important declines in smoking in the last 30-40 years. It's a remarkable public health effort. But at the same time, the industry worked incredibly hard and, in some ways brilliantly, to maintain the popularity of their product. And underlying all this is the idea that nicotine is highly addictive. And the industry came to understand that certainly before consumers did. And as a result, they could engineer, manage, manipulate the addictive character of a product that kills. I think looking for parallels, both in terms of how the industry did it and how perhaps public health law regulation can undo it, is the critical aspect of what we've been working on together.
Okay. So, the tobacco industry did more than just take a plant, dry it out, chop it up, and roll it up in some paper. Then people might be driving whatever natural pleasure there would be from that product. But they did more, didn't they?
Allan - Yes.
And you talked about nicotine in particular. So how manipulated was this industrial process and was it designed to create such high levels of addiction?
Allan - Well, for a long time we couldn't be sure about that. And we have learned that the industry had learned sophisticated techniques of industrial production of cigarettes. So, it wasn't like just chopping up tobacco and putting it in paper. You know, they added many additives. They added liquids. They dried it out, they put it in long strips of tobacco for cutting and packaging. And they had innovated the technologies, instead of human beings rolling cigarettes, they were able through machinery and technology to produce hundreds of thousands of cigarettes a day. And then they had to figure out how do we sell this tremendous volume of cigarettes in order to make our industry truly lucrative. So, there were those aspects. And certainly by the middle of the 20th Century, many people realize that - I smoke regularly and I crave my next cigarette and I'm smoking a pack a day, sometimes two packs a day. And people would ask, well, is it a habit? Is it habituating? Is it addictive? And as the science of addiction really grew in the middle of the 20th Century, we began to realize it had all the characteristics of addiction. But we really didn't know exactly what the companies were doing. And what we did learn in the '80s and '90s is that the companies had a precise ability to manage the nicotine in their product. And they did, so that even as they put filters on and they claimed they had safer cigarettes, they were also producing increasingly addictive cigarettes where we have craving, we have withdrawal, we have tolerance. The basic categories, that structure, how we understand addiction.
Okay. We'll dive into some of those in a little more detail, but thanks for that background. Ashley, people kind of get it that drugs can be addictive and they know that alcohol can be addictive. They know that cigarettes can. But what about food?
Ashley - Yes, so I think one of the things that when I take a step back, is that the reward and motivation system that alcoholic beverages, cigarettes can start to hijack and drive towards compulsive problematic use, that was laid down in the brain to make sure we were getting enough food. It's really sensitive to food reward, energy density. But the thing is you actually consume nicotine probably most days. Nicotine is actually in a lot of plants like tomato and eggplant, but nobody's getting addicted to the chemical in that delivery vehicle. I would argue the same thing's happening. When we look at our research nobody's getting addicted to minimally processed foods like bananas and broccoli, and salmon filets. It's when you're able to process and titrate and hedonically engineer food reward in a way that mimics the intensity and the sensory appeal and the spikes and crashes and the craveability of something like cigarettes, that you start to see people losing control. And when I read Allan's book, my husband was watching over my shoulder. And he's like, you know, if you highlight every single sentence, it's not gonna help you because you've highlighted the whole book. And reading what Allan laid out about how each wave of cigarette addiction, it wasn't because we suddenly discovered what nicotine was, it's because the industry got better at manipulating engineering, designing, flooding the market with it. And then health washing it, so people didn't really understand what they were getting into. And to me, that is what we've done to our food supply. And the result of that has been the astronomical increases in diet related disease and health concerns.
Tell us about the concept of ultra processed food and how that fits in.
Ashley - Yes. Yeah, that's a great question. So, ultra processed food is a concept that actually came out at about the same time as the Yale Food Addiction Scale, that Kelly and I published together, about how to operationalize who might be showing signs of addiction and certain foods. Carlos Monteiro from Brazil was noticing that his grocery store was starting to be flooded by foods that you could not make in your home kitchen. I have exactly no idea how to make a double stuffed Oreo or a flaming hot Cheeto, or a Cherry Coca-Cola. And as these products that were industrially created with additives and flavor enhancers that are kind of biologically novel, that's when the disease risk started to go up. And so, these foods are so fundamentally changed in they're kind of most archetypal forms of things, like sodas and, you know, your sweet, savory sort of snacks, that a whole new category had to be created for them. To really distinguish them from, you know, grandma's homemade cookies or, you know, an apple or an orange.
Ashley, you're brilliant at framing things. And one of the things that I learned from you a long time ago, and I've used a thousand times in discussions with people, is thinking about food, like turning the coca plant into cocaine and into crack cocaine. That if you take the coca plant into its natural form, people can live in harmony with it. You don't really have addiction. But when you process it and it becomes cocaine, then things change dramatically. And when you hyper process it, like the hyper palatable foods and the ultra processed foods, then the crack cocaine becomes incredibly addictive. So that same sort of phenomenon I think applies here. And it's a very compelling way to think about this.
Allan, let's get back to the addiction thing and tobacco. One of the most stunning things I remember about the tobacco history. Is the videotape of the seven tobacco company executives testifying before Congress that nicotine wasn't addictive. Swearing, you know, sworn statements about nicotine. Tell us about that and what that kind of meant in history.
Allan - It's a great story and it has a kind of visual linkage to many of us who actually saw those congressional hearings. And it was a brilliant sort of performative politics, if you will. And there had been more and more knowledge that the industry was manipulating nicotine to make cigarettes that they were claiming were safer and not addictive, even more highly addictive. And David Kessler, the head of the FDA under Clinton, had really been a major player in this. And one thing I should say is we were learning more and more about the industry because people were suing them. And they would typically lose the suits, but they would get hundreds, hundreds of thousands of documents. And the industry also had whistleblowers who were coming forward and saying, of course we know it's addictive. So, Henry Waxman, a really fantastic congressman who represented consumers invited all seven of the major tobacco CEOs to a hearing on nicotine. And he went one by one - do you believe nicotine is addictive? And they would say, Congressman, I do not believe that nicotine is addictive. And it's like any great prosecutor, he had figured out how to get them essentially to perjure themselves in front of a congressional, and video news audience. And in fact, the Department of Justice considered for some time whether they should be put on trial and indicted for perjury before Congress. But it was so in congress, with what we had come to know, especially experts, but even, you know, parents and the public and citizens had come to know that it was incredibly difficult to get off of nicotine. It just didn't comport with our existing knowledge. And we're not quite to that point with ultra processed foods yet, but I think we have a good chance to get there because as we understand what they're doing better and we have a sophisticated understanding of the characteristics of addiction, that same question will be put ultimately to CEOs of the food industry. Especially those who are producing these highly addictive products. And there are many people who are involved in this. So, they will tell a story of how we understood we could make our product sell better and be used at a much higher level if we could make it addictive. And regrettably, as we learn more about addictive addiction, we not only learn perhaps how to help people who are addicted. But we often learn how to make certain products even more highly addictive.
Ashley, let's take what Allan said and apply it into the food arena. So, if you think about the criteria for addiction, like Allan had mentioned: cravings, withdrawal, and tolerance, and, tolerance being the need to have more of the substance over time in, in order to produce the same pharmacologic effect. How do those things apply to foods?
Ashley - Yes. There there's very strong parallels there. And I actually have a paper I wrote with Dr. Alex DiFeliceantonio, where we took the 1988 Surgeon General's report on the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine in particular. And we took what they identified as the necessary and sufficient criteria to prove that it was addictive. It was a watershed moment for tobacco. And the major one is that people consume it compulsively. Meaning, you know, they want to cut down and they can't. They know it's harming them and they can't. Clearly we see that with ultra processed food. That it shifts mood. It increases pleasure. It reduces negative affect through its mechanism on the brain. And I think if you look at any marketing, you know, they're always saying you're craving meet your maker, get your bliss point. You're not you unless you're eating a Snickers. They show that it was highly reinforced. And that is, you know, animals and humans will work really hard to get access to it. With nicotine one of the major points of that is that animals, about 20% of the time, would work to get nicotine over cocaine. And that was quite striking because cocaine is so powerfully addictive. Well in those same models, animals will work for processed sweet taste and choose it 80% of the time over cocaine. It just shows that when we start altering, processing food reward into these unnaturally intensely stimulating packages, our brains were not evolved to protect itself against that. And then the final pieces that's been kind of added over time has been the cravings. I mean, if you think about what is the core of addiction, it's the craveability of it. That they maximize that. So, you can't stop thinking about anything else. And when I read, and we even quote in our paper, spots where, you know, industries, the big food is having webinars and how to turn cravings into corporate wins. And how to take snackers who are consuming, because their cravings feel unmanageable, but here's how you can keep them snacking even though they want to quit. And so, the craving really seems to me, based on my read of what I've seen from the industry, is the core engine of driving and selling ultra processed food.
So, these foods, and I've heard you say this, Ashley, you know, they have less to do with the farm and, you know, these sort of romantic ideas of the farmer growing crops and the crops being harvested and coming to a farmer's market. These are really industrial lab-based, you know, heavy duty factory related products. And there's a real question, isn't there, about what you even should call them food.
Ashley - Yes, absolutely. I actually grew up on a farm and I never ate anything that we grew on the farm because it was all due to Ag policy. Just, corn to go into high fructose corn syrup, soy to go into soybean oil. And I was surrounded by what looked like lots of food, but in reality, it was not. And some of the things that I learned in writing this paper with you all is just to what degree ultra processing allows them to even control the molecular structure and size of the different starch chemicals. That carby kind of access point in food. Allan talks in his book about how you can treat tobacco. So, you break it down and make it molecularly more bioavailable so nicotine gets more rapidly into the body. That's a huge driver of addictive potential. I found in ours that they were actually using enzymes that mimic what's in the saliva in your mouth. And hitting starches with it. Essentially you were predigesting, pre salivating, essentially the starch creating what's called a starch slurry. And that's a base of so many common ultra processed foods like cereals and savory snacks. Many of these products really have far more in common with that cigarette and have almost nothing in common, you know, with the apple or the can of beans anymore.
You know, that image that you said about pre salivating food. I mean, it's in some ways as if the industry is spitting in your food to bypass your own biological mechanisms that occur when the food gets in the mouth and. People get a kind of a yuck response to that, but it deserves that kind of a response. Let's dive into the paper and talk about what you reported, Ashley. You talk a lot about the kind of processes. You just mentioned one of them, but there are a lot more. What are some of the specific techniques to food processing that surprised you when you started digging in. How did you get this information?
Ashley - Yes, so one of the functions that actually didn't surprise me, but it made me look at it in new light, is the work on how we really changed the way we saw cigarettes when we realized they weren't just taking a plant and drying it and rolling it up. But that they were actually curating and titrating these just right doses of nicotine. So, you get stimulated, but not too satisfied and you don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of nicotine. When we realized that was very intentional and designed and titrated, that really changed this from a natural kind of product, it's just a plant to, oh, this is an in industry engineered product. They're controlling so much of this. We all know that they are altering the amount of sweetened refined carbohydrates and fats in our food. I mean, that's just plain knowledge. And at levels that go way beyond what exists in nature. But I think I've become very obsessed with extrusion technology. Extrusion is something where they take really high pressure, high shear mechanical impact, high pH, high temperature. And they can break the corn or the potatoes and things into this slurry that is broken down again into this kind of predigested molecular base that on its own is nasty. No one is like, oh, starch, slurry, yes! They need all the sensory and flavor additives to blitz that and texturize it so it can trick your brain into thinking it's appealing. I realized that actually has such a strong parallel to modern cigarette where, as Allan talks about in his book, one of the major technological advances was creating reconstituted tobacco where they take the tobacco scraps and they do the same sort of process to create what they call a tobacco slurry. That was then very easy to manipulate by putting flavor and preservative additives in it, and that's what makes up a large component of modern cigarette. And so, when we look at these processes and those sensory additives, the flavors, that are put in it, cigarettes have more sugar and flavor additives in them by weight than they do nicotine. And so many of those flavor additives are actually in our ultra processed food supply. Why? Because the flavor and sensory profiles are what you start to become really emotionally attached to. And that starts to drive brand loyalty from a very young age. I could go on and on and on. Oh man, we could be here for a day, so I'm really inhibiting myself. I'll be exhausted. I'll have to go get an ultra processed food from this. But it was stunning to me to see how the goals of the engineering were so shared. And I guess it shouldn't surprise us because, you know, we know that the tobacco companies like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds actually created, manufactured and sold many of our favorite ultra processed foods that are now in our modern food supply, like Fig Newton's and you know, Hawaiian Punch and things. It really came from the same industrial practices.
So Allan, I want to bring this back to the tobacco industry in a minute, but Ashley, I wanted to ask you first. I'm going to make a characterization. Tell me if I'm off on this. The industry is kind of manipulating every possible characteristic of a product. Its fragrance, its color, its texture, everything in the ways you mentioned. It becomes this industrialized product much more than a food. People consume it. They get immense reward from it because it's delivering a drug, basically, to the brain very quickly in a very efficient way. People then, of course, want more of that sensation. If tolerance exists, then it means they need more of the food over time in order to get the same reward. And then you've got a public health nightmare on your hand because people aren't just eating a little bit of these foods, they're eating a lot of these foods. And they're designed in order to produce that very impact. Does that seem fair?
Ashley - Absolutely. That sums it up quite nicely.
Okay, Allan, back to the tobacco experience. This kind of information that Ashley is talking about in the context of food, and you talked about in the context of tobacco. Manipulation of the product. As this kind of damning information became public knowledge, how did that happen in the tobacco arena? And then what was the consequence? Was it, you mentioned whistleblowers; was it investigative journalism? The hearings you mentioned were important. Scientific research, discovery. It sounds like a whole lot of things happened that made this information available to the public, which in turn changed public opinion against the industry.
Allan - Yes, I think that's exactly right. It changed public opinion and it changed public policy and it took a long time. So, these are aspects that I think we have to, you know, acknowledge in thinking about public health and especially these powerful commercial interests that spend a lot of money on lobbying. They spend a lot of money on advertising. They know how to get to kids. These are very challenging. I do think, you know, early in the anti-tobacco campaigns, there were a few lawyers who said, well, we're going to sue them because they have misled, deceived, and in some instances probably acted criminally to build their addictive and extremely harmful life-threatening product. And people said, well, you know, it's everybody's decision whether they want to smoke and people quit all the time, so you're not going to do very well. And I think as a young academic type, I was very skeptical of the suits against the companies. But one thing that happened that I think was unanticipated, the lawyers asked for the company's records and their research reports and what people were doing. And they took depositions and the lawyers often lost the case, but they won an incredible archive that was incredibly self-incriminating of what the industry knew. When they knew it and how they continued to act to sell a harmful product. And I think that began to change things. So once you have documents, you know you're going to be more successful in court. Once you have some documents, you can call the CEOs in and say is it addictive? When they say no, you have documentation to challenge them about their own industry. Obviously, education is important. Investigative journalism. A lot of the documents not only came from the court suits, but from whistleblowers who snuck them out of law firms. Some of the whistleblowers came directly from the industry where they said, here's what my bosses told me. They need to know can you make this cigarette even more addictive? And they knew, for example, that taking nicotine out of cigarettes, which is not that difficult to do given the extent of manipulation, had to be something that was resisted. We could end the tobacco pandemic by just removing nicotine. Even if we did, you know, 10% a year. Many people would be able to stop smoking who cannot. But we had to array a kind of knowledge and practice and advocacy that really hadn't existed till the second half of the 20th Century.
Ashley, when Allan mentioned these archives that exist on tobacco industry behavior, there's some food things in there, aren't there? Tell us about that connection between tobacco and food companies.
Ashley - Yes, so you know, actually, Dr. Laura Schmidt at University of California - San Francisco, has done this just stunning work by using those same tobacco archives. Because they owned alcoholic beverage and ultra processed food and beverage companies she's been able to show really how much these industries kind of spoke back and forth. The different sectors of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, you know, they're big conglomerates. They were pulling scientists working on the cigarettes, or the marketers working on marketing cigarettes to kids, and putting them on and intentionally using that playbook to sell their ultra processed foods and beverages. That's very clear and very intentional. They might not say as blatantly. I feel like they learned their lesson a little bit. Oh, we're going to make this more addictive. They use synonyms even out in the public. Some of it that we report in this paper is not hidden. It's industry trade newsletters. It's interviews on 60 minutes with labor scientists where they're saying, yeah, we design these products, so you get a big flavor burst. And then it fades really rapidly because that makes you want to keep coming back for more and more and more. And yeah, addictive is a good word for that. And so there is this moment where it just becomes so implausible that they don't know that they have crossed the Rubicon into something that is hooking people. That plausible deniability that we're just, you know, giving consumers what they want, not actually engineering their desires to override what they know they should have to nourish themselves. It just feels beyond the pale to me to believe that's the case.
Allan, look, you mentioned delay. And I'd like to talk about that a little bit more. There's a point in time when the science on something becomes robust. And you're very certain say that tobacco is causing lung cancer and heart disease.  And then you can't change things the next day or the next week. So, a little bit of delay is probably acceptable and to be understood. But the delay in this case between that knowledge and significant public health action policy action wasn't measured in days, weeks, months, or even years. It was decades. And you can count the number of attributable deaths to that delay in the millions. What did the industry do to make that delay as long as possible in terms of planting doubt, conflicts of interest with science and things like that?
Allan - This is highly relevant to our moment because I make a few claims in the book. One is that the industry invented disinformation and misinformation. And there's always this way that says, well, I know that study appeared, but we need more information. And this was very clever on the part of the tobacco companies because they said, well, you know, that science shows this, but that science is unreliable. And we need to use different methods. And lung cancer is not a result of cigarette smoking, it's actually genetic. And maybe there are a few people that shouldn't be smoking cigarettes. We should be able to identify what's different about them. They kept finding strategies of delay, manipulation, building uncertainty. There's one of the tobacco documents in this phase that says, from now on, our product is doubt. And what they really needed to do to sell the product was to create doubt about a science that was highly robust and really important to consumers. On the other hand, I think consumers are sensitive to being manipulated. They don't like that. They don't like being tricked. They know these industries, especially tobacco industry, you know, is disreputable. And as that became the case, what did they know and what are they selling. We began to see some slow shifts in public awareness. And, you know, it's so interesting presenting the cigarette problem to a jury in 1970 became radically different than presenting the case against the tobacco companies in the 1990s. And a lot had changed, A lot had been documented and, you know, we never even thought of the idea that a company would scientifically mislead us probably until in any consequential way till the middle of the 20th Century. And now we're incredibly skeptical and I think taking advantage of the public skepticism, both politically and culturally is going to be one of the important issues of pushing back against what I've called rogue industries. They're operating unethically; in many cases, unlawfully. They're misrepresenting what they produce. And they have the idea that having addicted customers is the best customer. And Warren Buffet once said, you know the tobacco industry, that's crazy. It cost a dime to make it. You sell it for a dollar and its addictive. He said, what industry could be more, you know, lucrative than tobacco?
Ashley, how do those things apply into the food area now?
Ashley - Oh, my brain is just exploding with all the things I want to say. But I think I have an answer to Warren Buffett, which is if you've pulled all those same levers and pretend to people that it's food, and it's because we all have to eat, you know? And I walk around a grocery store and I, in my head, I'm like, if I waved a magic wand, and all the products in here that are masquerading as food but are actually ultra processed, chemically adulterated starch, slurries essentially disappeared. There is so little food in my grocery store. Real food. And it's also expensive. We would be rioting in the streets if we really saw the degree that we're not being adequately nourished or supported in our current environment. And it's the mirage of abundance that is totally hooking us. You know, taking us hook, line, and sinker. And so, you know, I'll have people often say to me, you know, it's food. Like can't really be addictive. We all need to eat. And to me that is absolutely true. Just like we all need pain management. And there used to be a belief, a myth, that if you were in pain, you couldn't get addicted to painkillers like opiates which we now know is incredibly wrong. That just because we need calories to survive doesn't mean that if you manipulate and hedonically engineer those products, that it won't impact the brain in a way that can drive it in compulsive problematic ways. It's so essential for us to carve out, yes, you need real nourishing food. This is real nourishing food and these other things. I'd love it if the grocery store, it's like you're walking around this spot, you know you're getting real food. Sure, you want to go get those Cheetos, go for it. But it's in a very clear designated area that you're not being tricked into thinking that you're eating something that's nourishing you when it's really addicting you.
So, people have very strong affective attachments to foods. Particular foods that they like. Some of it is kind of what you grew up with, what your parents gave you, but a lot of it's marketing as well. And you mentioned a Cheeto or Coca-Cola, or a Dorito or a Twinkie or whatever it is. People don't want that taken away from them. Tell me if this is correct, the problem isn't so much that people eat Cheetos. It's that they overeat Cheetos, and then you add to that all the other thing, not just that food. But then you've got a real problem. Could it be a matter of just removing some of the especially troublesome ingredients from that. If you look at the list of ingredients on these foods, there could be 25 or 30 different ingredients. Well, what if, what if 12 of them got taken out or 13 or 15 of them got taken out? You'd still have the food; it would still have its taste. People could enjoy it, but it's not hijacking your biology.
Ashley - Yes, I'm very skeptical of that as the response, because as Allan lays out in his book, we were like, okay, if we just get the tar out of the cigarette. You know, it's all fine, Vapes, right? Oh, you're vaping. It's fine. It will be harmless because our reward system is so porous to different levers that signal food reward. We see it with the non-sugar sweeteners. Look, we took all the sugar out, we gave you Diet Coke, we gave you non-sugar sweeteners. It's a get out of jail free card. And now we're realizing how much that messes up our gut microbiome, could potentially lead to earlier brain aging and so, you know, abstinence, clearly making this stuff illegal, that's never the goal. But I think that sense of saying, oh, we can just engineer our way out of this is unlikely. And we have the alternative. You know, for what should be the majority of what we're eating. I love a Reese's Cup, right? I will have an ultra processed food, but it shouldn't be 60% of the food supply, or 70% of what my kids are getting for their calories. And so again, that clear understanding that this is something that's fundamentally different from the food that nourishes us. We have the answer which is real food. If we poured even a tiny amount of the investment, even closing the tax loopholes on things like ultra processed food marketing to kids that they get tax breaks on and invested that into technology to make real food in its original food matrix affordable, accessible, convenient. That stuff is tasty. Have a fresh apple. It's just everything's been wired for that to be the minority of our food supply. That's often unaffordable and we all feel really time poor. These are solvable problems. We've just been shoving all our money towards how we make new flavor additives to sell high fructose corn syrup, starch, slurries. So, we just need to have the right in incentives in mind.
Your point is very well taken that government trying to say, okay, let take out this ingredient or that ingredient is stepping into a trap. It makes all the sense to me in the world that that is a trap because. Using that philosophy requires a trust in the industry that if you ask them to take out these 12 things, they're not going to put in 12 new things that might even make things worse. And both of these industries, tobacco and the food industry have done everything but earn our trust so that's a very good cautionary note that you raised.
I would say in the tobacco area, the idea of that we think that, you know, vaping will be harm reduction. And there's been a strong political notion that we should be, you know, doing harm reduction. And of course, in many instances, harm reduction can be helpful. But I found in tobacco, that I can't trust the industry to make a harm reduction product that's not going to get kids addicted. That's going to, you know, make sure that we're not using both tobacco and nicotine in the form of vape or other products. And so while many people who I admire in the public health world have said, yes, harm reduction is the way to go. I don't think that's true with tobacco. We have a lot of children and adolescents today who are profoundly addicted to nicotine.
So, this discussion has led to lots of, oh my God, kind of observations from both of you. Paints a pretty scary picture of the food supply. How much manipulation there is. And how much harm gets caused by it. I'm hoping we might end on a bit of a positive note if there is one here. I'd like to ask each of you, is there a reason to be hopeful about the future? Allan, let me start with you. You're looking in on this with a unique perspective because of your years and years of working on tobacco. As you look in on the food space and see what's happening, what do you think?
Allan - Well, I tend to be an optimist. I believe public policies can make a difference. I believe the courts can be used to serve consumers who have been harmed in the market. So, I have seen those things work to a really significant degree around the cigarette. Especially in countries where we have resources for education, where we can make policies that sometimes work or mostly work. I don't think I ever would've thought when I started this work in like the 1980s that we would've gotten so far. I once said to my son when he was seven, he was taking a flight with me. And I said, you know, people used to smoke on airplanes. And he said, no, that's impossible. And he just couldn't believe the idea that we had let people smoke on airplanes. And I've been collecting cigarette packages that were given out by the big airlines. Of course, you and I, Kelly, remember probably, when they start to put smokers in the back of the plane. But the smoke was wafting throughout it. And a lot of things that seem almost impossible now, were actually reduced through regulation and politics and public health. I'm very hopeful that we can use what we've learned about how to get smoking from 50% of the population down to 15 or 12, as bad as that is. And apply it to other gigantic risks like ultra processed foods.
All right, thanks for that positive note. Ashley, what do you think are there grounds for being positive?
Ashley - Yes, I'm also a huge optimist. I feel wildly optimistic. I just, from listening to consumer sentiment right now, the degree to which corporations are able to hack our limbic systems, I mean, you see it right now with social media and sports betting. I think in our bones as a society, we're starting to just get fed up. And to me there is nothing that is more clear cut of how industries can manipulate us than taking food, the thing we most evolved to care about and to find rewarding and nourishing, and somehow jacking it up into an addictive, harmful substance. And I have two little kids. I have a five and 7-year-old and I am just as a mom full of rage every time I go grocery shopping because they've just shoved protein in a Pop-Tart, now they're trying to tell me it's a health food. I think we're catching onto them, and I think that there is no way to go but up. And again, we already have the solution. In opiates, we are still struggling to find non-addictive pain management. We have non-addictive food and it's called, you know, minimally processed real foods. So, it's just about putting the incentives in the right place.
BIOS
Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology in the Clinical Science area at the University of Michigan. She also earned her B.A. in psychology from The University of Michigan as an undergraduate. While working on her doctorate in clinical psychology at Yale University, Dr. Gearhardt became interested in the possibility that certain foods may be capable of triggering an addictive process. To explore this further, she developed the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) to operationalize addictive eating behaviors, which has been linked with more frequent binge eating episodes, an increased prevalence of obesity and patterns of neural activation implicated in other addictive behaviors. It has been cited over 800 times and translated into over ten foreign languages. Her areas of research also include investigating how food advertising activates reward systems to drive eating behavior and the development of food preferences and eating patterns in infants. She has published over 100 academic publications and her research has been featured on media outlets, such as ABC News, Good Morning America, the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal, and NPR.
Allan M. Brandt is the Amalie Moses Kass Professor of the History of Medicine and Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, where he holds a joint appointment between the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Medical School.  Brandt served as Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences from 2008 to 2012.  He earned his undergraduate degree at Brandeis University and a Ph.D. in American History from Columbia University.  His work focuses on social and ethical aspects of health, disease, medical practices, and global health in the twentieth century.  Brandt is the author of No Magic Bullet:  A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States since 1880 (paperback, 1987; 35th Anniversary Edition, 2020); and co-editor of Morality and Health (1997).  He has written on the social history of epidemic disease, the history of public health and health policy, and the history of human experimentation, among other topics.  His book on the social and cultural history of cigarette smoking in the U.S., The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America, was published by Basic Books in 2007 (paperback, 2009).  It received the Bancroft Prize from Columbia University in 2008 and the Welch Medal from the American Association for the History of Medicine in 2011, among other awards.   Brandt has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  In 2015, he was awarded the Everett Mendelsohn Excellence in Mentoring Award by the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.  In 2019-20, Brandt was a recipient of fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.  He recently served as the interim chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.  Brandt is currently writing about the history and ethics of stigma and its impact on patients and health outcomes.

In 1881, African American educator and political leader Booker T. Washington founded Tuskegee Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama. The school's mission was to provide practical education and vocational training in fields such as agriculture and mechanics to African Americans in the post-Reconstruction South. Tuskegee ultimately became a world-renowned agricultural and industrial school for African Americans – and actually for all people. Today, we're speaking with Duke University's Jarvis McInnis about his award-winning book Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South.
Interview Transcript
Jarvis, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this book. And hopefully we'll make a link to the Franklin Humanities gathering (https://youtu.be/rfSy1lWWOwA?si=dVcWH3xDBuBStEEc) that we had for your book launch. As I said at that time, and I'll say it right now, this book resonated with me so deeply because of my rural upbringing. My experience as a son, a grandson of farmers and agricultural workers. And someone who grew up in the 4-H Club down South. Hopefully we will get to some of those topics as we go through. So, let's start off with a real basic idea. Could you give our readers an overview of what the book is? And also, about what you mean by the Afterlives of the Plantation.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much for that question, Norbert. The book is an effort to think about the cultural and intellectual and political ties between Southern African Americans and Afro-Caribbean people in the late 19th to early 20th Century as they were responding to the legacies of slavery, right? This is the period after emancipation, and across the hemisphere. And so, I'm really interested in the way that they are sharing ideas as they are confronting the new modes of racial oppression that emerged in slavery's aftermath. In the United States, you have Jim Crow, right? Segregation, and other forms of violence and dispossession like lynching and land dispossession and so forth and so on. And then in the Caribbean, in Latin America, you have institutions like the European colonialism, and US imperialism, right? And so that is the afterlife of slavery. They're emancipated, but it's not a period of full citizenship, right? Of full access to the rights and privileges of citizenship. And so in telling that story, I center Booker T. Washington's school, the Tuskegee Institute, which was founded on the site of an abandoned and burned cotton plantation in Alabama in 1881.
And this is getting at the second part of your question. I became really fascinated by what it meant to establish a school, to establish a future-oriented institution, that's committed to uplifting Black people. To establish that on the site, on the ruins of a burned plantation. And, in some ways, I became curious about that as an undergraduate student because I'm a graduate of Tougaloo College, in Tougaloo, Mississippi, which is a historically black college much like Tuskegee. And much like Tuskegee, Tougaloo was also founded on the site of a former cotton plantation.
And I saw that this idea, or this practice, this logic of transforming these sites of violence into something that is more liberatory and more emancipatory was really a strategy that Black people used throughout the US South and throughout the Caribbean. Throughout much of the Americas where slavery and the plantation had existed. I placed Tuskegee, and particularly its approach to agriculture, at the center of that story to demonstrate how an institution rooted in the US South is not backward. It's not pre-modern. That's firmly rural, but that rurality... they're taking the knowledge that's cultivated there and disseminating it to other Black people in other parts of the world to aid in their struggles toward freedom and citizenship.
I think this is an important point to make. And I know we've had conversations about this as you were developing the book. And I'll just say again, out of my rural Southern agricultural background, I often found a sense that people thought, oh, well you must be backward. Oh, you must come from this... and that's not a good thing. I can only imagine that people of this time must have thought, well, shouldn't people want to move away from agriculture? Why would you want to be invested in this thing that was a part of former enslavement? How do you think about this in light of this notion of agrarian futures? You would think people would want to move away from that. What is your understanding of sort of this move towards agriculture and seeing this as something for the future and even modern.
That's such a great question. And I, you know, I have to say that I came to agriculture relatively late in the project. I was initially most interested in what Tuskegee was doing with Black aesthetics: with photography and with music and with literature. I'm a literary scholar after all. But as I sat with Tuskegee's aesthetic output, I realized the significance of agriculture within that. And as I began to explore the ways that Tuskegee was being disseminated to other parts of the Black world, to places like Haiti, to places like Puerto Rico. And as they were admitting students from those particular colonies at that time. Now some of them are countries; Puerto Rico is still a territory. But I realized that what other Black people, both in the US South and abroad, were interested in was its agrarian vision. Was the work, the research that someone like George Washington Carver was doing at Tuskegee and as a mode of self-help. And so I really had to wrestle with that because it was outside of how I had conceived of agriculture. And in many ways, writing this book transformed my own understanding of what the modern was. And, you know, forced me to, or perhaps invited me, to think about agriculture to understand it as intellectual. To understand it certainly as a skill, in all of these ways that I had not really given much thought to it previously. But as I sat with George Washington Carver's bulletins. As I sat with Tuskegee's extension initiatives. As I sat with the knowledge that they were producing, the various print cultural artifacts, the newspapers. And again, the agricultural bulletins and so forth and so on. I realized, wait a minute. This is a site of knowledge production, and its modern up-to-date knowledge production that actually still has a lot of sound basis that can be used in contemporary agriculture to this very day. And so, it radically transformed my understanding of Tuskegee, of a figure like Booker T. Washington. who as we know, is a much-maligned figure in Black studies and American studies because of his conservative politics. But agriculture gave me another way into that institution and to think about, again, the significance of the cultural and intellectual contributions of the US South at this particular period.
Thank you for that. I want to talk about a particular section of the text that has to do with both the agricultural philosophy, but also this idea of sharing information, and you've made some reference to it. So, I grew up, as I mentioned, going and being a part of the 4-H program, which was a part of the Cooperative Extension System. And Tuskegee, in many ways, helped form and helped inform what extension would look like. Which ultimately became a thing, federally, in 1914. But I want to read this one passage from your text, and you say:
"In 1897, the state of Alabama passed legislation allocating $1,500 to establish an agricultural experiment station on campus. The station also known as the Experiment Plot."
And plot is something you come back to. And I would love to hear your thoughts about this garden plot and the Experiment Plot and just the metaphor of plot throughout your text.
"But the station also known as the Experiment Plot, was managed by George Washington Carver. Washington insisted that the experiment station ' should not be used for scientific experiments of interest only to experts. Should deal with the fundamental problems with which the Negro Farmers of Alabama were daily confronted.' The results of Carver's experiments were thus published in bulletins that were then distributed among farmers throughout Alabama and the broader US South."
And then you go on and talking about the different courses that were made available. But I wanna get this one quote from the Tuskegee student. And you said the Tuskegee student observed: 'Tuskegee Institute is primarily a school for the masses of our people. Both old and young and in all degrees of development.'
I mean, Tuskegee was doing something that other land grant institutions would eventually take on, is this idea of sharing knowledge and using this. As a means of uplift and I would say even citizen building. What are your thoughts about that sort of perspective?
Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to try to wrap all of those questions up into one response. We'll see how successful I am.
I know I gave you a lot.
Well, one of the things that I wanted to say, that I did not get a chance to say in my response to your previous question is that, you know, the majority of African Americans lived in the South in this particular period. And many of them viewed agriculture as a viable future. And that was one of the aspects of, you know, doing research on this book that was transformative for me. Was understanding that they did not hold this same necessarily, sort of, denigrating attitudes toward agriculture. In part because the United States was largely agricultural writ large, right? [00:11:00] And so it was across the country, across the color line, was regarded as a viable pathway. But it is the case that Booker T. Washington was attempting to rebrand agriculture, to re-signify it. Because there were a number of African Americans who did not want to have anything to do with it because it reminded them of the degradation of slavery. And so, what Washington said was he said, hey, you know, that there's a distinction between working and being worked, right? Being worked means degradation. Working for oneself, right? Being independent is a mode of civilization, is what he argued. And so what I argue in the book is that Washington is attempting to resignify labor, to make it something that is regarded as self-proprietorial, right? And that is a necessary tool in not just labor but agricultural labor in particular. But we can add, I would say, industrial labor also as something that is self-proprietorial and that is a part of that citizenship making project. So, I wanted to be sure to home in on that aspect of your previous question. And then I think the way into this next question is to talk a little bit about the plot. The slave garden plot. So, this idea in the book, right? The subtitle is Plotting Agrarian Futures. And there are multiple residences of the plot throughout the book. But the easiest way to, sort of, describe it is that it is an elaboration on the slave garden plot. The patches of land that enslaved people could cultivate throughout the Americas to grow foods to nourish themselves, because the rations that were provided from the plantation owners, those rations were too meager, right? A number of scholars and theorists across disciplines have theorized that the slave garden plot was a site of resistance to the plantation system. In part because it is enabling them to survive, to live, to nourish their bodies, right? But also because of what they did on the plot, right? Not only growing food, but also perhaps growing flowers. There's one scholar who regards it as the botanical gardens of the dispossessed, right? And so this idea that on these garden plots where they could cultivate food for themselves, their time was their own. They weren't growing food for sale on the global market, necessarily, or other cash crops for sale in the global market. They were growing foods that perhaps have been a part of their diets in Africa. And in addition to that, they were engaging in communal practices, singing, dancing, and sometimes perhaps even plotting revolutions, right? Another valence of the plot.
And so, a scholar like Sylvia Winter establishes a kind of dichotomy between the plot and the plantation under enslavement. And when I realized that Tuskegeeans were also trying to encourage Black folks to grow food, and in doing so helping them to circumvent the predatory practices of sharecropping, of tenant farming, that would have those sharecroppers and tenant farmers to buy their foods from the local commissary and to remain in cycles of debt. And that of course, that they had an experiment station that they called an Experiment Plot. I thought, okay, this is the post emancipation iteration of the slave garden plot. It stands as a counterpoint to the plantation system, and it is imbued with these logics and ethics of care. And one of those logics and ethics of care is the dissemination of knowledge, right? Ensuring that rural Black farmers who were perhaps too old to attend Tuskegee, or could not afford to do so, that they could come to campus and learn the most up-to-date agricultural knowledge, right? And for those who couldn't come to campus, to attend the Tuskegee Farmers Conference, they would take the Jessup Agricultural Wagon into the countryside and teach them about crop rotation. Teach them about how to grow certain food crops, right? Teach them about how to grow certain plants to beautify their homes and so forth and so on. And so I think about that dissemination of knowledge, right? Whether it's those farmers coming to campus or Tuskegee taking those ideas into the countryside, as an ethic of care that is connected to the way that the plot exists as a counter to the plantation.
Yeah. Wow, this is really wonderful. I love how you're able to weave in this agricultural philosophy that had deep resonance with people of the rural American South. But you also saw this as something that moved beyond the borders of the American South, and thus in your subtitle, the Global Black South. How did Tuskegee get involved in this transnational sharing of knowledge, and working in the Caribbean, and particularly, Puerto Rico, Haiti? Tell us a little bit more about that experience.
Absolutely. Absolutely. Tuskegee really began to recruit students from the broader diaspora in the latter part of the 19th Century. So, around 1897. Certainly, the Caribbean, certainly Cuba and Puerto Rico, following the Spanish American War. And Booker T. Washington sent a Tuskegee student who was actually fluent in Spanish into Florida, and then later on to Havana, to recruit students to Tuskegee. He understood, he believed, that because they were experiencing conditions that were very similar to African Americans, they too were responding to the afterlife of slavery in the plantation. Given that emancipation in Cuba and Puerto Rico, in particular had just occurred in the late 1880s, he believed that their conditions were very similar to those of African Americans and that they could benefit from agricultural and industrial education as well.
And there was a reformer by the name of Grace Mins. She was based in Boston. And she ensured that Booker T. Washington's autobiography, Up From Slavery, was translated into Cuban Spanish. And then that autobiography was then disseminated. A thousand copies were disseminated throughout the island of Cuba. And so as a result of that, he inspired, or the model of self-help that Washington depicted in Up From Slavery, inspired a host of Afro-Cuban readers. Students and parents and government officials and educational officials then begin to write to Tuskegee, write to Washington, wanting entry into the school.
It's also translated into French, right? And so, you have French readers, particularly in a place like Haiti coming to Tuskegee. Someone by the name of the Jean Price Mars, who was the foremost Haitian intellectual of the 20th Century, actually met Washington in France when Washington was traveling there on vacation and became inspired by that model. A year later, he comes to the United States to attend the 1904 World's Fair and then spends two weeks at Tuskegee, learning those ideas and wanting to take them back to Haiti. So, through translation, right? Into different languages, those ideas then circulate throughout the Black world, but also through efforts to actively recruit students from those other places that Washington understood as experiencing a similar condition as African Americans. People whom he understood could benefit, he believed, could benefit from agricultural and industrial education.
Great. And one of the things I loved in the way you talked about this in the text is you talked about not only translation but transplantation. And I thought that was an interesting turn of phrase because of what you were trying to communicate through that term. I want to, sort of, bring us up to some things that are currently happening. We just had a conference and you were a participant on a panel on humanistic issues around addressing food waste. And I've got to say, this was one of the panels that people really leaned into, that were really caught up by it. And you made some really insightful interventions based on some of the work that you've done in your book. So, you spoke about the anti-waste ethos at Tuskegee and I really found that interesting. Could you speak to that for a moment?
Absolutely. Well, first I want to say thank you again for the opportunity to participate in that symposium. I really enjoyed it, and it really gave me an opportunity to think about various dimensions of a kind of anti-waste ethos at Tuskegee. And I think that there are a couple of different ways in which it manifested at the institution. So first there's a kind of metaphorical dimension to waste at Tuskegee. When Booker T. Washington writes to George Washington Carver to hire him, to recruit him to the institution. He said, I can't pay you a lot of money, but we have been tasked with helping to transform formerly enslaved people from conditions of waste to full manhood. Right? And so there is that sort of metaphorical, or what I would argue in the book is a kind of ontological understanding of waste, given the degraded status of the enslaved. And then there's a kind of philosophical dimension to waste as well. One, so Washington, Tuskegee, they are informed by the progressive era, right? It's a progressive era institution that's guided by a commitment to thrift and economy. And so, they're very much interested in a kind of practical attitude toward not being wasteful, right? To being thrifty with money, but also with resources. And what we see is, you know, complaints about food waste in the dining hall at Tuskegee, right? A very practical issue for a poor rural institution wherein the students are growing the food, right? Wherein the students are making the bricks, right? Are helping to transform this plantation into a school. We can't afford to waste food, right? But they're also teaching students and Black folks in the countryside how to preserve fruits and vegetables. There are these photographs of them teaching folks how to can and preserve fruits and veggies, right? To ensure that they have food throughout the winter months, so that they are not stricken by hunger and poverty and starvation. So that they aren't forced to borrow additional money from the plantation owners if they are indeed in sharecropping and tenant farming arrangements. And so, the last aspect I suppose of waste at Tuskegee that I want to highlight here is a kind of ecological one. Where in George Washington Carver is calling on farmers to take advantage of the quote unquote waste that is on their farms, right? The cow manure, right? To regenerate the soil. The swamp muck, right? The dead leaves, the night soil; to use that waste to regenerate the soil, to replenish it, right? In addition to practices of crop rotation and so forth and so on. And so that ecological dimension of waste is really important for understanding Tuskegee's ecological vision.
I think this is so important because conversations around regenerative agriculture, and going back to, sort of, broader notions of traditional farming practices, minimizing the use of chemicals, people were talking about this. Folks like Carver were trying to find ways of using very little resources to help support the growers that he worked with. And we're hearing these echoes again and again. I'm so grateful that you illuminated that throughout your text. Thank you.
I am not the only one who seems to have appreciated that because you won the 2026 Association for the study of African American Life and History Book Prize and the 2025 On the Brink book Award from the University of New Mexico School of Architecture and Planning. Why do you think this narrative of agricultural liberation is resonating with people so strongly?
You know, first of all, Norbert, I just have to say how honored I am that the book has received these recognitions. And that it's finding its audiences. Audiences that I couldn't have imagined. Imagine my seeing my face when I opened the email to see that it had been acknowledged by both of these institutions. But especially the architecture and planning. I thought, oh my goodness. I, could not have, I could not have imagined this. So, I just want to say that I'm grateful first and foremost.
You know, as I've been talking to people, you know, and as I've been moving around and talking to readers at my book tour, or people have been writing to me via email, what I've found is that the historians really appreciate the archival richness, and robustness of the text, right? So, the historians, the literary scholars, they really appreciate that aspect of the book. Many people, I think, also really appreciate the fact that it is giving us a new way to think about Tuskegee and Booker T. Washington. A place and a person who we thought we knew, right? And not in a flat way; a way that holds the complexity of that institution in place. And throughout the text, I really try to wrestle with the critiques, the valid and legitimate critiques that are coming from people like Ida B. Wells Barnett, and WEB Du Bois, about the limits of Booker T. Washington's political philosophy. But at the same time, I say, but if we don't acknowledge what they were doing through agriculture and by extension through aesthetics, then we're missing a really important part of this story, right? And I think that the book is giving us a model for thinking about how to engage in criticism that is both generative and productive, I suppose, right? Like how do we hold them to a particular standard where we say, you know, here are the limits of your political vision, but at the same time, this is what you enabled, right? And that's what the text is trying to do. And I think, you know, others have shared that they appreciate that it honors the intelligence and sophistication and dignity of Black rural people, of Black Southerners, who in my opinion, are often written out of Black studies in a way that is substantive. In a way that honors their contributions, especially in this period. The South is a space that people are simply fleeing from because of Jim Crow. And I'm saying, wait, what about the people who remain rooted in the land, on the land, either in the US South or in other sort of rural places throughout the diaspora.
And then finally, I think that the book seems to be connecting to people who really care about our world. Who really care about the state of environmental degradation that we have found ourselves in as a result of institutions like the plantation, of monocrop agriculture, of industrialization in the way that it abuses, and misuses the earth. And so, because the book is invested in thinking about regeneration and repair, and about more sustainable methods from the past that can be useful for our present. I think that it seems to be connecting with readers who are interested in issues like climate change and environmental catastrophe. So that's what I suspect, based on some of the feedback that I have received. But I just want to reiterate just how grateful I am that it is finding its audience.
BIO
Jarvis C. McInnis holds a BA in English from Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi, and a Ph.D. in English & Comparative Literature from Columbia University in the City of New York.  Jarvis is an interdisciplinary scholar of African American & African Diaspora literature and culture, with teaching and research interests in the global south (primarily the US South and the Caribbean), sound studies, performance studies, and visual culture. Jarvis's research has been supported by numerous grants and fellowships, including the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship, the Ford Foundation Pre-doctoral and Dissertation Fellowships, and Princeton University's Department of African American Studies postdoctoral fellowship. His work appears or is forthcoming in journals and venues such as Callaloo, MELUS, Mississippi Quarterly, Public Books, and The Global South.

Over the last several years, I have been thinking about food waste and food loss a lot. It's been a topic that we've seen in many spaces in the US and around the world. And it's interesting to compare how the US handles food waste with other countries. To that end, we will learn more about how Belgium addresses food waste in a conversation with an anthropologist and journalist, Dr. Kelly Alexander from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her book, Truffles and Trash: Recirculating Food in a Social Welfare State, explores community driven solutions and policy around food waste. And Belgium's capital city of Brussells.
Interview Transcript
Let's start with your research in Brussels at a high end truffle restaurant... but you ended up in food banks and social restaurants and community kitchens. Tell us a little bit about the evolution. How did this project evolve to finding yourself in these new places?
Yeah, it's a, a strange trajectory. I did not start out to be a food waste researcher. But how it started and how it's going, you know, that meme from 2018? This is like what I love to talk about when I talk to my food study students, because I started out, as a researcher, very interested in the development of haut cuisine. I had worked in a lot of restaurants. I had worked as a journalist for several food magazines. And the question that really animated me was how a truffle, this little spore on a fungus, has become one of the world's most expensive ingredients. And so I was doing ethnographic research in the kitchen of a Michelin starred truffle restaurant. And there is not that many of those, and one of them happens to be in Brussels, Belgium. And I'm in the kitchen there and I'm working on the line. And I usually have to specify to my students like it wasn't a stunt. Like you can't write to a Michelin star restaurant and say, 'Hey, can I come on in and work in your kitchen?' I had a lot of credentials as a journalist and as a chef first. What I did have going for me is that I was in a funded doctoral dissertation program, actually the anthropology program at Duke. So, I had funding to go and do that research in this kitchen. And there's probably no restaurant in the world, no matter how high end, that is not willing to accept some free labor.
So, I'm working in that kitchen. I'm working with fantastic chefs. And what happens when you work at a super high-end restaurant is that is aesthetics are valued above all else. The food has to be really, really beautiful. And this restaurant charges extraordinarily. It's called La Truffe Noire. It's still in Brussels now. It's a truffle restaurant. The black truffle. Super high prices for very, very refined food. And in order to do that, a large part of my job was brushing priceless truffles, throwing away an unbelievable amount of very beautiful produce that would otherwise have been exceptionally valued in other contexts.
And I come from a background - my grandmother was a Russian Jewish woman. She grew up in Brooklyn. She moved to Atlanta, Georgia after World War II. She taught me to cook, and she never threw anything away. And when I say that to people, I think they're like, oh yeah, I have a grandmother like that. But she really never threw anything away, like can of grease under the sink. The whole thing. Every little butt of a vegetable was saved for stock for later. And I was throwing away so much good food working in La Truffe Noire just making beautiful garnishes and vegetable carvings and things like that, that I started following the food waste around the city. I was wondering where all of this went. And I actually asked the chef in the restaurant, you know, we throw away so much food, would it be possible to give some of it to people who could really use it? And his response really interested me and changed the whole course of my research because he said, I am really willing to do that. However, I pay chefs to cook food and not to give it away. So, if somebody was willing to come here and pick it up, I'd happily give it to him. But I'm not going to pay people to go and do that. And I thought, well, I wonder what else is going on in this city in terms of this. Like where does all this food go? And I discovered I was doing this research at a fortuitous moment in the EU when the EU had just made this compulsory policy aimed at supermarkets. So, all large scale supermarkets across the EU were suddenly required to donate all edible but unsellable food. And the EU didn't give a lot of direction about how they could do that, and also didn't give the supermarkets any money.
So, what happened as a result of that? Well, there were lots of local grassroots efforts communicating directly with supermarkets who were like, 'Hey, we're over here. We'll come pick up the food that you don't want to sell that's still good to eat. And we'll use it in our food banks and in our zero food waste popup restaurants.' And all the supermarkets had to do was get the food waste off their books. So, while I was there working in this truffle restaurant, all this other food waste activity was going on. And I discovered that's really what I wanted to be doing. I loved working as a chef, but I wanted to see what the possibilities were for recuperating food around the city. So, I changed. I changed everything I was doing pretty quickly.
Oh, this is really fascinating. Thank you for sharing that. I know that the field of anthropology and other fields, you can start off on one project and discover that there's this whole new world that you didn't even realize until you started down the path. This is fascinating and I'm sure your advisor was thrilled to know that you wanted to change topic midstream. But it worked out. It worked out beautifully, it seems.
It is true. I couldn't look away from the food waste to the point where I was taking pictures of the garbage can in the restaurant every day. And this big industrial garbage can filled with like priceless wild mushrooms. And a big part of my job is the restaurant made this dish. This is what changed my life. There's like a series of food journalists who talk about the dish that changed my life and what they're talking about is when you eat something super delicious and you have some kind of awakening, this is like the opposite of what happened to me. I am making this dish called Salad Stephanie. It's like a 40-euro salad that has a lobster tail in it and all these beautiful wild mushrooms, and it has eight spinach leaves. So, a big part of my job when I worked at La Truffe Noire was to hold up individual spinach leaves up to the light, and if they had any blemish or like a broken vein in them to throw it away. So, this is beautiful, this is like the best spinach that you could get. The best produce in all of Europe was coming to this restaurant and I was throwing it away. And I started taking photographs just to document all the food I was throwing away. And I couldn't look away. And actually my advisor, Dr. Anne Allison, in cultural anthropology at Duke, was really excited because I had been doing a project on aesthetics and now I was proposing a total change to do this much more political project about where food waste goes. So, she was like, yes, let us follow the food waste. This is so much more interesting. So that was kind of a nice nod that I was thinking in the right anthropological direction about food and value.
Thank you. This is such an important uncovering that, you know, research isn't static. It's not linear. It takes deviations and it's in those deviations that you find the real truths. The real exciting things. Let's continue the conversation because I think there's so much more to uncover. In your book, Truffles and Trash, you describe a particular day of field work at a Brussels food pantry. It was a really powerful moment. And I will say, having worked at food pantries in different parts of the US, I recognize this story in a serious way. You mentioned that this moment turned into a tense moment around fish and pork. Can you describe this to our listeners and why did this experience stick with you? What did it teach you about the hidden social politics of food waste and redistribution?
Yeah. I often frame, you know, I did this work back and forth to Brussels for about six years and certain moments just absolutely have stayed with me and haunted me in a lot of ways. And one of them was working at this food bank in a former hospital. So, there's a former hospital that had shut down. It was still like a hospital with rooms for sick people in a giant sick bay. And it had been turned into a kind of community residential center where people could rent rooms, they could use the kitchen to prepare their food. That had been the hospital's kitchen. And the bottom floor of it, which had been the whole emergency triage center, was turned into a thrice weekly food bank. So, I'm volunteering at this food bank and there's tons of food coming in from grocery stores. And this is Brussels in the summer. It's pretty hot outside. A lot of people go on vacation. There's a lot of expensive food coming in, including fish and pork, fresh fish and fresh pork. I am assigned to work on this station. The person who usually runs the station, who is my boss, is an older Vietnamese woman who's an immigrant herself to Brussels. And she is kind of giving me the ropes. And she has figured something out where she says, you know, we have to give equal things to equal people, right? And she's telling me this before anybody comes in the food bank. Yes, sure. We will give one to one to each person as the people are coming through the food bank. Brussels has a very high population of Moroccan immigrants, and this is due to historical factors. The Nation of Belgium invited Moroccan immigrants to help them build their subways in the '50s and '60s with the promise of citizenship, including they have an amazing educational system. It's a whole social welfare state, healthcare, everything. So, this is guaranteed to those Moroccan immigrants. What the Belgian government didn't do, and has been pretty clear on admitting, is create any social programming around those assimilation efforts. So, the generations of those people who came to build the subways are now a lot of them living on social assistance. That is who is coming through. A lot of Moroccan people who are Muslim, into this food bank. Muslim people typically have prohibitions against eating pork. So, we have fresh fish and fresh pork. There are women coming through, they're in hijabs, they're obviously presenting as Muslim and they are asking, could I have the fish please? And we were told to give the pork first and then the fish, because the fish is considered more valuable. And I am thinking, in my own head, oh, I'll just be an amazing social innovator here. Yes, of course. If you don't eat pork, please let me give you this fish. It is not occurring to me that other people coming through the line are considering this preferential treatment. So, I am giving fish to these Muslim women. One of them sees me in line and says, my friend is back there. Can you put aside a piece of fish for her? Yes, sure, no problem. I set it aside. A woman who is Flemish is coming through and she's speaking to me in Dutch and I'm handing her pork. Pork is super popular amongst Flemish diners. No problem. And she's pointing down and she had seen me put the fish away and said, can I have that fish? Well that fish is for someone else and she absolutely threw a fit. No, you can't do that. It's not fair. It's not just, you must give me a fish. Long story short, there's a whole tug of war between this package of fish. There's a security person at the food bank, which I had not considered why there would need to be a security person at the food bank who has to come in, break up this fight. It was, it was so humbling. I had not considered these factors. It's really on me. It's like you as a social scientist who's thinking it's not on me to innovate this food bank's pantry. I didn't follow directions. I thought I was doing a good thing. You know, the whole war over this fish. And when you see what it means to someone's culture to eat the foods that are appropriate to your culture, I would fight if someone was like, you can't have that matzo ball soup again. I'm going to take it away from you. There's no telling what I would do to get my hands on it.
And I just felt in that moment, like I had done it all wrong. Like I had really misunderstood food waste distribution. But more than that, of course, I'm not the star of this story. If you are at the mercy of what is available and without choice... anthropologists spend a lot of time talking about the good life and what constitutes the good life and studying the good life. I would define the good life as being able to eat the food that you wish when you wish for it. If you don't have that and you are at the mercy of the state to decide what is appropriate for you, then you find yourself in these kinds of conflicts. And you see them, you said you could relate, you see them in food banks playing out all over the world.
Yeah. First, Kelly, thank you for sharing that because I know that wasn't a fun story. I mean, I can only imagine the, the, the pain of you watching this scene unfold. I mean, that must have been difficult. Especially when the security guard is called in. Okay, that's tough. And realizing that there were differences in cultures that were clashing. All of that happening at the same time. And one of the things I pick up out of this story is that which is considered food that could be wasted, that could be redistributed, is not acceptable for all people. And like, how do we then make sense of that? Because you're in a culture where something is considered a good product...pork, but it's not considered a good product for other people. And so, you know, our food system, and I always say this about food banking in general, people complain about the foods that show up in food banks, in sort of a traditional sense. But it's just a reflection of the food system of that country, right? It just looks like what we have. And we may think that's not good, but it's, it's what you see in the grocery store often. And for all those reasons, I think there's such a richness to this story. So, thank you for sharing and also the humility it takes for telling that story too.
I wanted to not be intrusive like any social scientist. I was there to share my time to do some participant observation research. Suddenly I had ignited this culture war amongst these two women, which is the least population I would want to affect. And you know, the security guard turned to me at the end of it, which is in the book and said, you get what you get. That is the policy. Yeah. If they want to trade when they get outside, you do not decide. You get what you get. That's how we do it. And I saw the wisdom of it in that moment. But at the same time, to your point, you see, sort of, like there have been much bigger tensions in Europe, especially around halal meat. You see it in France all the time, should McDonald's serve halal meat. And there's a certain very conservative contingent of Flemish people who are like, you can't tell us what we can eat. You can't tell us how we have to butcher our meat. And that's what I had seen firsthand happening in a food bank, which you think of as a place of lack where politics don't come, and politics are there.
Yes, very much so. And the idea of equitable distribution; it can feel restrictive in some ways, but it serves a purpose. And like I said, I really appreciate you sharing that, and I think it's an important thing for all of us to understand the complexity of those environments. I want to move on and ask about sort of regulatory and legislative realities in Europe. So, Europe, as you mentioned, has this compulsory legislation requiring supermarkets to donate edible but unsellable food. While in the US food redistribution is often framed as charity. How does this policy difference shape what's possible?
Yeah. This is the question. So, you know, one of the things I learned, even in that example. I always highlight like my worst, hardest, saddest day of participant observation in six years, which was that one. Which shows a kind of flaw in a food bank model. And sometimes I have students who say, oh, you hate food banks. I don't hate food banks. I think food banks have a lot of flaws. And what they do is continue to reproduce this structure of givers and receivers, right? Like there's, on one hand, one side of the equation are people who are giving food and on the other side who are people who were receiving food. And one thing this policy did this, like compulsory policy of forcing supermarkets... and you can't really force them, you can only levy huge fines with them. Which is... I am a big fan of policy with teeth, not just policy, but policy with teeth. You will have to pay a huge fine as a supermarket if you don't want to do this. And very few supermarkets have had to pay that fine as a result of this. There was massive compliance.
But one thing I discovered was really better ways than food bank models, or that I think are better ways. In part because they're more equitable. And one of them is this concept of a social restaurant, which is very European, although you're seeing them spring up in the US more and more. So, a social restaurant, according to this model, is a government institution. It's funded by the government. And it has internship programs that people who are job seekers can apply to. They can learn skills on the job to work in restaurants, to work in the service industry. This is really important in a place like Belgium where there are two official languages, French and Dutch, but most immigrants come with only one, if any. And to be bilingual in a job market makes you far more competitive. So, you can learn this in these restaurants. You have language lessons. And then you also learn how to run a restaurant. The restaurant is entirely powered by this surplus distributed food from supermarkets, which gives you an idea of the scale. In my thinking, I was like, how can a couple of supermarkets possibly be giving an institution so much food that it could run a restaurant? The restaurant where I worked called Bel Mundo had four gigantic rooms of freezers, all of which had been donated, and they were turning away supermarkets. So that's how much food was coming in every day, just to say that. And so my greatest day of field work was called Steak Night. You wouldn't believe that you could find steak that was coming from a supermarket into a zero-food waste restaurant. And by the way, the restaurant sells meals at a lower cost. A lot of the meals were for pensioners. And also sliding scale. So, you know, one day I walked into the kitchen and there were 25 steaks, and they were fresh and they were going to expire in the next couple of days. And we needed to make them. The chefs were so excited. The chef trainees were so excited that diners were so excited about Steak Night. It was easily the happiest day of field work I'd ever had. People were dancing in the kitchen, we're playing music. It felt like we were doing something that was really luxurious and that's what that kind of policy can enable, right? There was a freezer full of unsold Christmas gooses from December that were then served for spring for Easter. That was like amazing. It's just another model. It's another way of doing things, right? That that policy made possible.
Yes, and that's a great set of examples of how we can think about new ways of meeting these needs, using the surplus of our food system in creative and innovative spaces. And there's this possibility of training and development. I think there's something valuable there. You report that people in the US who talk with you about food waste, including your students, often ask, why don't we do this here? After everything you've seen, what's one realistic lesson or one small shift that communities in the US could adopt, right here, right now to rethink food waste?
This the best question, and it is the number one question I get. Why don't we have this here? And we have seeds of some of it here already. I always point that out. One of the best programs I've ever seen is a program that is associated with the city's abattoir, which is a huge outdoor market that runs only on the weekends. And this grassroots group got together and said, you know, nobody's ever hanging out in this market during the week, we want to revitalize it. And one of the ways that they did it, just to get people to use the space more, was to take all the unsold produce. So instead of having vendors at the end of a market, and I think of my Carborro, NC farmer's market like this, at the end of the market, which is a pretty bougie farmer's market lots of chefs go there and get local produce. But at the end of the market instead of having farmers and produce vendors take home what they couldn't sell, they have an aftermarket. And the aftermarket turns that produce into edible meals. Everybody pays $5. There are people who come and cook the meal. If you cook the meal, you get to work for free, and it's a whole community workforce. It has had a tremendous effect. So, 60% of that market's food waste is now consumed. That's a big shift and it's happening at a local level.
So, one thing, I think Michael Pollan's an amazing food journalist, but one of his great conclusions is that people need to grow their own food. And I'm critical of this. I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think that's a sustainable solution for a lot of people. But what I do think is sustainable in a market like that where there's food that doesn't sell, instead of throwing it away or taking it back or letting it rot, we could do something with it on the spot. And that's a little thing that makes a big difference. So, I am a fan of that. Food waste is one of the problems that is actually, in my view, best solved by local efforts because it's there, it's just sitting there. If you can move it around before it spoils you have won. If the ultimate goal is to just not throw away food.
Now I do have students, I will say who are brilliant, who say stuff to me like isn't that neoliberalism? Look, yes. The answer's, the answer's yes. The answer's yes. If what your goal is, is to make sure that more edible food is not buried in landfills, which is bad for the environment and is not helping hungry people, it can be really effective. It can be really effective to say we don't actually have to overthrow the whole system while we're looking for better solutions. We can work within it. And that's probably my biggest takeaway is that even within a global industrial food system, there are lots of ways of moving food around from people who choose, who opt, who have the luxury of opting against it to people who would really like to have it. And it actually creates more equity instead of a culture of lack.
I love your enthusiasm, and I love your vision of how we can work within the system to make it better for all people. Kelly, thank you so much for this engaging conversation.
BIO
Dr. Kelly Alexander is an assistant professor and George B. Tindall Fellow of American Studies in the University of North Carolina's College of Arts and Sciences, where she also co-directs the minor in Food Studies. She holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and a doctorate in cultural anthropology from Duke University. She is a James Beard Award-winning writer and former editor at Saveur and Food & Wine magazines. Dr. Alexander's work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, and O: The Oprah Magazine. She is also co-author of The New York Times best-selling barbecue cookbook Smokin' with Myron Mixon. Her research has been supported by the Mellon Foundation, the New York Botanical Gardens, Duke University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It seems like the frequency of weather-related disasters is increasing. Across the US we're seeing wildfires, tropical storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, extreme cold with snow or ice. And torrential rain leading to a loss of property, life, and livelihoods. What's more, similar extreme events are happening across the globe. These disasters all can have an impact on our food supply and the ability of people to access food. Today, we're speaking with environmental sustainability management expert, Betsy Albright, who is an associate professor of the practice at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. Betsy's research centers on how policies and decisions are made in response to weather related disasters.
Interview Summary
Betsy, I've been wanting to have you on the podcast for a while, so I'm excited to get you now. So, let's begin with the first broad question. I'd be really interested to learn a little bit more about your research to make sure that our listeners are up to date on it. And I know you really study disasters, but could you explain or expand on what that really means for our listeners?
I'm an environmental social scientist who studies the human and social side of disasters. And I ask questions about how climate related disasters or climate driven disasters, or weather disasters affect communities and households. And how individuals perceive risks from disasters, how they're affected by disasters, how they learn from make changes and adapt after disasters. My work started with my dissertation in central Europe. I had a Fulbright in Hungary. But from then I've expanded and moved most of my work to the US context. And our research team and I have done work on flooding and wildfires in Colorado, hurricanes in North Carolina. And I'm also working on a study of the flows of disaster assistance funds from FEMA to communities. And all of this is with or through a lens of equity or inequities and thinking about that across the disaster cycle.
This is really important, and I remember being at a conference with you and learning about your work. And I was struck by what happens after the disaster. And in particular what happens to availability of food. And I work with the food bank here in North Carolina. And one of the things I know is when there is a disaster, like when Helene hit Asheville, there are real challenges in getting food out to people. Does your work touch on those topics as well?
Yes. I would not say that our work centers on food, but food definitely intersects across all phases of the disaster cycle from preparing for disaster, experiencing disaster, the immediate response- that food bank getting food out- to long term recovery and thinking about risk mitigation. And we can think about that, you know, through a number of different lenses. Both on the food access side, but also on the food systems agriculture side as well. As I mentioned earlier, I take an equity lens on much of the work that we do. It's really important to recognize that disasters hit unevenly across society, across the landscape. Disproportionately they magnify social and environmental stressors that are already there. Communities with limited access to wealth, limited access to food, who are underserved, rural communities, racialized communities, often experience greater impacts from disasters. Disasters occur on top of histories of disenfranchisement. For example, centuries of marginalization of the minoritized Romani peoples of Central Europe they've seen great impacts from flooding. And in North Carolina, Black and African American communities whose ancestors were enslaved and suffered land loss through racist systems of who gets access to loans, access to land ownership. And because of these systems and processes, communities, families, individuals may live on marginal lands, may not own their lands. Their lands may be more prone to flood risk. May be underserved. Their housing may be more at risk. They may rent and not own. May have less agency and resources to repair their homes. And may have less trust in government and government systems. So really thinking about all of that, and then piling on disasters over these centuries of marginalization, disenfranchisement, underinvestment is really critical when trying to disentangle all these processes and develop policy solutions.
This is really fascinating work and so thank you for laying out the sort of reality of the experience of disasters where people who have been marginalized may have difficulty accessing resources or there may be some concerns about trust. Broadly, we're interested also in the food system, and I'd be interested to understand how, when disasters strike, do you see effects upon the food system or the food system responding to these disasters?
Recognizing that some individuals have higher food stress, even without a disaster, they may have higher pollutant burden because they live next to a concentrated animal feed lot operation. They may have weaker infrastructure systems: electricity, transportation, because of disinvestment. And so, when a disaster strikes, pollution loads may increase, access to food becomes even more of a challenge. Food stress increases. For example, in North Carolina, across the Southeast and further in the United States, Latino migrant farm workers face higher risks during hurricanes and floodings because of barriers, like limited access to emergency information and Spanish language barriers, fears about government intervention, fears tied to immigration status, housing conditions, lack of transportation. And these factors can delay access to food, evacuation, reduce preparedness, slow recovery. And yes, it's a challenge to really think then hard about what policy solutions make sense.
That does make me also appreciate when we think about some of the folks involved in the food system, that the disruption that a disaster can bring will also mean a loss of employment or opportunities to continue earning income. And that seems to be a sort of a knock-on effect of these disasters. It's not just the immediate weather event. It's all of the other things that follow afterwards.
Yes. And so when thinking about policy solutions, I really think it's critical to address these inequities even outside of the disaster cycle, or outside of the framing of disasters. And can we think about and develop ways, for example, to do reduce the risks of concentrated animal feedlot operations in North Carolina. Other ways for more resilient and sustainable and local ways of farming that minimize environmental risks, increase wealth, increase jobs, access to jobs. That then, when disaster strikes, are going to be more resilient because they're more resilient even before disasters. You know, I'd like to see greater investment in areas of food access, strengthening support for farm workers, encouraging development of local food hubs. Also thinking about making food access hubs more resilient to extreme weather events. Maybe elevating them, getting them all generators or solar microgrids. So that when disaster does happen, they're more resilient and then they can serve as community hubs with less reliance on supply chains at the national level. Really, coming back local, mutual aid, supporting each other, community supporting communities, non-governmental organizations, government, faith-based organizations strengthening local food systems. Also, everything that I just said for food I also think for health. You know, access to healthcare goes along with access to food in terms of critical infrastructure for community to flourish. And so, making sure there are local hospitals, not just in time of disaster, but in time of not disaster. So, expedite funding for small businesses, for neighborhood organizations, neighbors getting to know neighbors in disasters. Neighbors relying on neighbors. And that's critical. Anything we can do to build up networks. And that doesn't necessarily have to be government intervention. That could be faith-based organizations, churches, working with communities. It could be Little Leagues. There's lots of different ways to help build that social infrastructure that's so critical during disasters.
Betsy, thank you for that. And as I hear you talk about these issues, what I am grateful for is we normally talk about food and the food system, but it's a parallel reality of what happens with the healthcare system when the disaster strikes. I can only imagine if someone is in need of a certain medicine when the disaster hits access to that medicine may be called into question as happens with food. But one of the big things I get out of what you're saying is we need to build resilient communities. Not when the disaster happens but do that work now. How do we create mutual aid? How do we create actual neighborhoods that know what's going on and to care for one another. Because it's that THAT helps us through these difficult times. Is that a fair assessment?
Yes. That's more well said than I said it. So yes. Thank you.
I am so grateful for this. Betsy, is there anything else we should think about when it comes to disasters and the food system or how we should prepare for disasters in the future?
One thing that I didn't emphasize that my early work really looked at is how we grow food. And in Central Europe and Hungary in the area that I studied, this large-scale infrastructure on land that had previously, centuries ago, been wetlands. And then was drained for large scale agricultural systems, not unlike what we see in much of the Midwest of the United States. But as climate change worsens, we're seeing more extreme rain events. It's becoming harder and harder to basically fight against these floods in our agricultural system. And so really rethinking. What a resilient kind of agroecological system could look like on the food growing side. And that could be issues of what is grown, that could be issues of scale, thinking about maybe we need to put more land aside and not farm. But really thinking hard about how we incentivize, how do we set up insurance to help mitigate some of the risks. But I think that's going to be one of the major challenges moving forward.
Bio
Elizabeth (Betsy) Albright is the Dan and Bunny Gabel Associate Professor of the Practice of Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Environmental Management at Duke University's Nicholas School for the Environment. Her current research centers on how policies and decisions are made in response to extreme climatic events. She is interested in collaborative decision-making processes, particularly in the realm of water resource management. The Midwest Political Science Associated recently awarded Elizabeth the 'Best Paper by an Emerging Scholar' award at their national conference. Her geographic regions of interest include the southeast US and Central and Eastern Europe. Prior to completing her Ph.D. Elizabeth worked for the State of North Carolina in water resource management.

As global demand for meat grows, this episode of Duke University's Leading Voices in Food podcast examines cell-cultivated protein—real meat grown from animal cells—and the evolving U.S. policy landscape shaping its future. Host Norbert Wilson (Duke World Food Policy Center) speaks with postdoctoral researchers Kate Consavage Stanley (Duke/Bezos Center for Sustainable Proteins) and Katariina Koivusaari (NC State/Bezos Center) about their article in Trends in Food Science and Technology on U.S. regulatory and legislative activity. The conversation explains the joint FDA–USDA regulatory approach for cell-cultivated meat (FDA oversight through cell cultivation; USDA oversight from harvest through processing, packaging, and labeling) and FDA oversight for cell-cultivated seafood (except catfish). They discuss timelines companies report for approval (often two to three years), the lack of federal public guidance on naming and labeling so far, and how USDA label approvals are currently handled case by case (e.g., "cell-cultivated chicken" and "cell-cultivated pork"). The episode also covers state-level labeling laws and the likelihood of federal preemption if state requirements conflict with federal statutes, as well as a growing wave of state restrictions and bans—Florida and Alabama in 2024, followed by Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas in 2025—plus funding restrictions in South Dakota and Iowa. The guests explore implications for consumers, interstate commerce, innovation, investment, and U.S. leadership, noting ongoing lawsuits in Florida and Texas and continued legislative activity such as a proposed ban in Georgia.
 
Interview Transcript
Kate, let's begin with you. In the paper, you write about the regulatory frameworks that have been developed for cell-cultivated meat and seafood products in the US. To start, let's talk about what's unique about cell-cultivated products from a regulatory standpoint and how the US Department of Agriculture and US Food and Drug Administration have decided to handle cell-cultivated protein products.
Kate - Yes, so as you mentioned in the introduction, Norbert, cell-cultivation is a new technology for use of the food supply. So, the US government had to adapt its existing legal frameworks for food safety regulation. As your listeners may already know seafood is regulated by the FDA, so it was within their scope to also regulate cell-cultivated seafood. The FDA therefore regulates all cell-cultivated seafood products with the exception of catfish.
When it came to determining the regulatory approach for cell-cultivated products from livestock, poultry, and catfish, it was a bit more nuanced as the processes and components evolved fell under both USDA and FDA purview. In 2019, the FDA and USDA therefore agreed on a joint regulatory approach where the FDA regulates the early stages of the cell cultivation process, including when those cells are taken from the animal, grown in the bioreactor, and matured into specific cell types such as muscle or fat cells. At the point where those cells are ready to be harvested from the bioreactor to use in a food product, oversight transfers to USDA who oversees that harvesting process as well as food processing, packaging, and labeling.
I know this joint regulatory approach may sound complicated, but it's important to note that USDA and FDA already coordinate oversight over other foods in the food supply. I'll give you an example that we all love pizza. A frozen cheese pizza is regulated by the FDA, whereas a frozen pizza with meat toppings like pepperoni is regulated by the USDA. It is therefore not unprecedented that FDA and USDA would agree to jointly regulate cell-cultivated products. And while the process is new, the products go through the same safety checks as other foods in the food supply.
In the past few years, we've seen four cell-cultivated meat products go through the joint USDA-FDA regulatory process, meaning they can be sold in the US food supply. And one cell-cultivated seafood product has gone through the FDA regulatory process.
Kate, thank you for sharing this. And I've used a pizza example in my class, and it is super complex this regulatory maze that we're talking about. It seems like there has been a lot of collaboration between these two agencies, and so that's important to hear. But it is also the case that it seems challenging for cell-cultivated protein companies to get through this process. Is this a fair assessment and would you elaborate?
Kate - Yes, absolutely. We've heard from cell-cultivated companies that it can take two to three years to get through this process. And there certainly is a lot of back and forth between the companies and FDA and USDA.
Great, thank you. Katariina, now let's turn to you. How do these regulations extend to labeling and what do we know about the federal government's approach to labeling the sale of cultivated products thus far?
Katariina – So, labeling regulations are the most consumer facing part of regulations, really. And they are used to ensure that the product label has information that's truthful, that's not misleading. And that the package has sufficient information and consistent information also across products so that the consumer can make an educated decision on what product they want to purchase. And you'd think that how you label the product or just how you call the product on the label would be simple. But there are certain regulations in place that define how food items can or cannot be called. Now, when it comes to cell-cultivated products, as you and Kate mentioned, they are novel in the food supply. So, there is not a long-established term or nomenclature on how we should call these products. The federal regulators, FDA and USDA, to date have not released any public guidance either on how these products should be called on the label. The USDA did release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking back in 2021, requesting comments from stakeholders on how these products should be labeled. And the FDA has also requested comments when it comes to labeling cell-cultivated fish and seafood. But to date, no guidance has been published yet.
Kate gave an overview of the regulatory process between FDA and UFDA when it comes to labeling this product products. The USDA oversees labeling cell-cultivated meat, and the FDA oversees labeling cell-cultivated fish and seafood. The USDA has a pre-market approval process for labels, similarly to conventional meat industry. So, whenever a company wants to bring to market a new product, they first submit their label to the USDA. And the USDA reviews it and make sure that they agree with the language used in the label. The FDA does not have a similar pre-market approval process for labeling fish or seafood or cell-cultivated fish or seafood. So, currently cell-cultivated meat labels are approved on a case-by-case basis. And we can see from the products that have gone through the regulatory review so far that the USDA seem to approve the use of 'cell-cultivated' as a qualifying term, together with a meaty term such as chicken or pork. So, the products that we've seen approved to date or brought to market to date are called cell-cultivated chicken or cell-cultivated pork.
This is really helpful to know what's happened at the federal level. We also know that there are several actions happening at the state level, so several states have proposed their own laws outlining how and what to label these products. Katariina, can you talk us through what this study regarding state labeling?
Katariina - To date, about half of the US states have enacted or proposed their own labeling legislation on cell-cultivated products. Missouri became the first state in 2018, so well before any of these products was available on the market. And they specifically prohibited the use of word meat unless the food was from harvested production livestock or poultry. Restricting, therefore, the use of meat not only on cell-cultivated, but also on other alternative protein products such as plant-based meat analogs or fermentation derived proteins. And this is true for many state level labeling laws. That they are applicable not only to cell-cultivated meat, but also other alternative proteins aiming to mimic meat.
In addition to Missouri, there are six other states that prohibit the use of meat or meat related terms, such as chicken or pork. Now, the other group of states that have restrictions on cell-cultivated meat labeling do not concentrate on prohibiting the use of word meat, but they require the use of qualifying terms or other additional language that clearly states that the product does not come from livestock or poultry. And this group of states, there are 18 states, have quite a bit of variation in what kind of qualifying terms they require to be used. And I thought I'd give a couple of examples here. For example, Indiana requires the package to include the phrase this is an imitation meat product. Iowa requires the product to be labeled with qualifying terms such as cell-cultivated, cell-cultured, fake, grown in a lab, imitation, lab grown, lab created, meat free, or meatless. What's interesting though is that the federal statutes that regulate the US food supply have actual language that prevents states from establishing laws or regulations that conflict with or are additional to the federal labeling regulations. So, this means that the state level labeling laws are actually likely to be preempted if they conflict with the federal regulations.
So, we've only talked about labeling so far. Kate, I want to go back to you. More recently, we've seen a number of states propose greater restrictions on these products. Can you describe these attempts to restrict cell-cultivated meat and their immediate implications? And how have cell-cultivated companies and other stakeholders responded?
Kate - In the past few years we've seen quite a few attempts by states to ban or restrict cell-cultivated meats. And these attempts fall into two buckets: bans that aim to restrict the manufacturer sale or distribution of cell-cultivated products and bans that aim to limit the use of state funding to support these products.
In 2024, Florida was the first state to pass a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cell-cultivated meats. Alabama followed shortly thereafter. In 2025, five more states passed similar bans on cell-cultivated products, including Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas. And many other states proposed bans that ultimately didn't pass. The language on what is banned differs some between states. For instance, Texas only bans the sale of cell-cultivated products. Whereas Florida and others also ban cell-cultivated manufacturing and distribution. But the core message in all these bans is similar. Cell-cultivated meats are not welcome in those states.
The time span for the bans differs too. So, Indiana and Texas have two-year bans while Florida and other states passed indefinite bans. And we've seen two states, South Dakota and Iowa pass legislation to restrict the use of state funding to support cell-cultivated products.
What's frustrating about these bands and confusing for those in the alternative protein sector is that cell-cultivated technology is largely still in the early stages. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, five products have passed through the regulatory process. But these products have mainly been made available in small tasting events. And only one has actually made it to retail. Most Americans have never had a chance to actually try these products. So, it begs the question, why is there such resistance?
State bans on these products mean that Americans will not have the chance to decide for themselves if they like these products, or if and how they want to incorporate them into what they eat. Another big concern is that these bans create a fragmented policy landscape that's challenging for cell-cultivated startups, especially, to navigate. And it raises a lot of concerns about cross state sales. Concerns like these are the basis for two lawsuits against cell-cultivated bans in Florida and Texas. Those lawsuits are still playing out in court, so we don't yet know how those may
Kate, this is really fascinating. And as both you and Katariina described, there's a patchwork of policies and a complex landscape for these companies to navigate. It has the potential of keeping consumers from even trying the products, as you've already suggested, when they're made available. And what I'm hearing from both of you is that this is an ongoing project. So even though there's a paper that's published now, it seems like there will be opportunities to keep going back as new laws and new regulations and new lawsuits are decided. So, this is a policy space that we need to keep an eye on. That's something I want to pick up on this last question. In closing, what does this legislation mean for consumers and the future of cell-cultivated products in the US and even globally? Katariina, let's begin with you.
Katariina - Yes. In addition to impeding interstate and international commerce of cell-cultivated products, these bans could negatively impact the US investment climate on these products and technologies. For example, China has included developing cell-cultivated meat in their five-year plan. Within Europe, there's some variation. Some countries are being rather supportive of these technologies and products, whereas others have tried to ban them similarly to some US states. But I think it's important to note that even with some states in the US banning these products, the US will still likely remain a significant market area for cell-cultivated products. And it still takes significant investment and infrastructure to produce the products on a large scale enough to even reach the whole country.
Another really important thing to mention here is that the global demand for meat is growing. If we look at global population forecasts, global meat or protein consumption forecasts, we need these alternative proteins. Not only cell-cultivated meat, but also for example, plant-based meat alternatives to help meet the increasing demand for protein and complement conventional meat supply.
Kate, what about you?  
Kate – I agree with everything that Katariina said. To add on to her points, I note that the US has been a leader in the cell-cultivated research development and innovation spaces to date. We are one of only a few countries that have both developed a framework for regulating these products and had products successfully pass through that process.
The bans tell a different story, and they may restrict US innovation in the cell-cultivated space because companies will be limited to only the states where they can produce and sell these products. What this means for US leadership in the space remains to be seen. However, one could ask will cell-cultivated companies choose to set up shop in the US versus another country that isn't facing such legal challenges? We don't yet know the answer to that.
You also mentioned consumers. We don't yet know about how these bans and the media surrounding them may influence consumer perceptions of cell-cultivated foods. Products, as you said, they've never even really had the chance to try. But these bans will certainly restrict consumer access to these products in certain states, and the varying state approaches to labeling that Katariina described are likely to confuse consumers.
Going back to something you mentioned earlier, Norbert, we're excited to have this paper out in the world. But this work is certainly continuing to evolve. Just recently, a senator in Georgia proposed a new ban on cell-cultivated meat in the state, and other countries have faced similar legislative challenges against these products. So, we'll be watching and learning as these challenges continue to play out.
Bios
Katariina Koivusaari, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral researcher at the Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein at North Carolina State University. Her work focuses on stakeholder engagement and the regulatory and policy landscape of alternative proteins, including cell-cultivated products, fermentation-derived proteins, and plant-based proteins. She received her Ph.D. in Public Health Nutrition and M.Sc. in Food Sciences from the University of Helsinki. Prior to her current role, she worked in the biotechnology industry as a Senior Regulatory Scientist, where she focused on scientific strategy and regulatory affairs related to cell-cultured human milk ingredients.
Katherine (Kate) Consavage Stanley, Ph.D., serves as a postdoctoral associate within the World Food Policy Center at the Sanford School. In this role, Kate supports Duke's research for the Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein housed at NC State. Her research seeks to detail the complexities of the consumer, market, and policy landscapes for alternative protein products. Kate holds a Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where her research focused on how diverse U.S. food and health systems actors can support sustainable diet transitions through promoting plant-rich dietary patterns and reducing red and processed meat intake. She has also published scholarly work on digital food and nutrition literacy, sugary beverage media campaigns, and incorporating sustainability considerations into dietary guidelines, among others. Prior to starting her doctoral studies, Kate worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) where she developed technical, communications, and advocacy-focused materials on key nutrition and maternal and child health issues. Kate holds a Master of Science in global health from Georgetown University and a Bachelor of Science in biology from Emmanuel College.