The Leading Voices in Food

Lots of talk these days about ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Along with confusion about what in the heck they are or what they're not, how bad they are for us, and what ought to be done about them. A landmark in the discussion of ultra-processed foods has been the publication of a book entitled Ultra-processed People, Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. The author of that book, Dr. Chris van Tulleken, joins us today. Dr. van Tulleken is a physician and is professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He also has a PhD in molecular virology and is an award-winning broadcaster on the BBC. His book on Ultra-processed People is a bestseller. Interview Summary Chris, sometimes somebody comes along that takes a complicated topic and makes it accessible and understandable and brings it to lots of people. You're a very fine scientist and scholar and academic, but you also have that ability to communicate effectively with lots of people, which I very much admire. So, thanks for doing that, and thank you for joining us. Oh, Kelly, it's such a pleasure. You know, I begin some of my talks now with a clipping from the New York Times. And it's a picture of you and an interview you gave in 1995. So exactly three decades ago. And in this article, you just beautifully communicate everything that 30 years later I'm still saying. So, yeah. I wonder if communication, it's necessary, but insufficient. I think we are needing to think of other means to bring about change. I totally agree. Well, thank you by the way. And I hope I've learned something over those 30 years. Tell us, please, what are ultra-processed foods? People hear the term a lot, but I don't think a lot of people know exactly what it means. The most important thing to know, I think, is that it's not a casual term. It's not like 'junk food' or 'fast food.' It is a formal scientific definition. It's been used in hundreds of research studies. The definition is very long. It's 11 paragraphs long. And I would urge anyone who's really interested in this topic, go to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization website. You can type in NFAO Ultra and you'll get the full 11 paragraph definition. It's an incredibly sophisticated piece of science. But it boils down to if you as a consumer, someone listening to this podcast, want to know if the thing you are eating right now is ultra-processed, look at the ingredients list. If there are ingredients on that list that you do not normally find in a domestic kitchen like an emulsifier, a coloring, a flavoring, a non-nutritive sweetener, then that product will be ultra-processed. And it's a way of describing this huge range of foods that kind of has taken over the American and the British and in fact diets all over the world. How come the food companies put this stuff in the foods? And the reason I ask is in talks I give I'll show an ingredient list from a food that most people would recognize. And ask people if they can guess what the food is from the ingredient list. And almost nobody can. There are 35 things on the ingredient list. Sugar is in there, four different forms. And then there are all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce. There are lots of strange things in there. They get in there through loopholes and government regulation. Why are they there in the first place? So, when I started looking at this I also noticed this long list of fancy sounding ingredients. And even things like peanut butter will have palm oil and emulsifiers. Cream cheese will have xanthum gum and emulsifiers. And you think, well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to make your peanut butter out of peanuts. In fact, every ingredient is in there to make money in one of two ways. Either it drives down the cost of production or storage. If you imagine using a real strawberry in your strawberry ice cream. Strawberries are expensive. They're not always in season. They rot. You've got to have a whole supply chain. Why would you use a strawberry if you could use ethyl methylphenylglycidate and pink dye and it'll taste the same. It'll look great. You could then put in a little chunky bit of modified corn starch that'll be chewy if you get it in the right gel mix. And there you go. You've got strawberries and you haven't had to deal with strawberry farmers or any supply chain. It's just you just buy bags and bottles of white powder and liquids. The other way is to extend the shelf life. Strawberries as I say, or fresh food, real food - food we might call it rots on shelves. It decays very quickly. If you can store something at room temperature in a warehouse for months and months, that saves enormous amounts of money. So, one thing is production, but the other thing is the additives allow us to consume to excess or encourage us to consume ultra-processed food to excess. So, I interviewed a scientist who was a food industry development scientist. And they said, you know, most ultra-processed food would be gray if it wasn't dyed, for example. So, if you want to make cheap food using these pastes and powders, unless you dye it and you flavor it, it will be inedible. But if you dye it and flavor it and add just the right amount of salt, sugar, flavor enhancers, then you can make these very addictive products. So that's the logic of UPF. Its purpose is to make money. And that's part of the definition. Right. So, a consumer might decide that there's, you know, beneficial trade-off for them at the end of the day. That they get things that have long shelf life. The price goes down because of the companies don't have to deal with the strawberry farmers and things like that. But if there's harm coming in waves from these things, then it changes the equation. And you found out some of that on your own. So as an experiment you did with a single person - you, you ate ultra-processed foods for a month. What did you eat and how did it affect your body, your mood, your sleep? What happened when you did this? So, what's really exciting, actually Kelly, is while it was an n=1, you know, one participant experiment, I was actually the pilot participant in a much larger study that we have published in Nature Medicine. One of the most reputable and high impact scientific journals there is. So, I was the first participant in a randomized control trial. I allowed us to gather the data about what we would then measure in a much larger number. Now we'll come back and talk about that study, which I think was really important. It was great to see it published. So, I was a bit skeptical. Partly it was with my research team at UCL, but we were also filming it for a BBC documentary. And I went into this going I'm going to eat a diet of 80% of my calories will come from ultra-processed food for four weeks. And this is a normal diet. A lifelong diet for a British teenager. We know around 20% of people in the UK and the US eat this as their normal food. They get 80% of their calories from ultra-processed products. I thought, well, nothing is going to happen to me, a middle-aged man, doing this for four weeks. But anyway, we did it kind of as a bit of fun. And we thought, well, if nothing happens, we don't have to do a bigger study. We can just publish this as a case report, and we'll leave it out of the documentary. Three big things happened. I gained a massive amount of weight, so six kilos. And I wasn't force feeding myself. I was just eating when I wanted. In American terms, that's about 15 pounds in four weeks. And that's very consistent with the other published trials that have been done on ultra-processed food. There have been two other RCTs (randomized control trials); ours is the third. There is one in Japan, one done at the NIH. So, people gain a lot of weight. I ate massively more calories. So much so that if I'd continued on the diet, I would've almost doubled my body weight in a year. And that may sound absurd, but I have an identical twin brother who did this natural experiment. He went to Harvard for a year. He did his masters there. During his year at Harvard he gained, let's see, 26 kilos, so almost 60 pounds just living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But how did you decide how much of it to eat? Did you eat until you just kind of felt naturally full? I did what most people do most of the time, which is I just ate what I wanted when I felt like it. Which actually for me as a physician, I probably took the breaks off a bit because I don't normally have cocoa pops for breakfast. But I ate cocoa pops and if I felt like two bowls, I'd have two bowls. It turned out what I felt like a lot of mornings was four bowls and that was fine. I was barely full. So, I wasn't force feeding myself. It wasn't 'supersize' me. I was eating to appetite, which is how these experiments run. And then what we've done in the trials. So, I gained weight, then we measured my hormone response to a meal. When you eat, I mean, it's absurd to explain this to YOU. But when you eat, you have fullness hormones that go up and hunger hormones that go down, so you feel full and less hungry. And we measured my response to a standard meal at the beginning and at the end of this four-week diet. What we found is that I had a normal response to eating a big meal at the beginning of the diet. At the end of eating ultra-processed foods, the same meal caused a very blunted rise in the satiety hormones. In the 'fullness' hormones. So, I didn't feel as full. And my hunger hormones remained high. And so, the food is altering our response to all meals, not merely within the meal that we're eating. Then we did some MRI scans and again, I thought this would be a huge waste of time. But we saw at four weeks, and then again eight weeks later, very robust changes in the communication between the habit-forming bits at the back of the brain. So, the automatic behavior bits, the cerebellum. Very conscious I'm talking to YOU about this, Kelly. And the kind of addiction reward bits in the middle.

The Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulates roughly 78% of the US food supply. This includes packaged products, food additives, infant formula, ultra-processed foods, and lots more. However, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that 99% of new food ingredients enter our food supply through a legal loophole that skirts FDA oversight and seems, to me at least, to be incredibly risky. Today we're speaking with two authors of a recent legal and policy analysis published in the Journal Health Affairs. They explain what this loophole is and its risks and suggest a new user fee program to both strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate food ingredients and address growing concerns about food safety. Our guests are Jennifer Pomeranz Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at New York University School of Global Public Health and Emily Broad, director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Interview Summary So Jennifer, let's start with you, help our listeners understand the current situation with food ingredient oversight. And what is this legal loophole that allows food companies to add new ingredients without safety reviews. Sure. So, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment in 1958, and the idea was to divide food additives and generally recognized as safe ingredients into two different categories. That's where the GRAS term comes from generally recognized as safe? ‘Generally Recognized As Safe’ is GRAS. But it circularly defines food additives as something that's not GRAS. So, there's not actually a definition of these two different types of substances. But the idea was that the food industry would be required to submit a pre-market, that means before it puts the ingredient into the marketplace, a pre-market petition to the FDA to review the safety. And then the FDA promulgates a regulation for safe use of a food additive. GRAS ingredients on the other hand, initially thought of as salt, pepper, vinegar, are things like that would just be allowed to enter the food supply without that pre-market petition. The problem is the food industry is the entity that decides which category to place each ingredient. There's no FDA guidance on which category they're supposed to ascribe to these ingredients. What has happened is that the food industry has now entered into the food supply an enormous amount of ingredients under what we call the GRAS loophole, which is allowing it to just bring it to the market without any FDA oversight or even knowledge of the ingredient. So, in essence, what we're having now is that the food industry polices itself on whether to submit this pre-market petition for a food additive or just include it in its products without any FDA knowledge. When you said ‘enormous number of such things,’ are we talking dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nobody knows, but the environmental working group did find that 99% of new ingredients are added through this loophole. And that's the concerning part. Well, you can look at some ultra-processed foods and they can have 30 or 40 ingredients on them. That's just one food. You can imagine that at across the food supply, how many things there are. And there are these chemicals that nobody can pronounce. You don't know what's going on, what they are, what they're all about. So, what you're saying is that the food industry decides to put these things in foods. There's some processing reason for putting them in. It's important that the public be protected against harmful ingredients. But the food industry decides what's okay to put in and what's not. Are they required to do any testing? Are there criteria for that kind of testing? Is there any sense that letting the industry police itself amounts to anything that protects the public good? Well, the criteria are supposed to be the same for GRAS or food additives. They're supposed to be meeting certain scientific criteria. But the problem with this is that for GRAS ingredients, they don't have to use published data and they can hold that scientific data to themselves. And you mentioned food labels, the ingredient list, right? That doesn't necessarily capture these ingredients. They use generic terms, corn oil, color additive, food additive whatever. And so, the actual ingredient itself is not necessarily listed on the ingredient list. There is no way to identify them and it's unknown whether they're actually doing the studies. They can engage in these, what are called GRAS panels, which are supposed to be experts that evaluate the science. But the problem is other studies have found that 100% of the people on these GRAS panels have financial conflicts of interest. Okay, so let me see if I have this right. I'm a food company. I develop a new additive to provide color or flavor or fragrance, or it's an emulsifier or something like that. I develop a chemical concoction that hasn't really been tested for human safety. I declare it safe. And the criteria I use for declaring it set safe is putting together a panel of people that I pay, who then in a hundred percent of cases say things are. That's how it works? I can't say that in a hundred percent of cases they say it's safe, but a hundred percent of the people have financial conflicts of interest. That's one of the major concerns there. Well, one can't imagine they would continue to be paid... Exactly. This sounds like a pretty shaky system to be sure. Emily: I wanted to add a couple other really quick things on the last discussion. You were saying, Kelly, like they're using a panel of experts, which indeed are paid by them. That would be best case in some cases. They're just having their own staff say, we think this is generally recognized as safe. And I think there's some examples we can give where there isn't even evidence that they went to even any outside people, even within industry. I think that the takeaway from all of that is that there's really the ability for companies to call all the shots. Make all the rules. Not tell FDA what they're doing. And then as we talked about, not even have anything on the label because it's not a required ingredient if it's, used as part of a processing agent that's not a substance on there. So I was feeling pretty bad when Jennifer is talking about these panels and the heavy conflict... Even worse. Of interest, now I feel worse because that's the best case. Totally. And one other thing too is just you kind of warmed this up by talking about this loophole. When we put an earlier article out that we wrote that was about just this generally recognized as safe, the feedback we got from FDA was this isn't a loophole. Why are you calling this a loophole? And it's pretty clear that it's a loophole, you know? It's big enough to drive thousands of ingredients through. Yes, totally. Emily, you've written about things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, trans fats, and red dye number three in particular. Both of which FDA has now prohibited in food. Can you walk us through those cases? You asked about partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat, and then red dye three, which are two examples that we talk about a little bit in our piece. Actually, one of those, the partially hydrogenated oils was allowed in food through the generally recognized as safe definition. And the other was not. But they are both really good examples of another real issue that FDA has, which is that not only are they not doing a good job of policing substances going into food on the front end, but they do an even worse job of getting things out of food on the backend, post-market once they know that those substances are really raising red flags. And you raised two of the prime examples we've been talking about. With partially hydrogenated oils these are now banned in foods, but it took an extremely long time. Like the first evidence of harm was in the mid-nineties. By 2005, the Institute of Medicine, which is now the National Academies, said that intake of trans fat, of partially hydrogenated oils, should be as low as possible. And there was data from right around that time that found that 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks in the US each year were caused by these partially hydrogenated oils. And on FDA's end, they started in early 2000s to require labeling. But it wasn't until 2015 that they passed a final rule saying that these substances were not generally recognized as safe. And then they kept delaying implementation until 2023. It was basically more than 20 years from when there was really clear evidence of harm including from respected national agencies to when FDA actually fully removed them from food. And red dye number three is another good example where there were studies from the 1980s that raised concerns about this red dye. And it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. But they still allowed it to be added to food. And didn't ban it from food until early this year. So early 2025. In large part because one of the other things happening is states are now taking action on some of these substances where they feel like we really need to protect consumers in our states. And FDA has been doing a really poor job. California banned red dye about 18 months before that and really spurred FDA to action. So that 20-year delay with between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attack deaths attributable to the trans fats is the cost of delay and inaction and I don't know, conflicts of interest, and all kinds of other stuff that happened in FDA. So we're not talking about something trivial by any means. These are life and death things are occurring. Yes. Give us another example, if you would, about something that entered the food supply and caused harm but made it through that GRAS loophole. The example that I've talked about both in some of the work we've done together and also in a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that really focused on why this is an issue. There was this substance added to food ca

Every day, with few exceptions, I eat a handful of nuts. Usually a combination of almonds, walnuts, pecans, cashews, and pistachios. And they taste good for sure. But I'm responding mainly to research showing that consumption of nuts is related to less chronic disease. In particular, eating nuts lowers levels of inflammation related to heart disease and diabetes, and may improve cholesterol levels among other benefits. So, I saw it as welcome news that someone has just published a book about nuts, all aspects of nuts, actually. Today we're joined by NPR, food Writer Elspeth Hay author of a new book called Feed Us with Trees- nuts, and The Future of Food. And I had no idea. Nuts were so interesting until I dove in a little bit. Elspeth has gathered stories from dozens of nut growers, scientists, indigenous knowledge keepers, researchers and food professionals. She writes that humans once grew their staple crops in forest gardens of perennial nuts, such as oaks, chestnuts, and hazelnuts in these species. Particularly important to the environment as well as to human wellbeing. Interview Summary Elspeth, thanks so much for joining us and for writing such an amazing book. Thank you so much for having me. And it sounds like you have the same habit as my dad. He makes sure to eat a little bit of mixed nuts every night, ever since I can remember for his health. Let’s start by having you describe your book. Tell us about Feed us with Trees. Why did you write it and what's it about? I wrote it because I've been reporting on food in the environment for a long time, a little more than 15 years. And I had never heard anyone mention anything about eating acorns until a few years ago. And someone sent me a TEDx talk by a woman in Greece named Marcie Mayer, and she said, you can eat acorns. And not only that, but they're a super food nutritionally, and one of humanity's oldest foods. And I live in this giant oak forest that's protected on Cape Cod as part of the Cape Cod National Seashore. And I had always seen this forest as a sort of impediment to local food production, right? There's all this land that can't be farmed. And all that time, it turns out there was food literally raining down on my roof, underfoot in my driveway, and I just wasn't equipped to see it. The stories that I had grown up with hadn't mentioned that. And so that was a real eyeopener for me and I just couldn't stop thinking about it and I kept researching. So, have you started consuming acorns? I have, yes. I've collected them the past probably five falls and, you know, oaks do something called masting. Some years they have a really big production and some years smaller production. Some years I've gotten more than others. But I have started processing them at home and experimenting with different ways of using the flour. And I've also ordered online acorn oil. There are actually three food products that you can make from acorns. You can make starch, which works just like corn starch or potato starch. Thickens things. You can make flour and with some species you can make oil. It's actually a pretty diverse crop. That's so interesting. You know, I have a series of oak trees right outside my window and I never thought that they might be producing food I could consume. It's so interesting to hear your history with that. Yes, I mean I had no idea. And it turns out that actually acorns are very similar to olives in the way that they need to be processed. They're very high in these compounds that are very bitter, called tannins, just like an olive. I had the experience once of going to Italy with my husband, and we saw this olive grove and we thought, oh cool. Olives growing right here. And we picked one off the tree and he put his in his mouth and immediately spat it out and said, oh, that's awful. Tannins are not something that we want to eat. They don't taste good, but obviously they haven't hampered the olives rise to glory in terms of a human food source. And Acorns need the same kind of processing. So, tannins are water soluble. You pull them out with water. You know, you always get olives in brine, right? And so Yes, just started learning more about how to work with them and then also more about our relationship with oak trees. And I started seeing them differently in that light too. Going from sort of the species that I'd always seen as natural and wild and better off without humans, to actually understanding that we have a really long history with oak trees and in some places, they actually really depend on us. So that was total game changer for me. There's more to the story than oaks and acorns. Tell us what you learned about the history of humans eating nuts like acorns, but also things like chestnuts and hazelnut. Yes, I was really surprised. At first, I thought, okay, this is going to be an isolated thing where some people in really hilly areas or areas that aren't good for row crops are eating these nuts as staple foods. But when I looked back, actually all over the Northern Hemisphere in a huge variety of cultures, people have been in relationship with these nut trees as a staple food for a lot of the past 12,000 years. So, there's records in Japan of this ancient society that was sort of the first known chestnut cultivators in Japan. The burr size increased a lot. The nut size increased a lot during that early era of cultivation. There's a really interesting history of chestnut cultivation throughout Europe during what we call the quote unquote dark ages, although I'm starting to think maybe it was lighter than we thought during that time. There was a lot of cool stuff happening with Agroforestry. And in some areas of Europe, people ate an average of 330 pounds of chestnuts per person, per year. To put that in perspective, today, the average American eats about 150 pounds of grains per person per year. So that is a pretty serious level of chestnut consumption. You know, it's called in some places the bread tree. And I just started finding all these examples. There was a time in the British Isles known as the Nut Age, between about 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. There were just all these examples of different people at different times tending to these trees and harvesting a huge amount of food from them. You've written that trees like oaks and chestnut and hazels and also humans are what ecologists call keystone species. Yes. Tell us what you mean by that and how such species play an outsized role in local ecosystems. So, a keystone species, the first time I ever heard of them I think I was in Jamaica, and someone was talking about the sea urchins on the reef and the beach there. And it turned out that when they disappeared, for a variety of reasons, this whole ecosystem fell apart. And there's different types of keystone species, but a keystone species is as important to its ecosystem as the keystone in a Roman arch, right? So, if you pull that keystone out, you have this cascade of effects where everything kind of falls apart. And oaks are a huge life support tree. I don't know if listeners have heard of the work of entomologist, Doug Tallamy. He's done some really interesting studies on different families of plants and how much life they support by looking at insects. And in most counties where they occur, oaks are the top life support plant in North America. They're this incredibly important basis of the food chain. They provide food for a ton of insects. Those insects in turn feed birds and mammals and other creatures. And you know, at first as I am learning all this, I thought, okay, great oaks are important. Well, you know, I kind of already knew that, but that's exciting that we can eat from them. But then I started getting to know some fire practitioners. Especially an indigenous man in present day Northern California named Ron Reed. And he's a member of the Karuk Tribe there. And he started telling me about the relationship between cultural fire, prescribed fire, and oak trees. And what I learned is that oaks and human fire have actually been in relationship for millennia. And there's this whole, on the east coast, this hypothesis called the Oak Fire Hypothesis. And most ecologists that I've spoken with ascribe to it and believe that the reason that white oak and hickory have been this sort of dominant forest type through a lot of Eastern North America for the past 9,000 years, despite some really dramatic climate changes, is because humans have burned to keep them dominant on the landscape. And that in doing that we actually play a role as a keystone species too, right? So, if our fire is supporting this incredibly important keystone species, oaks, and other nut trees, we're in the category that they call ecosystem engineers. Mm-hmm. So, a beaver is an example of an ecosystem engineer, right? You take the beaver out of the wetland and the whole thing falls apart. And a lot of fire historians and ecologists see us as the fire animal. And historically, in a lot of different ecosystems, that has been our largest and most important role is creating ecosystems for other wildlife habitat, for other wildlife, with fire. So, it sounds like there was a time in human history when humans would selectively burn other things in order to protect these trees. Yes, and truly not just these trees. If you look at other places, other continents, there's human burning in Australia, there's human burning in the Amazon, there's tons of examples. But around here where I live, at least in New England and in the East, fire has been used intentionally to keep these nut trees dominant. Because what happens is. oaks are a mid-succession species. If folks don't know a lot about succession, early is like bare dirt, right? When we have an open field that's been plowed up, that's the beginning of succession. And then it proceeds all the way to an old growth forest. And oaks, if they get shaded out, they're not a particularly shade tolerant species. So, a lot of these n

Interview Summary So, you two, along with a number of other people in the field, wrote a chapter for a recently published book called The Handbook of Children and Screens. We discussed that book in an earlier podcast with its editors, Dmitri Christakis and Kris Perry, the executive director of the Children and Screens organization. And I'd like to emphasize to our listeners that the book can be downloaded at no cost. I'd like to read a quote if I may, from the chapter that the two of you wrote. 'Screen time continues to evolve with the advent of continuous and immersive video reels, voice activated assistance, social media influencers, augmented and virtual reality targeted advertising. Immersive worlds where children can virtually shop for food and beverages, cook or work in a fast-food outlet from a smartphone, a tablet, a computer, or an internet connected tv and more.' So as much as I follow the field, I still read that and I say, holy you know what. I mean that's just an absolutely alarming set of things that are coming at our children. And it really sounds like a tidal wave of digital sophistication that one could have never imagined even a short time ago. Amanda, let's start with you. Can you tell us a little bit more about these methods and how quickly they evolve and how much exposure children have? I think you're right, Kelly, that the world is changing fast. I've been looking at screen media for about 20 years now as a researcher. And in the earlier years, and Tom can attest to this as well, it was all about TV viewing. And you could ask parents how much time does your child spend watching TV? And they could say, well, they watch a couple shows every night and maybe a movie or two on the weekend, and they could come up with a pretty good estimate, 1, 2, 3 hours a day. Now, when we ask parents how much time their children spend with media, they have to stop and think, 'well, they're watching YouTube clips throughout the day. They're on their smartphone, their tablet, they're on social media, texting and playing all these different games.' It really becomes challenging to even get a grasp of the quantity of screen time let alone what kids are doing when they're using those screens. I will say for this book chapter, we found a really great review that summarized over 130 studies and found that kids are spending about three and a half or four hours a day using screens. Yet some of these studies are showing as high as seven or eight hours. I think it's probably under-reported because parents have a hard time really grasping how much time kids spend on screens. I've got a one-year-old and a five-year-old, and I've got some nieces and nephews and I'm constantly looking over their shoulder trying to figure out what games are they playing and where are they going online and what are they doing. Because this is changing really rapidly and we're trying to keep up with it and trying to make sure that screen time is a safe and perhaps healthy place to be. And that's really where a lot of our research is focused. I can only imagine how challenging it must be to work through that landscape. And because the technology advances way more quickly than the policies and legal landscape to control it, it really is pretty much whatever anybody wants to do, they do it and very little can be done about it. It's a really interesting picture, I know. We'll come back later and talk about what might be done about it. Tom, if you will help us understand the impact of all this. What are the effects on the diets of children and adolescents? I'm thinking particularly when Amanda was mentioning how many hours a day children are on it that three to four hours could be an underestimate of how much time they're spending. What did kids used to do with that time? I mean, if I think about when you and I were growing up, we did a lot of different things with that time. But what's it look like now? Well, that's one of the important questions that we don't really know a lot about because even experimental studies that I can talk about that look at reducing screen time have not been very good at being able to measure what else is going on or what substitutes for it. And so, a lot of the day we don't really know exactly what it's displacing and what happens when you reduce screen time. What replaces it? The assumption is that it's something that's more active than screen time. But, you know, it could be reading or homework or other sedentary behaviors that are more productive. But we really don't know. However, we do know that really the general consensus across all these studies that look at the relationship between screen time and nutrition is that the more time children spend using screens in general, the more calories they consume, the lower the nutritional quality of their diets and the greater their risk for obesity. A lot of these studies, as Amanda mentioned, were dominated by studies of television viewing, or looking at television viewing as a form of screen use. And there's much less and much more mixed results linking nutrition and obesity with other screens such as video games, computers, tablets, and smartphones. That doesn't mean those relationships don't exist. Only that the data are too limited at this point. And there's several reasons for that. One is that there just haven't been enough studies that single out one type of screen time versus another. Another is what Amanda brought up around the self-report issue, is that most of these studies depend on asking children or the parents how much time they spend using screens. And we know that children and adults have a very hard time accurately reporting how much time they're using screens. And, in fact when we measure this objectively, we find that they both underestimate and overestimate at times. It's not all in one direction, although our assumption is that they underestimate most of the time, we find it goes in both directions. That means that in addition to sort of not having that answer about exactly what the amount of screen time is, really makes it much tougher to be able to detect relationships because it adds a lot of error into our studies. Now there have been studies, as I mentioned, that have tried to avoid these limitations by doing randomized controlled trials. Including some that we conducted, in which we randomized children, families or schools in some cases to programs that help them reduce their screen time and then measure changes that occur in nutrition, physical activity, and measures of obesity compared to kids who are randomized to not receive those programs. And the randomized trials are really useful because they allow us to make a conclusion about cause-and-effect relationships. Some of these programs also targeted video games and computers as well as television. In fact, many of them do, although almost all of them were done before tablets and smartphones became very common in children. We still don't have a lot of information on those, although things are starting to come out. Most of these studies demonstrated that these interventions to reduce screen use can result in improved nutrition and less weight gain. And the differences seen between the treatment and control groups were sometimes even larger than those commonly observed from programs to improve nutrition and increased physical activity directly. Really, it's the strongest evidence we have of cause-and-effect relationships between screen use and poor nutrition and risk for obesity. Of course, we need a lot more of these studies, particularly more randomized controlled studies. And especially those including smartphones because that's where a lot of kids, especially starting in the preteen age and above, are starting to spend their time. But from what we know about the amount of apparent addictiveness that we see in the sophisticated marketing methods that are being used in today's media, I would predict that the relationships are even larger today than what we're seeing in all these other studies that we reviewed. It's really pretty stunning when one adds up all that science and it looks pretty conclusive that there's some bad things happening, and if you reduce screen time, some good things happen. So, Amanda, if you know the numbers off the top of your head, how many exposures are kids getting to advertisements for unhealthy foods? If I think about my own childhood, you know, we saw ads for sugar cereals during Saturday morning cartoon televisions. And there might have been a smattering if kids watch things that weren't necessarily just directed at kids like baseball games and stuff like that. But, and I'm just making this number up, my exposure to those ads for unhealthy foods might have been 20 a week, 30 a week, something like that. What does it look like now? That is a good question. Kelly. I'm not sure if anyone can give you a totally accurate answer, but I'll try. If you look at YouTube ads that are targeting children, a study found that over half of those ads were promoting foods and beverages, and the majority of those were considered unhealthy, low nutritional value, high calorie. It's hard to answer that question. What we used to do is we'd take, look at all the Saturday morning cartoons, and we'd actually record them and document them and count the number of food ads versus non-food ads. And it was just a much simpler time in a way, in terms of screen exposure. And we found in that case, throughout the '90s and early 2000s, a lot of food ads, a lot of instances of these food ads. And then you can look at food placement too, right? It's not an actual commercial, but these companies are paying to get their food products in the TV show or in the program. And it's just become much more complicated. I think it's hard to capture unless you have a study where you're putting a camera on a child, which some people are doing, to try to really capture everything they see throughout their d

Today we're talking with health and nutrition expert Dr. Stuart Gillespie, author of a new book entitled Food Fight: from Plunder and Profit to People and Planet. Using decades of research and insight gathered from around the world, Dr. Gillespie wants to reimagine our global food system and plot a way forward to a sustainable, equitable, and healthy food future - one where our food system isn't making us sick. Certainly not the case now. Over the course of his career, Dr. Gillespie has worked with the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition in Geneva with UNICEF in India and with the International Food Policy Research Institute, known as IFPRI, where he's led initiatives tackling the double burden of malnutrition and agriculture and health research. He holds a PhD in human nutrition from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Interview Summary So, you've really had a global view of the agriculture system, and this is captured in your book. And to give some context to our listeners, in your book, you describe the history of the global food system, how it's evolved into this system, sort of warped, if you will, into a mechanism that creates harm and it destroys more than it produces. That's a pretty bold statement. That it destroys more than it produces, given how much the agriculture around the world does produce. Tell us a bit more if you would. Yes, that statement actually emerged from recent work by the Food Systems Economic Commission. And they costed out the damage or the downstream harms generated by the global food system at around $15 trillion per year, which is 12% of GDP. And that manifests in various ways. Health harms or chronic disease. It also manifests in terms of climate crisis and risks and environmental harms, but also. Poverty of food system workers at the front line, if you like. And it's largely because we have a system that's anachronistic. It's a system that was built in a different time, in a different century for a different purpose. It was really started to come together after the second World War. To mass produce cheap calories to prevent famine, but also through the Green Revolution, as that was picking up with the overproduction of staples to use that strategically through food aid to buffer the West to certain extent from the spread of communism. And over time and over the last 50 years of neoliberal policies we've got a situation where food is less and less viewed as a human right, or a basic need. It's seen as a commodity and the system has become increasingly financialized. And there's a lot of evidence captured by a handful of transnationals, different ones at different points in the system from production to consumption. But in each case, they wield huge amounts of power. And that manifests in various ways. We have, I think a system that's anachronistic The point about it, and the problem we have, is that it's a system revolves around maximizing profit and the most profitable foods and products of those, which are actually the least healthy for us as individuals. And it's not a system that's designed to nourish us. It's a system designed to maximize profit. And we don't have a system that really aims to produce whole foods for people. We have a system that produces raw ingredients for industrial formulations to end up as ultra processed foods. We have a system that produces cattle feed and, and biofuels, and some whole foods. But it, you know, that it's so skewed now, and we see the evidence all around us that it manifests in all sorts of different ways. One in three people on the planet in some way malnourished. We have around 12 million adult deaths a year due to diet related chronic disease. And I followed that from colonial times that, that evolution and the way it operates and the way it moves across the world. And what is especially frightening, I think, is the speed at which this so-called nutrition transition or dietary transition is happening in lower income or middle income countries. We saw this happening over in the US and we saw it happening in the UK where I am. And then in Latin America, and then more Southeast Asia, then South Asia. Now, very much so in Sub-Saharan Africa where there is no regulation really, apart from perhaps South Africa. So that's long answer to your intro question. Let's dive into a couple of things that you brought up. First, the Green Revolution. So that's a term that many of our listeners will know and they'll understand what the Green Revolution is, but not everybody. Would you explain what that was and how it's had these effects throughout the food systems around the world? Yes, I mean around the, let's see, about 1950s, Norman Borlag, who was a crop breeder and his colleagues in Mexico discovered through crop breeding trials, a high yielding dwarf variety. But over time and working with different partners, including well in India as well, with the Swaminathan Foundation. And Swaminathan, for example, managed to perfect these new strains. High yielding varieties that doubled yields for a given acreage of land in terms of staples. And over time, this started to work with rice, with wheat, maize and corn. Very dependent on fertilizers, very dependent on pesticides, herbicides, which we now realize had significant downstream effects in terms of environmental harms. But also, diminishing returns in as much as, you know, that went through its trajectory in terms of maximizing productivity. So, all the Malthusian predictions of population growth out running our ability to feed the planet were shown to not to be true. But it also generated inequity that the richest farmers got very rich, very quickly, the poorer farmers got slightly richer, but that there was this large gap. So, inequity was never really properly dealt with through the Green Revolution in its early days. And that overproduction and the various institutions that were set in place, the manner in which governments backed off any form of regulation for overproduction. They continued to subsidize over production with these very large subsidies upstream, meant that we are in the situation we are now with regard to different products are being used to deal with that excess over production. So, that idea of using petroleum-based inputs to create the foods in the first place. And the large production of single crops has a lot to do with that Green Revolution that goes way back to the 1950s. It's interesting to see what it's become today. It's sort of that original vision multiplied by a billion. And boy, it really does continue to have impacts. You know, it probably was the forerunner to genetically modified foods as well, which I'd like to ask you about in a little bit. But before I do that, you said that much of the world's food supply is governed by a pretty small number of players. So who are these players? If you look at the downstream retail side, you have Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Unilever. Collectively around 70% of retail is governed by those companies. If you look upstream in terms of agricultural and agribusiness, you have Cargill, ADM, Louis Dreyfus, and Bunge. These change to a certain extent. What doesn't change very much are the numbers involved that are very, very small and that the size of these corporations is so large that they have immense power. And, so those are the companies that we could talk about what that power looks like and why it's problematic. But the other side of it's here where I am in the UK, we have a similar thing playing out with regard to store bought. Food or products, supermarkets that control 80% as Tesco in the UK, Asta, Sainsbury's, and Morrisons just control. You have Walmart, you have others, and that gives them immense power to drive down the costs that they will pay to producers and also potentially increase the cost that they charge as prices of the products that are sold in these supermarkets. So that profit markup, profit margins are in increased in their favor. They can also move around their tax liabilities around the world because they're transnational. And that's just the economic market and financial side on top of that. And as you know, there's a whole raft of political ways in which they use this power to infiltrate policy, influence policy through what I've called in Chapter 13, the Dark Arts of Policy Interference. Your previous speaker, Murray Carpenter, talked about that with regard to Coca-Cola and that was a very, yeah, great example. But there are many others. In many ways these companies have been brilliant at adapting to the regulatory landscape, to the financial incentives, to the way the agriculture system has become warped. I mean, in some ways they've done the warping, but in a lot of ways, they're adapting to the conditions that allow warping to occur. And because they've invested so heavily, like in manufacturing plants to make high fructose corn syrup or to make biofuels or things like that. It'd be pretty hard for them to undo things, and that's why they lobby so strongly in favor of keeping the status quo. Let me ask you about the issue of power because you write about this in a very compelling way. And you talk about power imbalances in the food system. What does that look like in your mind, and why is it such a big part of the problem? Well, yes. And power manifests in different ways. It operates sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. It manifests at different levels from, you know, grassroots level, right up to national and international in terms of international trade. But what I've described is the way markets are captured or hyper concentrated. That power that comes with these companies operating almost like a cartel, can be used to affect political or to dampen down, block governments from regulating them through what I call a five deadly Ds: dispute or dispute or doubt, distort, distract, disguise, and dodge. And you've written very well Kelly, with I think Kenneth Warner abo

Interest and grave concern have been mounting over the impact of agriculture and the food choices we all make on the environment, particularly on climate change. With natural weather disasters occurring much more frequently and serious threats from warming of the atmosphere in general, it's natural to look for places to make change. One person who has thought a lot about this is our guest today, Dr. William Dietz of George Washington University. He's been a prominent voice in this space. Bill, you're one of the people in the field I respect most because our relationship goes back many years. Bill is professor and director of research and policy at the Global Food Institute at George Washington University. But especially pertinent to our discussion today is that Dr. Dietz was co-chair of the Lancet Commission on the global syndemic of obesity, under nutrition and climate change. Today, we'll focus on part of that discussion on beef in particular. Interview Summary Bill, let's start out with a basic question. What in the heck is a syndemic? A syndemic is a word that reflects the interaction of these three pandemics that we're facing. And those are obesity, under nutrition, and we've also called climate change a syndemic insofar as it affects human health. These three pandemics interact at both the biologic and social levels and have a synergistic adverse impact on each other. And they're driven by large scale social forces, which foster clustering and have a disparate impact on marginalized populations. Both in the developed and equally important, in the developing world. Here are a couple of examples of syndemics. So, increased greenhouse gases from high income countries reduce crop yields in the micronutrient content of crops, which in turn contribute to food insecurity and undernutrition in low and middle income countries. And eventually the reduction in crop yields and the micronutrient content of crops is going to affect high income countries. Beef production is a really important driver of the climate change, and we're a major contributor in terms of the US' contribution. And beef production drives both methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and in turn, the consumption of red and processed meat causes obesity, diabetes, colon cancer, and cardiovascular disease. And finally, obesity, stunting and nutrition insecurity occur in the same children and in the same population in low- and middle-income countries. Okay, so we'll come back to beef in a moment, but first, help us understand the importance of agriculture overall and our food choices in changing climate. Well, so I think we have to go back to where this, the increase in mean global surface temperatures began, in about 1950. Those temperatures have climbed in a linear fashion since then. And we're now approaching a key level of increase of 1.5 degrees centigrade. The increase in mean surface temperature is driven by increased greenhouse gases, and the US is particularly culpable in this respect. We're it's second only to China in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions. And on a per capita basis, we're in the top four with China, India, and Brazil and now the US. And in the US, agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, and about 30% of fossil fuels are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. But when you look at the actual contribution of car use among the fossil fuel use, it's pretty close to the contribution of greenhouse gases from agriculture. The important point here is each one degree increase centigrade in air temperatures associated with a 7% increase in water vapor. And this is responsible for the major adverse weather events that we're seeing today in terms of increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, the droughts. And I learned a new term from the New York Times a couple of days ago from the science section, which is atmospheric thirst. I had trouble understanding how climate change would contribute to drought, but that same effect in terms of absorbing moisture that occurs and drives the adverse weather events also dries out the land. So increasingly there's increased need for water use, which is driven by atmospheric thirst. But that increase in air temperature and the increase in water vapor, is what really drives these storms. Because in the Pacific and in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, this increase in air temperature is associated with an increase in water temperature, which further drives the increase in the severity of these storms. Thanks for that background. Now let's get to beef. You and I were not long ago at the Healthy Eating Research conference. And you gave what I thought was a very compelling talk on beef. We'll talk in a minute about how much beef figures into this overall picture, but first, tell us how beef production affects both climate and health. And you mentioned nitrous oxide and methane, but how does this all work? Cattle production is a big driver of the release of methane. And methane comes from cow burps. The important thing to understand about methane is that it's 80 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of its greenhouse gas emission. And that's because it has a very long half-life when it gets up into the atmosphere? Well, actually it's interesting because the half-life of methane is shorter than the half-life of nitrous oxide. So, it's an appropriate target for reduction. And the reduction has to occur by virtue of reduced beef consumption, which would reduce beef production. The other piece of this is that nitrous oxide is derived from fertilizer that's not absorbed by plants. And the application of fertilizer is a very wasteful process and a huge percent of fertilizer that's applied to crops is not absorbed by those plants. And it washes into the Mississippi River and down to the Gulf of Mexico. But also, increases the genesis of nitrous oxide. And nitrous oxide is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than methane. About 260 times more powerful than CO2 with a very, very long half-life. So, as a target, we really ought to be focused on methane, and if we're going to focus on methane, we need to focus on beef. You could imagine people who are opposed to these views on climate change making fun of cows burping. I mean, are there enough cows, burping enough where the methane that's coming out is a problem? Yes. Maybe a better term that we can use is enteric fermentation, which is in effect cow burps. But enteric fermentation is the major source of methane. And nitrous oxide, the same thing. The agricultural system which supports cattle production, like the feedlot fattening from corn and wheat. The genesis of nitrous oxide is a product of fertilizer use and fertilizer use is a real important source of nitrous oxide because of the amount of fertilizer which is not absorbed by plants. But which washes into the Mississippi River and causes the dead zone in the Gulf, but also generates an enormous amount of nitrous oxide. So, between those two, the enteric fermentation and the origin of nitrous oxide from fertilizer use, are a lethal combination in terms of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. And it's important to know that those greenhouse gas emissions are associated with important declines in crop yields. Crop yields have declined by about 5% for maize for wheat, for soybeans, and somewhat less for rice. These crop yields have yet to affect the US but are clearly a problem in the Global South. In your talk, you cited a paper by Scarborough and colleagues that was published in the Journal Nature Food that modeled the environmental impact of various diets. Could you please explain what they found? This was a really nice study of four diets in the United Kingdom. Actually it was five diets. They looked at vegans, vegetarians, low meat eaters, medium meat eaters and high meat eaters. And looked at the contribution of these diets to the genesis of methane, nitrous oxide, and also importantly, land use and water use. And the most expensive, and the most detrimental environmental impact of these diets, were the among the high meat eaters. These were substantially greater than than the genesis of for example, methane by vegans. For example, high meat eaters generated about 65 kilograms per day of methane compared to vegans, which generated only four kilograms per day of methane. And when you reduce beef, and there were two lower categories, these measures come much more into line with what we'd like to have. The low meat eaters generate about half of methane that the high meat eaters generate. This is also true for their genesis of nitrous oxide. And importantly, the land use among vegans and vegetarians is about a third of the land use required for the production of beef. And water use by meat production is about twice that generated by the water use by the production of plant-based diets. I think these are important data because they, they really reflect the importance of a lower meat consumption and higher plant-based diet. Not just in terms of greenhouse gases, but also in terms of land use and water use. Not to mention health. Not to mention health. Yes. I think it's important to continue to remind ourselves that beef consumption is associated with a variety of chronic diseases like obesity, like diabetes, like colon cancer and like cardiovascular disease. So, there's this double whammy from beef consumption, not only on the climate but also on human health. In your talk that I heard it was interesting to see how you interpreted this information because you weren't arguing for no beef consumption. Because you were saying there could be tremendous benefit from people going from the high beef consumption category to a lower category. If you could take all the people who are consuming beef and drop them down a category, it sounds like there would be tremendous benefits. People could still have their beef but just not have it as often. Right. I think that's an important observation th

I was at a professional meeting recently and I heard an inspiring and insightful and forward-looking talk by journalist and author Roger Thurow. Roger was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal for 30 years, 20 of them as a foreign correspondent based in Europe and Africa. Roger has written a number of books including one on world hunger and another what I thought was a particularly important book entitled The First 1000 Days, A Crucial Time for Mothers and Children and the World. Now comes a new book on farmers around the world and how they are coping with the unprecedented changes they face. It was hearing about his book that inspired me to invite Mr. Thurow to this podcast and thankfully he accepted. His new book is entitled Against the Grain: How Farmers Around the Globe are transforming Agriculture to Nourish the World and Heal the Planet. Interview Summary I really admire your work and have loved the new book and what I've read before. So, let's talk about something that you speak about: the wisdom of farmers. And you talk about their wisdom in the context of modern agriculture. What do you mean by that? Farmers of the world, particularly the small holder farmers, indigenous farmers, family farmers as we know them in this country, they're really bold and pioneering in what they're doing. And these farmers, kind of around the world as we go on this journey around the world in the book, they've seen their efforts to earn a living and feed nourish their families and communities turn against. So, while conforming to the orthodoxies of modern industrial agriculture practices: the monocropping, the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides and insecticide chemicals, the land expansion, at the expense of savannas, forest wetlands, biodiverse environments. In the face of this, they've really witnessed their lands degrading. Their soils depleting. Their waters dwindling. Their pollinators fleeing. Their biodiversity shrinking and becoming less diverse. Their rains becoming ever more mercurial., Their temperatures ever hotter. And their children and families and their communities becoming ever more hungry and malnourished. So, they've really seen the future of their own impacts on the environment, and then the impacts of changing climates, of more extreme weather conditions. They've really seen this future. They've experienced, lived it, and it's ugly what they see and what they've experienced on their farms. So, that's their wisdom, and they'll really tell us that it doesn't have to be that way if we listen. That such a future isn't inevitable. Because out of their desperation, you know, these farmers have begun farming against the grain. So, there's the title of the book Against the Grain of this modern agriculture orthodoxy to reconcile their roles as both food producers and nourishers of us all, and stewards in the land. They're pushing forward with practices like agroforestry, agroecology, regenerative agriculture, kind of whatever one calls it. Farming with nature instead of bending nature to their will, which is what we too often done and with kind of the larger modern industrial agriculture techniques. So, farming with nature as opposed to against it as they strive to both nourish us all and heal our planet. Give us a sense, if you will, about how important these small farmers are to the world's food supply? So how important are these? They're really important. Extremely vital for the global food chain, certainly for their own families and communities, and their countries. In a lot of places, say in Africa, in many of the countries, on the continent, it's the small holder farmers that are producing the majority of the food. In their communities and in their countries and across the continent. Still not enough. Africa then must become a substantial importer of food. But these small holder farmers are so key and the more success that they have in feeding their communities and families, the more success we all have then in this great goal of ending hunger and malnutrition. Equally important, these farmers are the stewards of the land. And they're on the front lines of these environmental challenges. The threats from the changing climate and more extreme weather conditions. They're the first impacted by it, but they also increasingly see, and that's what stories in the book are about, how they see that their own actions are then impacting their environment and their climates. And this is why they're so important for all of us is that they find themselves at the center of what I think is this great collision of humanities two supreme imperatives. One, nourish the world, so nourish us all. That's the one imperative. And then the other imperative, kind of colliding with that, is to preserve, protect, and heal our planet from the very actions of nourishing us. So, these are these two colliding forces. You know as I think we already know agriculture and land use activities are responsible for about a third of the greenhouse gases impacting our climate and weather patterns. And the greatest impact of this then is felt by the farmers themselves. And they see what's happening to their soils and the depletion of their soils. Their lands being so terribly degraded by their very actions of nourishing their families and then contributing to nourishing us all. I think that's why they're so important for us. I mean, there's certainly kind of the canaries in the coal mine of climate change. Of these environmental challenges that we're all facing. And how they're then able to adjust their farming, as we kind of see in the book and that's this wisdom again. How can we learn from them and what are they seeing in their own situations. They're then having to adjust because they have no other options. They either have to adjust or their farms will continue to degrade and their children and their families increasingly malnourished and hungry. Roger let's talk through this issue of colliding imperatives just a bit. The fact that protecting the planet and nourishing people are colliding in your view, suggests that these two priorities are competing with one another. How is that the case? Some of the techniques of the monocropping, which is basically planting one crop on the same plot of land year after year, after year, season after season, right? And by doing that, these crops that are pulling nutrients out of the soil, many of the crops don't put nutrients back in. Some of them do. They'll restore nitrogen they'll put other nutrients in. But with the mono cropping, it's kind of the same depletion that goes on. And, has been particularly practiced in this country, and the bigger farmers and more commercial farmers, because it's more efficient. You are planting one crop, you have the same technique of kind of the planting and tending for that. And the harvesting, kind of the same equipment for that. You don't need to adjust practices, your equipment for various other crops that you're growing on that land. And so, there's an efficiency for that. You have then the price stability if there is any price stability in farming from that crop. That can be a weakness if the price collapses and you're so dependent on that. And so, the farmers are seeing, yeah, that's where the degrading and the weakening their of their soils comes from. So, what's their response to that when their land's degrading? When their soils become weak, it's like, oh, we need additional land then to farm. So they'll go into the forest, they'll cut down trees. And now there's virgin soil. They do the same practices there. And then after a number of years, well that land starts depleting. They keep looking for more. As you do these things, then with the soils depleting, the land degrading, becoming really hard, well, when the rain comes, it's not soaking in. And it just kind of runs away as the soil becomes almost like concrete. Farmers aren't able to plant much there anymore or get much out of the ground. And then so what happens then if the water isn't soaking into the soil, the underground aquifers and the underground springs they become depleted. All of a sudden, the lakes and the ponds that were fed by those, they disappear. The wildlife, the pollinators that come because of that, they go. The bushes, the plants, the weeds that are also so important for the environment, they start disappearing. And so you see that in their efforts to nourish their families and to nourish all of us, it's having this impact on the environment. And then that drives more impacts, right? As they cut down trees, trees drive the precipitation cycle. Tthen the rains become ever more mercurial and unpredictable. Without the trees and the shade and the cooling and the breezes, temperatures get hotter. And also, as the rains disappear and become more unpredictable. It has all this effect. And so, the farmers in the book, they're seeing all this and they recognize it. That by their very actions of cutting down trees to expand their land or to go to a different crop. Because again, that's what the commercial agriculture is demanding, so maybe its sugar cane is coming to the area. Well, sugar cane doesn't get along with trees. And so, the farmers in this one part of Uganda that I write about, they're cutting down all their trees to plant sugarcane. And then it's like, wow, now that the trees are gone, now we see all these environmental and ecosystem results because of that. And so that's where this collision comes from then of being much more aware, and sensitive in their practices and responding to it. That they are both nourishing their families and then also being even better stewards of their land. And they're not doing any of this intentionally, right? It's not like they're going 'we have to do all this to the land, and you know, what do we care? We're just here for a certain amount of time.' But no, they know that this is their land, it's their wealth, it's their family property. It's f

Recently I was asked to review a forthcoming book for American Scientist magazine. The book was entitled, Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes us Sick. I did the review, and now that the book has been published, I'm delighted that its author, Murray Carpenter, has agreed to join us. Mr. Carpenter is a journalist and author whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and has been featured in places like NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Interview Summary So, let's start with your career overall. Your journalism has covered a wide range of topics. But a major focus has been on what people consume. First, with your book Caffeinated and now with Sweet and Deadly. What brought you to this interest? My interest in caffeine is longstanding. Like many of us, I consume caffeine daily in the form of coffee. And I just felt like with caffeine, many of us don't really discuss the fact that it is a drug, and it is at least a mildly addictive drug. And so, I became fascinated with that enough to write a book. And that really led me directly in an organic fashion to this project. Because when I would discuss caffeine with people, mostly they just kind of wanted the cliff notes. Is my habit healthy? You know, how much caffeine should I take? And, and in short, I would tell them, you know, if you don't suffer from anxiety or insomnia and you're consuming your caffeine in a healthy beverage, well, that's fine. But, what I realized, of course, is that by volume, the caffeinated beverage people consume most of is sodas. And so that led me to thinking more about sodas because I got a lot of questions about the caffeine in sodas. And that led me to realize just the degree to which they are unhealthful. We've all known sodas not to be a health food, but I think that the degree to which they are not healthy surprised me. And that's what led me to this book. Yes, there's some very interesting themes aren't there with addiction and manipulation of ingredients in order to get people hooked on things. So let's talk about Coca-Cola a bit. Your book focuses on Coca-Cola. It's right there in the title. And certainly, they're giants in the beverage field. But are there other reasons that led you to focus on them? Other than that, the fact that they're the biggest? They're the biggest and really almost synonymous with sodas worldwide. I mean, many people don't say ‘I want a pop, I want a soda.’ They say, ‘I want a Coke.’ I quote a source as saying that. You know, what that means is you want a sugar sweetened beverage. And it's not just that they're the most successful at this game, and the biggest. But as I started doing this research, I realized that they have also been the most aggressive and the most successful at this sort of disinformation that's the focus of the book. At generating these health campaigns, these science disinformation campaigns, we should say. This is not to say Pepsi and Dr. Pepper have not been at this game as well, and often through the American Beverage Association. But it is to say that I think Coca-Cola has been the most sophisticated. The most invested in these campaigns. And I would argue the most successful. And so, I really think it's a league apart and that's why I wanted to focus on Coca-Cola. That makes good sense. So, in reading your book, I was struck by the sheer number of ways Coca-Cola protected their business interest at the expense of public health and also the degree to which it was coordinated and calculated. Let's take several examples of such activities and discuss exactly what the company has done. And I'd love your opinion on this. One thing you noted that Coke acted partly through other organizations, one of which you just mentioned, the American Beverage Association. There were others where there was sort of a false sense of scientific credibility. Can you explain more about what Coke did in this area? Yes, and one of the organizations that I think is perhaps the exemplar of this behavior is the International Life Sciences Institute. It's a very successful, very well-funded group that purports to you know, improve the health of people, worldwide. It was founded by a Coca-Cola staffer and has, you know, essentially carried water for Coke for years through a variety of direct and indirect ways. But so front groups, the successful use of front groups: and this is to say groups that don't immediately appear to be associated, say with Coca-Cola. If you hear the International Life Sciences Institute, no one immediately thinks Coca-Cola, except for people who study this a lot. The International Food Information Council, another very closely related front group. This is one of the ways that Coke has done its work is through the use of front groups. And some of them are sort of these more temporary front groups that they'll establish for specific campaigns. For example, to fight soda taxes in specific areas. And they often have very anodyne names, and names again that don't directly link them to Coca-Cola or a beverage, the beverage industry. And the reason that this is so important and the reason this is so effective is journalists know if they were saying, Coca-Cola says soda isn't bad for you, of course that raises red flags. If they say, the International Life Sciences Institute says it's not bad for you, if they say the International Food Information Council says it's not bad for you. The use of front groups has been one of the very effective and persistent, strategies. It almost sounds like the word deception could be written the charter of these organizations, couldn't it? Because it was really meant to disguise Coca-Cola's role in these things from the very get go. That's right. Yes. And the deception runs very deep. One of the things that I happened onto in the course of reporting this book, Sweet and Deadly, is Coca-Cola two different times, organized three-day seminars on obesity in Colorado. These two attendees appeared to be sponsored by a press organization and the University of Colorado. They were funded and structured entirely at the behest of Coca-Cola. And it wasn't until after people had attended these seminars and reported stories based on the findings that they'd learned there. Much, much later did people find out that yes, actually these were Coca-Cola initiatives. So yes, deception, runs deep and it's a huge part of their public relations strategy. It's like reputation laundering, almost. Well, it is, and, you know, I make frequent analogies to the tobacco industry in the book. And I think one of the things that's important to remember when we're looking at tobacco and when we're looking at Coca-Cola, at the soda industry writ large, is that these are industries that are producing products that science now shows unequivocally are unhelpful. Even at moderate levels of consumption. So, in order for the industry to continue selling this product, to continue leading, they really have to fight back. It's imperative. It's a risk to their business model if they don't do something to fight the emerging health science. And so, yes, it's very important to them. You know, it's easy, I guess, to ascribe this kind of behavior to ill meaning people within these organizations. But it's almost written into the DNA of these organizations. I mean, you said they have to do this. So, it’s pretty much be expected, isn't. It is. I think young people when they hear something like this, they often shrug and say capitalism. And, yes, there's something to that. But capitalism thrives also in a regulated environment. I think that's maybe a little bit too simplistic. But the aspect of it that does apply here is that Coca-Cola is in the business of selling sugar water. That's what they're there to do. Granted, they've diversified into other products, but they are in the business of selling sugar water. Anything that threatens that business model is a threat to their bottom line. And so, they are going to fight it tooth and nail. So how did Coca-Cola influence big health organizations like the World Health Organization and any equivalent bodies in the US? Well, so a few different ways. One of the ways that Coca-Cola has really extended its influence is again, through the use of the front groups to carry messages such as, you know, a calorie is a calorie. Calories and calories out. That's, that's one of the strategies. Another is by having allies in high places politically. And sometimes these are political appointees that happen to be associated with Coca-Cola. Other times these are politicians who are getting funding from Coca-Cola. But, yes, they have worked hard. I mean, the WHO is an interesting one because the WHO really has been out a little bit ahead of the more national bodies in terms of wanting soda taxes, et cetera. But there's a subtler way too, I think, that it influences any of these political entities and these science groups, is that Coca-Cola it's such an all-American beverage. I don't think we can overstate this. It's almost more American than apple pie. And I think we still have not sort of made that shift to then seeing it as something that's unhealthful. And I do think that that has, sort of, put the brakes slightly on regulatory actions here in the US. Let's talk about the Global Energy Balance Network, because this was an especially pernicious part of the overall Coca-Cola strategy. Would you tell us about that and how particular scientists, people of note in our field, by the way, were being paid large sums of money and then delivering things that supported industries positions. Yes. This was a Coca-Cola initiative. And we have to be clear on this. This was designed and created at the behest of Coca-Cola staffers. This was an initiative that was really an effort to shift the balance to the calories outside of the equation. So energy balance is one of these, sort of, themes that Coca-Cola and o

As someone who's been mostly vegetarian for a number of years, I have tried a lot of plant-based foods and there's a variety of them. And so how do they really taste, not just from my perspective? Well, it's really important to do really careful analysis, and this is going to be the subject of our conversation today. Plant-based foods are becoming increasingly healthier and cheaper. But one large question really remains for consumers. How do they taste. NECTAR, a nonprofit initiative on a mission to accelerate the alternative protein transition sets out to answer this question. Through large scale blind taste tests with thousands of consumers. NECTAR is amassing the largest publicly available sensory database on alternative protein products. In its latest report, Taste of the Industry 2025, NECTAR conducted blind sensory panels of 122 products across 14 categories and uncovered which products have achieved the taste that's on par with their animal-based counterparts. Today we talk with NECTAR's Director, Caroline Cotto, about which products are meeting and exceeding consumer taste expectations and what the alternative protein industry needs to do to get more products to this level. And how NECTAR's novel dataset can be used to get there faster. Interview Summary I understand you've conducted the world's largest clinical sensory test for plant-based and alternative meats compared to real animal meat. Tell me about how you conducted this study and why NECTAR is focused on this research. Absolutely. So, for us, we're really focused on this research because we know that taste is a major purchase driver for consumers and it's often the key reason people cite for not repurchasing plant-based meats once they've purchased them. We really want people to come back to the category and so in order for that to happen, we need taste to be where consumers expect it to be. As you mentioned, we set out to conduct a large study and sort of understand where the products on the market taste today. So, we tested 122 products across 14 categories. And we chose those categories by looking at the highest volume selling categories of animal meat, and then mapping the plant-based products to those categories. And then 43 of those products were from Europe as well. So, we were trying to get a real landscape analysis. Different than traditional sensory testing, we conducted all of our studies in restaurant settings to give a more natural experience for the participants. And all of our testing is done with omnivore consumers. So, we love vegans and vegetarians, but we're really trying to go after that hardcore meat eater and see if we can get them to switch because they love the taste of these products. And then the other difference is that we serve everything in what we call a full build. We serve burger patties and buns, hot dogs and buns. We really allow consumers to apply condiments as long as they do it equally across all of the products that they're testing, um, to give that authentic experience as they would experience the product in their own kitchen. And we ended up having 2,684 participants in this city. Each product was tried by a minimum of 100 consumers. Wow, that's pretty extensive. What were some of the surprising results of this? Yeah, I think we found that the average plant-based product was not quite ready for mainstream adoption. The average plant-based product was generally disliked more frequently than the animal product was, with 35% of tasters rating the product. Some form of dislike. And only 9% of tasters rating animal products as some form of dislike. That said, we did find 20 products out of the 122 that were worth celebrating. We created the Tasty Awards based on this data. And we set a threshold for top performance. And that threshold was that of the people that tried the product, if at least 50% of them said that it, that plant-based meat was the same or better than the animal meat that it was considered a winner product in this study. I'm super exciting to see that we saw 20 products meet that threshold. However, these products were not distributed equally across categories. Some categories had up to five products that met the winner threshold and other categories had none. And we also found that no products in this year's study actually achieved parody with animal meat. So, four products came very close, and we're expecting that in next year's study, that there will be some products that achieve that milestone. But we're not there quite yet. And then lastly, we found that there really is a correlation between great taste and financial return. So, we found that the plant-based products that perform best in our sensory tests are actually capturing 50% more market share than the average products in that category. And the categories that taste better are capturing more market share than the lower performing categories. Wow. That's really fascinating and there are lots of ways of sort of thinking through the data. I'd like to hear a little bit more about how those consumer preferences vary across different categories of plant-based products such as burgers, nuggets, and hot dogs. Are there specific sensory attributes that consistently influence consumer satisfaction? Yes, so overall we found that flavor is the top opportunity for plant-based meats at large. Currently these products are described as savory 35% less often than the animal products. And they're described as having a weird aftertaste or off flavor five to six times more often than their animal counterparts. As we look at plant-based meat as a whole, flavor is definitely still needing some improvement. And then we also saw that texture is really the secondary opportunity. So, plant-based meats were described as juicy 62% less often than the animal products. And there's a big need to increase tenderness and reduce mushiness. So that's why I was mentioning there are some categories like burgers and nuggets where we had multiple winner products and those products have had a lot of R&D done on them. Their texture is a little bit easier to replicate than something like whole cut steak or bacon or pulled pork. You talked about some of the difficulties when you look at different sensory aspects. And I'm interested to understand what some of the key challenges are facing the alternative protein industry in terms of improving taste of the plant-based meats. And how can NECTAR's database help address these challenges? Yes, I think the key opportunity here is that NECTAR's data provides a roadmap for each product to improve. So, it might be the case that a certain product actually performed well on flavor but needs to improve its texture. Our research can really help you pinpoint exactly what it is about your texture that needs to change. So maybe it's, you know, reducing that mushiness or increasing firmness. And I think overall for the entire category of plant-based meat, it's what we were just talking about, flavor is sort of the biggest opportunity. And then closely followed by texture. But it does seem to vary quite a bit within each category for each product. And we saw on the whole, there was a wide range of ingredients and production methods used. So, we tested the category of unbreaded chicken filet. Within that category, we had extruded products, soy-based products, pea based products, mycelium products. And there were multiple products in that category that were all winners using each of those different techniques and ingredients. But they all have their own slight differences and tweaks that need to be made to meet mainstream consumer expectations. Oh, this is fascinating. And I have to say, we haven't had many opportunities to talk about how alternative proteins or products are actually produced. Thank you for sharing that. You know what's really interesting, you've touched on this a little bit, but I think there's a little more that we can learn from you on this. So, your research highlights that some plant-based products like nuggets are approaching taste parody with their animal counterparts. Are there specific factors that contribute to the success and how can these insights be applied to other product categories? So, the Taste of the Industry 2025 is a second annual report that NECTAR has released. In our 2024 research, we found that breaded products tended to outperform unbreaded ones. So, we actually saw similar success from the nugget category in this year's research. But on the whole, I think we see that texture is much easier to replicate for some categories and nuggets is one of those. The other would be burgers where all of the products are ground and so it's much easier to replicate that with existing technologies than to replicate things like muscle fibers for whole cut steak. We did find four products that are within striking distance of achieving parody. And two of those products were nuggets. One of them was a burger, and the last was an unbreaded chicken filet. And as I mentioned, I think we'll see next year one of these products achieve parody or surpass the animal product in overall liking. But on the whole, we see that chicken is an easier flavor to replicate than beef and pork. And so, we saw more products from the chicken categories that were winners this year than from the other types of animal based meat. Looking forward, how do you envision NECTAR's work impacting the broader food industry? Particularly in terms of driving innovation and adoption of plant-based products among consumers who are honestly hesitant due to taste concerns. We really believe that tasting is believing. So, we are using this data to drive stakeholders across the supply chain towards the best tasting products so that they taste it and they immediately are sold on the product. So that means we're working with retailers and food service buyers to help direct them towards the best tasting products. And even consumers we have an Instagram page and a con

Do you pay attention to information printed on food labels? From eye-catching designs companies use to entice you to buy a product to nutrition facts panels to the tiny dates printed on packages. There's a lot going on to be sure. For policymakers, they hope that refining date labels on food packaging will help reduce the amount of uneaten food ending up in landfills. Food Waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service recently asked for public input on food date labels. So, we decided to gather some experts together to talk about this important policy tool. Roni Neff is a professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Advisor at the School's Center for a Livable Future. Her research looks at the intersection of food waste policy, climate change, and food system resilience. Brian Roe is a professor at the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics. His work focuses on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics, and product quality. Ruiqing Miao is an associate professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at Auburn University's College of Agriculture. His research emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and decision making. Interview Summary Brian, let's begin with you and let's make sure everyone's on the same page. Can you talk to us a little bit about what date labels are and where they are on packaging. And what is industry required to include in terms of these date labels? Yes, so date labels, we see them anytime we pick up a food package. Most packages are going to have some type of date label on them. Oddly, federal law doesn't regulate these or really require these other than the exception of infant formula, which is the only federal requirement domain out there. But in the absence of federal regulation, states have kind of done their own thing. About 40 different states require date labels on at least some food products. And about 20 states prohibit or restrict the sale or donation of food past the label date. And even though states that require date labels, manufacturers can still choose the dates. There are no real regulations on them. So, recognizing that confusion over date labels can lead to unnecessary food waste, Government and industry actors have made, you know, some efforts to try to standardize date labeling language. But nothing terribly authoritative. Now, some states have introduced bills that seek to standardize date labels, with the motivation to try to get rid of and reduce food waste. California being perhaps the most recent of these. In 2024, they passed a bill that prohibits the use of any date label other than 'Best if Used By,' the phrase that goes along with foods where the date represents kind of a quality indicator. And then the phrase 'Use By,", if that date has some implications for product safety. The bill doesn't go into effect until July of '26, so we're going to see if this is going to create a domino effect across other states, across the food manufacturing center or even bubble up and be dealt with at the federal legislation level. Now, industries tried to do things before. Back in 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocers Manufacturers Association had a standardized date labeling suggestion that some firms bought into. FDA has given out some guidance about preferring 'Best if Used By' on certain food products to indicate quality. But again, we're all kind of waiting to see if there might be a federal legislation that kind of brings these state labels into check. Thanks, Brian. And it's really important to know about the policy landscape and the fact that there hasn't been a federal policy across all foods. And it's interesting to see the efforts of, say, in California. I think this begs the question; how do consumers actually process the information of date labels? This fascinated us too. A very clever person at Ohio State that I work with, Dr. Aishwarya Badiger, led a study I was part of. We enlisted consumers to come into the Consumer Evaluation Lab that we have here on campus and evaluate samples of milk. They were presented with the label of each milk. We gave them a little glass with a nose full of the milk that they could sniff. So, they're looking at the date label, they're given the sample they could smell, and then we kind of asked them, Hey, if this were in your fridge, would you keep it or toss it? But the entire time we actually had them fitted with special glasses that precisely track their eye movements so we could understand kind of which information they were looking at while they went through the whole process of evaluating and then making their decision. Consumers overwhelmingly looked at the date itself on the package and largely ignored the phrase or the words that go along with the date. In fact, for more than half of the evaluations, the consumer's eyes never went anywhere near the phrase. This is important. And actually, we'll talk about that a little bit more with some of our other guests. So, what are the implications of date label policies? So the eye tracking research really drove home to me that dates are much more salient than phrases. Although all the policies largely deal with the phrases. Dates give you actionable information. People can look at the date on the label, look at the calendar, and man, that's something they can do something about. They can act based upon that. The phrases are a little bit more ambiguous as Roni will talk about later. I think that people have a hard time interpreting what those phrases really mean. That doesn't mean we should not try to unify those phrases, but rather this is going to be a longer-term investment in educational infrastructure that until those phrases really become salient and actionable to consumers. And then become more of a critical component of the policies. But right now, policies are generally silent on dates. And dates seem to be the real action mover. Yeah. So why don't we just get rid of all of this? What would be the implications? Yes. We did this experiment too. Same kind of setup. Had people come in, they had the jug of the milk in front of them. They had a glass of milk that they could sniff. Same thing. And we had a bunch of different milks. We had some that were only like 15 days post pasteurization. Some that went out to like 40 days past pasteurization. So, the youngest or the freshest had about three days, quote unquote, left on its date label. The 40-day old milk was like two or three weeks past the date. And we did two things. We had them evaluate the milk with the dates on the jugs, and then we had ones where we took the dates and the labels off the milk. Not surprisingly, when they did not have the dates on the milk, they were much more likely to say that they would keep the milk. Even that 40-day old milk, about half of them said, yeah, I'd drink this. I'd keep this if it were in my fridge. But it wasn't a slam dunk. So, our youngest and freshest milk had an odd flavor note. You know, sometimes as the seasons change, feed sources change for cattle, you get an odd flavor note. It's not spoilage, it's just a slightly different note. And when people have the date label, they were much more willing to give that milk a second chance and say that they would keep it. But if the date label wasn't on there, they took that odd flavor note and said, I'm going to toss this milk. So, it's really kind of a nuanced thing. And if you would take those off, I think you're going to get some consumers who are going to kind of freak out without any guidance. And they might have kind of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to throwing away that milk or other products. So, it's compelling. We've seen England, the UK, do this; take dates off of certain products. But I would probably want to see a little more example of how consumers are responding to that before I fully endorse that as kind of a policy movement forward. Brian, thank you for that. And I have got to say, I was not expecting to have a conversation about the bouquet of a glass of milk. But this is really an interesting finding, and it does help us understand some other things that we're going to talk about. Roni, I want to turn our attention to you. And I know you are someone who's been involved in understanding date labels for a while. And I really appreciate it and I've said it before, but you're the reason I got into this work. I want to understand a little bit more about what are important things to understand about the misconceptions that consumers may have about food date labels? And why does it matter for policymakers? Well, I'll start with just saying that conceptions are what we know rationally. And it's not the whole picture because as Brian was alluding to a lot of our decision making is going on in our emotions. And like I can tell my son all day long the fact that that milk is okay, he's going to toss it because he doesn't trust it. There's a lot more going on than conceptions. But I want to talk about two misconceptions. The first one is that despite what Brian just said about the fact that these date labels other than infant formula aren't federally regulated, about two in five people think that they are. We just did a national consumer survey in January 2025, and this is one of the findings. And I did that along with Emily Broad Lieb from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Project and Akif Khan also from there, and then Dana Gunders from ReFED. And in addition to this idea that they're federally regulated, I'll say that these kinds of beliefs were most common among those who were 18 to 34, parents with children under age 18, and black and Hispanic consumers. Our earlier work also found that those who think that food date labels are federally regulated are more likely to discard food based on them. A

So even the people that follow the topic closely are stunned by the digital landscape that engulfs our children, how quickly it evolves, and the potential social cost. Two people in a unique position to explain all this are our guest today, Jeffrey Chester and Kathryn Montgomery, both from the Center for Digital Democracy. Jeff is executive director of the Center, and Kathryn is its research director and senior strategist, as well as professor emerita of communication at American University. Jeff and Kathryn have been pioneers in this work and have been uniquely strong voices for protecting children. Interview Summary Let me congratulate the two of you for being way ahead of your time. I mean the two of you through your research and your advocacy and your organizational work, you were onto these things way before most people were. I'm really happy that you're joining us today, and welcome to our podcast. Kathryn, let me begin with you. So why be concerned about this digital landscape? Kathryn - Well, certainly if we're talking about children and youth, we have to pay attention to the world they live in. And it's a digital world as I think any parent knows, and everybody knows. In fact, for all of us, we're living in a digital world. So young people are living their lives online. They're using mobile phones and mobile devices all the time. They're doing online video streaming. They form their communications with their peers online. Their entire lives are completely integrated into this digital media landscape, and we must understand it. Certainly, the food and beverage industry understand it very well. And they have figured out enormously powerful ways to reach and engage young people through these digital media. You know, the extent of the kids' connection to this is really remarkable. I just finished a few minutes ago recording a podcast with two people involved with the Children and Screens organization. And, Chris Perry, who's the executive director of that organization and Dmitri Christakis who was with us as well, were saying that kids sometimes check their digital media 300 times a day. I mean, just unbelievable how much of this there is. There's a lot of reasons to be concerned. Let's turn our attention to how bad it is, what companies are doing, and what might be done about it. So, Jeff, tell us if you would, about the work of the Center for Digital Democracy. Jeff - Well, for more than a quarter of a century, we have tracked the digital marketplace. As you said at the top, we understood in the early 1990s that the internet, broadband what's become today's digital environment, was going to be the dominant communications system. And it required public interest rules and policies and safeguards. So as a result, one of the things that our Center does is we look at the entire digital landscape as best as we can, especially what the ultra-processed food companies are doing, but including Google and Meta and Amazon and GenAI companies. We are tracking what they're doing, how they're creating the advertising, what their data strategies are, what their political activities are in the United States and in many other places in the world. Because the only way we're going to hold them accountable is if we know what they're doing and what they intend to do. And just to quickly follow up, Kelly, the marketers call today's global generation of young people Generation Alpha. Meaning that they are the first generation to be born into this complete digital landscape environment that we have created. And they have developed a host of strategies to target children at the earliest ages to take advantage of the fact that they're growing up digitally. Boy, pretty amazing - Generation Alpha. Kathryn, I have kind of a niche question I'd like to ask you because it pertains to my own career as well. So, you spent many years as an academic studying and writing about these issues, but also you were a strong advocacy voice. How did you go about balancing the research and the objectivity of an academic with advocacy you were doing? Kathryn - I think it really is rooted in my fundamental set of values about what it means to be an academic. And I feel very strongly and believe very strongly that all of us have a moral and ethical responsibility to the public. That the work we do should really, as I always have told my students, try to make the world a better place. It may seem idealistic, but I think it is what our responsibility is. And I've certainly been influenced in my own education by public scholars over the years who have played that very, very important role. It couldn't be more important today than it has been over the years. And I think particularly if you're talking about public health, I don't think you can be neutral. You can have systematic ways of assessing the impact of food marketing, in this case on young people. But I don't think you can be totally objective and neutral about the need to improve the public health of our citizens. And particularly the public health of our young people. I agree totally with that. Jeff let's talk about the concept of targeted marketing. We hear that term a lot. And in the context of food, people talk about marketing aimed at children as one form of targeting. Or, toward children of color or people of color in general. But that's in a way technological child's play. I understand from you that there's much more precise targeting than a big demographic group like that. Tell us more. Jeff - Well, I mean certainly the ultra-processed food companies are on the cutting edge of using all the latest tools to target individuals in highly personalized way. And I think if I have one message to share with your listeners and viewers is that if we don't act soon, we're going to make an already vulnerable group even more exposed to this kind of direct targeted and personalized marketing. Because what artificial intelligence allows the food and beverage companies and their advertising agencies and platform partners to do is to really understand who we are, what we do, where we are, how we react, behave, think, and then target us accordingly using all those elements in a system that can create this kind of advertising and marketing in minutes, if not eventually milliseconds. So, all of marketing, in essence, will be targeted because they know so much about us. You have an endless chain of relationships between companies like Meta, companies like Kellogg's, the advertising agencies, the data brokers, the marketing clouds, et cetera. Young people especially, and communities of color and other vulnerable groups, have never been more exposed to this kind of invasive, pervasive advertising. Tell us how targeted it can be. I mean, let's take a 11-year-old girl who lives in Wichita and a 13-year-old boy who lives in Denver. How much do the companies know about those two people as individuals? And how does a targeting get market to them? Not because they belong to a big demographic group, but because of them as individuals. Jeff - Well, they certainly are identified in various ways. The marketers know that there are young people in the household. They know that there are young people, parts of families who have various media behaviors. They're watching these kinds of television shows, especially through streaming or listening to music or on social media. Those profiles are put together. And even when the companies say they don't exactly know who the child is or not collecting information from someone under 13 because of the privacy law that we helped get enacted, they know where they are and how to reach them. So, what you've had is an unlimited amassing of data power developed by the food and beverage companies in the United States over the last 25 years. Because really very little has been put in their way to stop them from what they do and plan to do. So presumably you could get some act of Congress put in to forbid the companies from targeting African American children or something like that. But it doesn't sound like that would matter because they're so much more precise in the market. Yes. I mean, in the first place you couldn't get congress to pass that. And I think this is the other thing to think about when you think about the food and beverage companies deploying Generative AI and the latest tools. They've already established vast, what they call insights divisions, market research divisions, to understand our behavior. But now they're able to put all that on a fast, fast, forward basis because of data processing, because of data clouds, let's say, provided by Amazon, and other kinds of tools. They're able to really generate how to sell to us individually, what new products will appeal to us individually and even create the packaging and the promotion to be personalized. So, what you're talking about is the need for a whole set of policy safeguards. But I certainly think that people concerned about public health need to think about regulating the role of Generative AI, especially when it comes to young people to ensure that they're not marketed to in the ways that it fact is and will continue to do. Kathryn, what about the argument that it's a parent's responsibility to protect their children and that government doesn't need to be involved in this space? Kathryn - Well, as a parent, I have to say is extremely challenging. We all do our best to try to protect our children from unhealthy influences, whether it's food or something that affects their mental health. That's a parent's obligation. That's what a parent spends a lot of time thinking about and trying to do. But this is an environment that is overwhelming. It is intrusive. It reaches into young people's lives in ways that make it virtually impossible for parents to intervene. These are powerful companies, and I'm including the tech companies. I'm including the retailers. I'm including the ad agencies as well as these global food and beverage c

As any parent knows, it is really important to help our children to make healthy food choices. I know as a father who cooks for my child, it is really critical that I introduce her to fruits and vegetables and encourage whole grains and try to manage the amount of additional sugars, but it's hard. We do this with the goal of trying to make sure that our child is able to eat healthy once she leaves the home. That she's able to make healthy choices there. But it's not just about the future. My child is making choices even today at school and outside of school, and the question is, can we help her make those choices that are going to lead to healthy food outcomes? Do food labels on products encourage children to make healthy food choices if it indicates good ingredients? Or would labels that warn against nutrients of concern actually discourage kids from using those or consuming those products? Today we're going to actually explore those questions in a particular context- in Chile. In 2016, the Chilean government implemented a comprehensive set of obesity prevention policies aimed at improving the food environment for children. Last year on this podcast, we actually explored how the Chilean food laws affected school food purchases. But now today, we're going to explore how food labels are influencing youth outside of school. It is my pleasure to welcome back my colleagues, Gabriela Fretes, who is an associate research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, or IFPRI; and Sean Cash, who is an economist and chair of the Division of Agriculture, food and Environment at Tufts University at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. Interview Summary Gabi and Sean, I'm excited to discuss our new paper, Front of Pack Labels and Young Consumers an Experimental Investigation of Nutrition and Sustainability Claims in Chile that was recently published in a Journal of Food Quality and Preference. Gabi, let's begin with you. So why look at Chile? Can you explain the focus of the Chilean labeling and food environment policies there? So, the setting of our study, as in the previous study, was Chile because recently the country implemented the law of food labeling and advertising, which includes three main components. The first one being mandatory front of package warning labels on packaged goods and beverages. The second one being restrictions on all forms of food marketing directed to children younger than 14 years. So, including printed media, broadcast, and also all digital media. And the third component being at school regulations at different levels including preschool, elementary, and high school levels. Briefly, food manufacturers in Chile must place front of package labels on packaged foods or beverages that are high in specific nutrients of concern, including added sugars, saturated fats, sodium, and or energy. This law was implemented in three stages, starting in June 2016. The last stage was implemented in June 2019. So, it has been already six or seven years since the full implementation of the regulation. Specifically talking about the school component because this, yeah, it relates to children and adolescents. The law mandates that foods and beverages with at least one front of pack warning label cannot be sold, promoted, or marketed inside schools. And this includes the cafeteria, the school kiosks, and even events that are happening inside the schools. And additionally, food and beverages that have at least one front pack warning label cannot be offered as part of school meal programs. In addition to this front of pack warning label regulation, Chile also implemented voluntary eco labels starting in 2022 that provide information about the recyclability of food packages specifically. There is a certification process behind this labeling regulation and the eco label can be displayed if the food or beverage package is at least 80% recyclable. Wow. This is a really comprehensive set of policies to encourage healthier food choices, both at the school and then also outside of the school. I'm excited to discuss further what this may do to food choices among children. Sean, that really brings up the question, why is it important to look at young consumers and their food choices and what makes them unique compared to adults? Thanks for asking Norbert. This is an area where I've been interested in for a while. You know, young consumers play a crucial role in shaping the demand for food and long-term dietary habits. And young consumers might be more open to incorporating dietary advice into those long-term habits than adults might be. Just perhaps kids are less set in their ways. Children and adolescents are both current, but also future consumers with growing autonomy in what they choose around food as they get older. To marketers, we sometimes would say they might represent a three-in-one market. First, they spend their own money on snacks. What you could think of as the primary market. And how children spend money autonomously is really something that hasn't been studied enough by researchers. Although it's an area where I have tried to make a contribution. Second, kids influence household purchases. This is sometimes called pester power. You can think of a kid in the supermarket begging a parent to buy a favorite snack or a certain brand of cereal. But this can also be more socially positive in that kids might be agents of change within their households. Encouraging perhaps other family members to buy healthier food items if they get more interested in that. And third, this three-in-one market is rounded out by the fact that children represent future purchasing power as future adults. So, the habits that they're forming now might influence what they do when they're older. Despite this importance for marketers, but also for pro-social behavior change, there really hasn't been a lot of research on youth food purchasing behaviors. And this question that we are looking at here of how kids might respond to front to package labels has been particularly limited. In this project, we wanted to understand how Chilean adolescents might respond both to nutrition warning labels, but also eco labels, and how they consider price when choosing snacks. We were lucky to be able to recruit a sample of over 300 kids, aged 10 to 14, to participate in these experiments. I know we're going to chat a bit more about what we found, but in general, our results suggest that while price is perhaps the biggest factor in explaining what the kids chose in our experiment, that some of these youth showed preferences for the eco labels, which could be indicative of an emerging interest in sustainability issues. But overall, understanding these behaviors is really important because the food choices made during childhood and adolescence can persist in adulthood. And this can be really something that helps change long-term health outcomes.   Gabi, let's talk a little bit more about eco labels for a moment. What are they, and how do these echo labels influence children's snack choices? What did they tell us about their awareness of sustainability? That's a great question, Norbert. Thanks. In our study specifically, we found that eco labels, had a greater influence on adolescents' snack choices than nutrition warning labels these black and white octagons that are displayed on the front of the package of products in Chile. And this suggests that some young consumers are becoming more aware of environmental issues, or at least in our sample. One possible explanation for this could be that eco labels suggest positive emotions rather than warnings, as with the nutrition labels. Which might feel more restrictive. Unlike the nutrition labels that tell consumers what not to eat, eco labels, on the other hand, highlight a product's benefits, making it more appealing. This could be one of the reasons. Related to that, adolescents may also associate eco-friendly products with social responsibility aligning with increasing youth-driven environmental movements that are very prevalent around the world. However, not all adolescents in our sample responded equally to the eco labels that were presented to them in the snacks. Our study specifically found that those who receive pocket money were more likely to choose eco label snacks. And this could be possibly because they have more autonomy over their purchases and their personal values could be playing a bigger role in their choices. If eco labels are really influencing children and adolescents with choices, one intervention that could be potentially beneficial could be to incorporate sustainability messaging in school food and nutrition education in order to reinforce those positive behaviors. And make them part of the daily food choices that they make. In making sustainable food more affordable, government incentives or retailer promotions could encourage youth to choose more eco-friendly snacks. Given that price, as we saw in our study, remains a key factor for choice. Lastly, not all eco labels are created equal. And this suggests that clear standardization and regulation are needed to prevent misleading claims. And ensure that adolescents receive accurate information about the sustainability of their food choices. Ultimately, the eco labeling, of course, is not a silver bullet. It's not going to solve all the environmental issues, but it represents a promising tool to nudge consumers. So our better dietary and environmental behaviors. Gabi, you talked about how the eco labels have a bigger effect than nutrition warning. And overall, the nutrition warning labels didn't really have that big of an effect on snack food choices. Why do you think that's the case? Yes, this was really one surprising finding in our study. That front of pack nutrition warning labels did not significantly impact children's and adolescents' snack choices. And this kind of contradicts some previous research sugges

The amount of time children and adolescents spend with a screen is absolutely stunning. Lots of people, including parents, health leaders, educators, elected leaders from both parties I might mention, and even children themselves, are highly concerned and are discussing what might be done about all this. I'm delighted to begin this series of podcasts on children and screen time. Today we're welcoming two very special guests who can talk about this topic in general, and especially about what's being done to protect children and adolescents. Several podcasts will follow this one that deal with food and nutrition in particular. Our first guest, Kris Perry, is Executive Director of Children and Screens, an organization devoted to protecting children. In the digital world by addressing media's impact on child development, communicating state-of-the-art information, and working with policymakers. Prior to joining children in Screens, Kris was senior advisor of the Governor of California and Deputy Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. Our other guest, Dr. Dimitri Christakis is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Child Health Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's. He's also editor-in-chief of JAMA Pediatrics and both Chief Scientific Officer and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of Children and Screens. He's also the co-editor of a new book that I'm very excited to discuss. Interview Summary Download The Handbook of Children and Screens: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5 Kris, let's start with you. Could you set the stage and give us some sense of how much time children spend in front of screens, children and adolescents, and what devices are being used and what kind of trends are you seeing? Yes, I'd be happy to. I had better news for your listeners, but as you might imagine, since the advent of the smartphone and social media, the youth digital media use has been increasing each year. Especially as children get older and have increasing demands on their time to use screens. But let's just start at the beginning of the lifespan and talk about kids under the age of two who shockingly are spending as much as two hours a day on screens. Most spend about 50 minutes, but there's a significant chunk spending up to two hours. And that rises to three or three to five hours in childhood. And eventually in adolescence, approximately eight and a half hours a day our adolescents are spending online. Also wanted to talk a little bit about middle childhood children, six to 12 years of age. 70% of them already have a social media account, and we all know social media wasn't designed for children. And there are restrictions on children under 13 using them, and yet children six to 12 most have an account already. Over half of four-year-olds have a tablet and two thirds of children have their own device by the age of eight; and 90% of teens. This probably won't be surprising, and yet we should really think about what this means; that 90% of teens are using YouTube, 60% are on TikTok and Instagram, and 55% use Snapchat. I'll stop by ending on a really alarming statistic. Oh my, there's more? There's more. I know it! I told you. I'll be the bearer of bad news so that we can talk about solutions later. But, children are checking their devices as often as 300 times per day. 300 times. 300 times per day, and we're talking about screen time right now. And we know that when you're using time to be on screens, you are not doing something else. And we know that childhood is full of challenges and skill building and mastery that requires repetition and tenacity and grit and effort. And the more children are on their screens, whether it's social media or other entertainment, they're not doing one of these other critical child development tasks. That's pretty amazing. And the fact that the older kids are spending more time on before a screen than they are in school is pretty alarming. And the younger, the really youngest kids, that's especially alarming. So, Dimitri, why should we fret about this? And I realize that fret is kind of a mild word here. Maybe all I'll panic would be better. But what are some of the major concerns? Well, I don't think panic is ever the right reaction, but the numbers Kris conveyed, you know, I think do paint a, let's say, concerning story. You know, the simple reality is that there's only so much time in a day. And if you think about it, teenagers in particular should sleep for eight to 10 hours a day at a minimum. They really should be in school six and a half, seven hours a day. And then when you add the numbers, Kris conveyed, you realize that something's giving because there isn't enough time left to spend eight and a half hours a day. The two things at a minimum that are giving are sleep. Kids are losing sleep to be on screens. And I'm sorry to say that they're losing school while they're on screens. We just published a paper that used passive sensing to see where and when children are on their screens. And found that the typical child in the United States spends an hour and a half during the school day on their device. And it's not, before any of your guests ask, on Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica. It's on the usual suspects of social media, TikTok, etc. So, you know, we talk about displacement, and I think it's pretty obvious what's being displaced during school hours. Its time focused on learning if it's in the classroom, and time focused on being authentically present in real time and space if it's during recess. School hours are precious in that way, and I think it is concerning that they're spending that much time in school. And I told you the median. Of course, some kids are above that, a significant half of them are above it. And at the high end, they're spending 30 to 40% of school time on screens. Now, some schools have enacted policies. They don't typically enforce them very well. One of the things that drives me nuts, Kelly, is that as an academic, you know we love to argue amongst ourselves and hem and haw. And this issue about whether or not there's such a phenomenon as digital addiction is still being hotly debated. Honestly, the only behavioral addiction that's being seriously considered at this point is gaming disorder. The DSM-5 didn't consider gaming, considered it, but didn't include, it said it needed further study in 2013. In 2022, the WHO did include gaming disorder as an ICD-11 diagnosis. But just as further evidence how slow science is compared to technology., I mean gaming, while it's still an entity, represents a small fraction of most people's screen time. And the numbers that Kris conveyed, a small fraction of that for some on average was gaming. For some people, it's their screen use of choice, but for many, it's social media. YouTube, although I consider YouTube to be a social media, etc. And at the high end when you hear the numbers Kris conveyed in my mind that's a behavioral addiction any way you define it. Well, and if you think about things that we all agree are addictive, like nicotine and alcohol and heroin, people aren't doing it 300 times a day. So it's really pretty remarkable. And that's exactly right. One of the salient criteria for those addictions is that it's interfering with activities of daily living. Well, you can't be on a screen for nine hours a day when you're supposed to be asleep for 10 and at school for six without interfering with activities of day. The math isn't there. And things like being physically active and going out and playing. That's right. It doesn't add up. So, you don't need the DSM-5. You don't need a psychiatrist. You need a mathematician to tell you that there's too much time on this thing. Alright, so Kris, talk to us if you will, about the Children and Screens organization. I have a lot of respect for the organization and its work. Tell us how it got started and what its objectives are. Well, it's so great to be on this show with you and get to see you in your day job, Kelly. Because you've been an advisor, like Dimitri, to the institute almost since its inception, which is in 2013. As you know, our founder, Dr. Pamela Hurst-Della Pietra, really became concerned as a parent about the way digital media was impacting her children and sought out some answers. Well, what does this mean? Why is this happening? What should I do? And found out that this, of course, is 2013, this is a long time ago. There wasn't that much research yet. And it was multidisciplinary. In other words, there might be a study among neuroscientists or developmental psychologists, even ophthalmologists. But there really hadn't been, yet, a concerted effort to bring these different disciplines and the research together to try to answer some of these hard questions about the impact on kids. And lo and behold, here we are, almost 13 years since the advent of the smartphone and social media. And there is an astounding amount of research across disciplines. So, what we do at the institute is we try to translate it as fast as we can and make it actionable for parents, providers, and policy makers. And we do that through our Ask the Experts webinar series where we bring the experts themselves directly to our audience to talk about these impacts and answer questions. We also create printables, you might say, like tip sheets and Research at a Glance Digest, and newsletters and FAQs and we've upgraded our website to make it very navigable for parents of kids of all ages. I even started my own podcast this year, which has been really fun. Dimitri was my first guest, so it's great to see him here. And we have convenings. We're having our third Digital Media Developing Mind Scientific Congress this summer where the experts come together in person to discuss issues. And we really try to focus them on advancing research and supporting it, translatin

How big is too big? When it comes to corporate concentration many observers raise concerns about the tech industry. However, in the new book, Titans of Industrial Agriculture: how a few giant corporations came to dominate the farm sector and why it matters, political economist Jennifer Clapp draws attention to the overwhelming shadow a small handful of transnational corporations cast over the global agricultural sector. Professor Clapp argues that these corporations hold concentrated power over the agricultural sector that keep industrial agricultural practices entrenched in patterns of production, despite the concerns of the social, ecological and health impacts to society. She explains how we got to this point and what it might take to make changes. Jennifer's work at the intersection of the global economy, food security, and food systems, and the natural environment, looks specifically at issues of global governance. She is currently a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the UN Food Systems Coordination Hub.  Interview Summary Norbert - Jennifer, let's just jump right in and I'd love for you to help our listeners understand a little bit more about your book. You write about corporate concentration in the agricultural input sector. Can you explain what this involves and what products are we really talking about?    Yes. The book is about what we call the agricultural inputs industry. And that's really four different product types typically, and maybe a fifth that we can talk about. So, one of them is farm machinery, and that's really referring to things like plows and tractors, harvesters, etc. That kind of machinery on the farm. The second industry is the fertilizer industry, which is all about, you know, the nutrients that we bring to the soil through fertilizer products like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash. And the seed industry. That's another industry that is a key input for farmers. And then also pesticides. And when we talk about pesticides, we're referring to things like insecticides, chemicals that kill insects, but also chemicals that kill weeds and fungus. And so those are the four sort of big inputs that I talk about in the book. But also, the book covers a fifth input, an emerging input, which is data. And this is, especially as we're seeing the datafication and digitalization of farming. Increasingly data has now become a commodity that is bought and sold as an input into farming. Norbert - Great. I have to ask, what drew you to the input industry? I mean, let's be honest, that's not the thing that most people get excited about. Why should we be concerned? Yeah, that's a great question. I've actually had a very long interest in the seed in chemical industry. That goes way back to the start of my career because I did studies in agriculture for my PhD dissertation. But then I got quite interested in toxic waste and then that sort of drew me to this question of the global pesticide trade. And when I learned that, you know, oftentimes, like in the US there might be a banning of a pesticide that's no longer in use. But it was still being traded globally. And this, I found this very fascinating and how that industry worked. And that kind of drew me into understanding the connections between seeds and chemicals. And then when the digitalization of farming came along and in recent decades it became really clear that it wasn't just chemical and seed industry involved in that digitalization. It was also the fertilizer and the farm machinery sector. It made me want to understand the interconnections between these industries. I know it's like, maybe a bit specific, but they have huge consequences in terms of the way our food systems look like. And so that really drew me to understand where did these inputs come from? And why are they controlled by just a few large companies? Erika - Jennifer, I want to ask you a question about why this sector, especially related to the inputs, is so important when we're talking about food systems. And especially their social and ecological dimensions. And specifically in the book, you tease out many of the social and ecological costs of inputs such as pesticides. Also the social and ecological consequences of even farm machinery. So it would be great if you could elaborate on their importance.  Thanks, Erika. That's a great question and that's part of the reason why I was really drawn to study these inputs. Because I'm in a school of environmental studies, I'm very interested in these interconnections between food systems and environmental outcomes. I was really interested in learning more about where these industries came from, and as I was teasing out where they came from. And how they became dominated by such large companies, I also learned in much more depth about the ecological consequences of these inputs. I can just say a little bit about some of them because these consequences are so big that we almost forget to talk about them. They become embedded in the product itself. And so, one example is farm machinery. Farm machinery was originally seen as quite revolutionary and that it allowed farmers to harvest their fields much more quickly than they used to be able to before. But that also meant then that to make the equipment efficient and pay for them they might as well extend the size of their farm. And as farmers extended the size of their farm, in the US anyway, they moved west and displaced its indigenous people from the land, in terms of taking that land for farm production. But also, as farms began to consolidate and get larger, as mechanization continued, it also displaced others from the land. Poor farmers, black farmers, those who were renting land and didn't have access to their own. And so, people who were marginalized and we still considered marginalized in society today, were really being displaced from the land as a direct consequence of farm machinery. It's not that farm machinery is like necessarily something that we want to do away with today, but I think we need to recognize those historical connections. And really understand that when, you know, you see a book for a small child about farming and there might be a picture of a farmer and it's usually a white guy sitting on a tractor. We can forget that image has a lot of baggage associated with it in terms of displacement and inequality. And I think we need to recognize that. But it does not just stop there. There's also plowing disturbs the soil, heavy machinery compacts the soil so it can harm fertility of the soil as well. And the machinery part of the equation has long been a source of inequality in terms of being very expensive for farmers. It's been one of the main reasons farmers have often been driven into debt. Farm machinery might have been liberating in one sense to allow increased production, but it did come with costs that we should acknowledge. We also need to recognize the ecological and social costs associated with the fertilizer industry. And this industry goes way back to the 1840s and we saw the rise of the guano trade. And we can think immediately of the working conditions of the workers who were digging the guano in the Chincha islands of Peru. And often they were coming from Asia and facing really harsh working conditions. But then when we saw the rise of synthetic nitrogen in the early 20th Century, the cost shifted in a way towards the cost of fossil fuels. The huge amount of natural gas used in the synthesis of nitrogen. And also, the climate consequences of the nitrous oxides that come from the application of synthetic nitrogen into the soil. So again, there's like enormous ecological and social impacts from that particular input. Similarly, when we talk about seeds, the hybridization of seeds in the 1920s and 1930s also raise huge concerns about plant genetic diversity. And we know that in the last century or so we've lost around 75% of plant genetic diversity for crop genetic diversity. And this is because of the way in which we started to see the uniformity of the genetic makeup of seeds. The monocultural planting of seeds really reduced that kind of diversity. And then intellectual property protection on seeds that came with the hybridization of seeds also led to a decreased ability of farmers to save their own seed and exchange their own seed with their neighbors. So again, social ecological costs. And finally, when we talk about pesticides, we have seen enormous issues with respect to pollution runoff. This kind of bioaccumulation of these toxic chemicals that have enormous health consequences. So, all of these inputs have very large impacts in terms of their social and ecological costs. And we can even extend that to the issue of data today. There's a lot of concern about data platforms for digital farming where farmers are signing away the rights to the data that are coming from their own farms. And they don't have the kind of interoperability with other data sharing systems. And there's also a lack of clarity about who owns that data. So again, there's big issues with respect to these inputs and how they are affecting both social and ecological dynamics within the food system.  Erika - Thank you for helping us understand the social and ecological impacts of these inputs into the farming industry. Norbert - This is a really rich conversation and I want to understand a little bit more. There's a big part of your text that's about the concentration in the input sector. What does it look like today and was it always this way? That's a great question because it's almost a trick question because we tend to assume that this high level of concentration that we see today is something that's new. But what I found in my research is that the high degree of concentration actually has a long history that goes back about a century or more in some cases. And when we're looking at each of th

The climate crisis is devastating the ability of African farmers to support themselves and their communities. Farmers struggle with a lack of running water, electricity, communications, and public transportation. Entire communities are often cut off from the larger world, exacerbating and extending the poverty crisis that grips large parts of the continent. To overcome these issues, our guest, Gwen Jones, co-founded Nzatu Food Group, a regenerative agriculture business designed to protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change. Nzatu Food Group has done some remarkable pioneering work. Gwen is connected to 15,000 Sub-Saharan farmers across 15 countries through beekeeping, sustainable agricultural and conservation   training, and by building an increasingly international market for farm products. Interview Summary So please begin by telling us why you and your sister founded this initiative and about its unique strategy for helping farmers. Well, firstly, our strategy is based on an engage-to-support premise with an approach that focuses on uplifting farmer livelihoods. As you know, farmers are critical actors in agroecological transformation and important stewards of biodiversity. 80% of the world's food production is done by smallholder farmers, yet only a mere 3% of climate finance goes to our food systems. So, this presents a key avenue to increase intervention in this space through public policy and unlock climate transitional finance. Helping farmers is so, so important, especially with these small farms. Tell me more about your own history and what led you to start your organization? Denise, my sister and I, who are the co-founders of Nzatu, we come from a rural community in Southern Zambia. And we grew up alongside smallholder farmers. We understand inherently what the challenges, but as well as the opportunities that smallholder farmers face. What started off very informally helping our relatives and our tribal communities became Nzatu, we started it off by showcasing to our relatives and our farmers on how they could increase their income with simple interventions by keeping bees. And through training and education, we were able to show farmers that through the income on bees, they would earn three US dollars per kg on honey. Which gave two harvests a year compared to 20 US cents on maze. Which was a rain fed and only produced one harvest a year. It made economic sense for them to also keep bees alongside their maize production. And in this way, it would help with economic shocks and help to give a diversified income. So, we were so excited to share this with our farmers. And it grew like wildfire as you can imagine. The farmers in our program were more prosperous. And, from the income that they got from the honey, they were able to get better inputs for other production. And that engagement helped to bring other interventions as well to the communities. So, how exciting that you were able to make such an important transformation. And I can see why farmers would be grateful for that sort of help. Tell us if you would, about the climate crisis and how it's affected African farmers? In some cases, there's too much water from flooding. In some cases, too little water. So, you know, that volatility- how do you plan with that? In one year, you would have flooding and, so your crops would be washed out in the following two or three years you have absolutely no rain. There is just no way to plan in such kind of situations. Farmers are the ones that are mostly affected by climate change, and all we can do is just be there as a support mechanism. How can we work around that? How can we bring in the in-between periods, bringing in higher yielding seed where they can at least recoup whatever they can do in that season? It's very, very difficult for the farmers.  Tell us about your vision of regenerative agriculture. What does that concept mean in your context, and how can you help farmers adapt to this changing climate? Yes. We started off in a very, very grassroots way. I was always fascinated to understand the ancient grains of Africa. Africa has 26 lost crops. These lost crops are including millet and sorghum and Teff and fornio. These are the indigenous grains of Africa. Indigenous to the diet, but indigenous to the environment. They're very drought resilient and also, they fix nitrogen into the soil. So, they help to bring more resilience and soil health, which is what is lacking in Africa across the continent. We have vast soil degradation, which is also contributing to climate change. By reintroducing what is already inherent in the food history of Africa, it's a very key intervention. Sometimes is the smallest innovation that can bring about the biggest change. Is bringing back the food that is indigenous to communities. There is a resistance though, because our communities have gotten used to maize. I myself are very used to having nshima, which is made from corn, which only offers 3% nutrition. And it's very hard to change that staple to go to, let's say, nshima using sorghum or millet because the taste, is a palate issue. But we have to bring in recipe days. How can we train farmers to use this in their everyday diets? It starts off with that connectivity. How can we help children to take boiled cowpeas to school? You know, making sure that they can use cow pea flour to make cookies and sausages and innovative ways to bring in the recipes on how they can use these crops. It's not enough to just say you've got to, you know, grow the intercrop with ancient grains, because of the nitrogen fixing aspect. You've also got to bring that cultural acceptance by connecting with communities and helping them find ways on how they can prepare their food. So that when you talk about innovation, it's cuisine innovation as well. Not just, soil health and using big words like carbon capture, etc. It's also about the everyday tactile innovation in a simple thing like having recipe field days in our communities. You spoke, especially about introducing, well reintroducing, if you would, indigenous grains. Why were they lost in the first place and what have you done?    The crops were lost through commercialization. Maize was introduced as an export cash crop to support the war efforts in Europe. And along that commercialization, the tools and the inputs that were needed to produce maize is what was commercialized. And communities also had to pay the Hut Tax in Maize. So, because of those at policy level and at export level, the change happened slowly over time because it was easier to grow the crops that were meeting the mandatory requirements. Sorghum and millet became a second or third crop to produce because it wasn't something that was a mandatory crop. And over time, maize replaced the nutritious grains of sorghum and millet. I'm just taking like one example of that. The commercialization aspect. Well, there are generations with little experience eating these products or growing them. Is that right? That's true. Like I said, me included. Even though, academically I know and scientifically I understand that sorghum and millet is of higher nutrition, it's having that paradigm shift changing the dietary approach to it. And that is one of our key interventions that we can make in our communities. But by having this face-to-face contact with our farmers, we are able to pass that information on. We're able to transfer that knowledge and bring about including sorghum and millet. So, as you know, Nzatu works mainly with coffee farmers. Coffee is one of our main crops that, that we are engaged in. And our coffee producers focus mainly on coffee. Our work is by encouraging farmers to grow the millets and sorghums so that the coffee farmers themselves will start consuming millet and sorghum. But as well as finding a market for them for those crops. And are the farmers receptive to the reintroduction of these grains? It is challenging because as you can imagine, how you harvest coffee and how you harvest millet and sorghum is completely different. Millet and sorghums and most of the ancient grains, the grain is very small. It's having the tools, the harvesting techniques and the weeding techniques. There's so much involved in it. And this is where climate transitional finance can really help. Tell us more about the process. How does your organization go about doing these things? We engage with farmers. Most of the farmers that we're involved in are already practicing mulching and other organic practices and regenerative agricultural practices. It is much more common than we think. Farmers are already conservation in nature because it's inherent in traditional African practices. What we are doing is we are just really enhancing the knowledge that they already have and bringing out the historical practices. For example, when it comes to wildlife conservation, Africans in the tribal communities are already totemic in nature. Meaning that families identify with different animal groups. There is already an indigenous wildlife conservation that already is practiced for hundreds of years in the village. If your family has a totemic nature of, let's say, kudu, that is an animal that is sacred to your lineage and you would never hunt that kudu, et cetera. So that those age-old practices have been there for centuries. And it's really inculcating and bringing back that cultural understanding when it comes to the cuisine, when it comes to the wildlife totemic nature of those communities. It is truly lost knowledge that we are really committed to bringing back into our communities. And as farmers begin to grow these products, is there a market for them? Yes. This is where I know I get so excited just about the day-to-day work that we are doing. But we are a business, at the heart of it. We really have to make a profit somewhere. And we take product to market. Our team, we have an amazing team across Africa and in Europe and here in the U

The food and nutrition landscape in our schools is really important. School meals affect the health, wellbeing, energy, vitality, and ability to learn for millions and millions of children. And for those whose family struggled to buy food, the importance of school meals cannot be overstated. This makes decisions about what foods are served in schools and where they come from. Highly consequential and raises issues about national and state nutrition policies, the influence of big food companies in shaping this picture and lots more.  It's a good time to unravel all this, which we can do today. Thanks to two experts with us. Dr. Marlene Schwartz is Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences and Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy health at the University of Connecticut. Mara Fleishman is CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, where she has been a leader advancing school food change, advocating for scratch cook meals that promote children's health and for more sustainable food systems.   Interview Summary In discussions about school food, it seems there first came a nutrition part, which in more recent years has been joined with a concern about where foods come from. Better connections, say between schools and low whole food systems. Let's talk about both, Marlene, let's start with nutrition. You have been a pioneer in working with schools, an interest that goes back a number of years. What was this food environment like in schools before change began to occur? It was my impression it was sort of a free for all. So, yes, I would agree that it was a free for all. The actual school lunch, what we call the reimbursable school lunch, which is the meal that the federal government gives states and then states give the local food service directors funds to support, that has actually always had nutrition standards. But historically the problem was under nutrition. The standards were very focused on making sure students had enough to eat. There were no maximums. It was really all about making sure that there was at least the minimum number of calories and foods available. But the other foods that were sold in schools, which we call competitive foods, so these are foods that were vending machines and school stores and fundraisers and things like that, were hardly regulated at all. And that is really where we saw a complete free for all. We saw ice cream and chips and soda and sports drinks and things like that. And I remember going to one school here in Connecticut and counting 13 vending machines in the high school. It really was remarkable the amount of unhealthy food that was being sold in schools. You know, I was thinking of that same thing when I was living in Connecticut, I went to my son's high school, a different school than what you're talking about. And I forget the number of soft drink machines they had around the school, but it was in the teens. And when I was a boy, I don't remember any soft drink machines in my schools. Maybe they hadn't been invented yet. I'm so old. But it was really pretty remarkable how much access children had to these things. And as I understand, the importance of those machines in the schools to the companies was more than just what food was being sold. There was a real branding opportunity. Is that right? I think that's exactly right. And I remember over 20 years ago when we were talking to some of the soft drink companies about the vending machines, they were quick to point out that they didn't make all that much money selling soft drinks in schools. Which I felt was them basically admitting that they weren't there because of the income from the sales in schools. But rather it was a hundred percent branding. And that was also really evident by the fact that you had to have a contract. So, the school districts had to have contracts with Coke or Pepsi or Cadbury Schwepps to only sell that company's products. It was blatantly obvious that this was all about marketing and marketing to an audience that they had to go to school, and they were going to be exposed to those logos every time they walked past one of those machines. Yeah. I remember in those days it felt like a victory when the companies agreed to change what was in the machines, but it was what was on the machines that was more important. So, you know, once again, that was a sign of the industry having upper hand. Let me ask you a different question. So there have been some important systemic changes discussed in context to school meals, ones that really could affect the nutrition landscape nationwide. And I'm thinking in particular universal free school meals. Can you tell us what this means and why it's important and what do you think ought to be done? Sure. So universal free school meals, or as the advocates call it Healthy School Meals for All, is a policy that is providing meals at no cost to all students. So typically the way it works in most school districts is there's three categories of payment. There are students who pay quote, full price. There are students who pay a reduced price and there are students who receive the meal at no cost, and it has to do with the income of their household. But what has been shown, interestingly most significantly during the pandemic, there was a policy from the USDA that all students would receive meals at no cost because we were clearly in a national crisis. And in some ways, it was this silver lining of that time because what it showed, those of us who study school meals, is how wonderful it is to be able to provide meals at no cost for everyone there. There are a lot of benefits. Some of it is just the administrative burden of having to figure out each and every household and which category they're in is lifted. You don't have to track which student is which as they're picking up their lunch. But it also really removed the stigma. One of the most surprising things that we've seen in our data is that even students who would have gotten their meal at no cost already were more likely to take a meal when it was provided at no cost for everyone. Because it just became part of what you did. Everybody was eating the school meal. And I think that it always leads to higher rates of participation among all of those sorts of categories of kids. And I think it also really allows the people running the food service to focus on preparing the food and making it the best it can be and not having that burden of the paperwork. And will there come a day, in your belief where this will happen? I hope so. What we've seen is that a number of states, I think it's eight right now, actually passed state policy to keep universal free school meals after the federal guidance that had been out there was lifted after the pandemic was over. And so \ my hope is that they'll really demonstrate the benefits and that other states will join in. There's certainly a lot of advocacy in a lot of other states to try to do this. And some of the benefits that have also been shown are outcomes like attendance and academic achievement and just really showing that just like we use our public funds to fund the teachers and the building and the water and the library books. It's sort of seen as a basic tool that the school needs to make available to students so that they can succeed academically. And I think that shift in attitude as opposed to seeing the lunchroom as this sort of separate thing from the rest of the school building. I think that shift in attitude will be really helpful overall. That makes good sense. Mara, let's turn to you. I'm really eager to hear about the work of the Chef Ann Foundation. I've followed its work for a number of years, but I'm eager to hear what the most recent iteration of this. So, I'm hoping you can tell us, and also give us some sense of why you got interested in these issues.   Well, the Chef Ann Foundation is actually celebrating its 15th birthday this year. And we help school food programs move from serving more processed heat and serve food to serving more freshly prepared scratch made meals in schools. And we do that through looking at what are the barriers to school food programs actually serving this freshly prepared meal. And there are a number of barriers: training, skill sets, equipment, access to healthier food, local farmers. The reimbursement rate, you know, how much money they get actually for serving these meals. What about the power of the companies that are providing the prepared foods to schools? Yes, that's a big piece. So those are very loud voices that have a [00:09:00] lot of power behind them. Through the passing of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010, there was an increase in nutrition standards change and what Marlene was saying is that while there was some basic before that, after Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, we had saturated fat standard, sodium, whole grain. But what happened was these big food companies just kind of R&D'd their food to meet these standards. So, we are in a better place today, right? Because we are serving more whole grains. We are serving less saturated fat, less sodium. But one of the big things that the passage of that Child Nutrition Reauthorization did not do was really reduce ultra processed food in school. And that I think is the next horizon for school food, is how to actually help them reduce that ultra processed food. Because there is, you know, a lot of research out there, I'm sure Marlene is familiar with this, that is linking more ultra processed food to diet related disease. So, we go in and really help these school food programs with more culinary training, we do assessments to tell them what kind of equipment they need to serve fresh food. A lot of it is financial training. So, when you're serving a chicken nugget. One chicken nugget that meets the standards. You bring it in frozen. All you have to do is reheat it and put it on the line. If you're making a chicken strip from scratch, you know you have to buy the chic

Everyone knows that it's a good idea to be physically active, but behind that basic knowledge lies a fascinating field of research on the role that physical activity plays in health and in weight control, along with answers to questions such as how much exercise I should get, is there a best time of day to do it, is one type of exercise better than others, etc. Few people can rival Dr. John Jakicic in expertise in this arena. John is a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine in the Division of Physical Activity and Weight Management at the University of Kansas Medical Center. His work has led the field for many years. Interview Summary John, I'm not an expert myself on physical activity, but I've been a fan of yours and others in your field for many years. And it just seems to me that it's a vibrant, active, exciting field where almost every day some new finding comes along that confirms the benefits of physical activity or discusses different ways to do it. Can you give us an overview of why being physically active is such a good thing? I think that if we could take the benefits of physical activity from a health perspective and bottle them up into one pill, we would probably have the most powerful pill that was ever invented. And I think that the reason for that, Kelly, is physical activity pretty much touches every system of the body. Every anatomical physiological system of the body in some way is touched by physical activity. And as long as you're not kind of overdoing it, abusing it, the body is adapting to allow you to do that activity. There's a lot of things that we do where we try to counteract certain things with medications and surgeries. But the one way that we can make the physiology of the body adapt and become healthier, the one real way to do that is through physical activity. And I think it touches so many systems that way, that's why I think we keep hearing about all the pure benefits that we can get from this activity. Okay. It sounds like it would be easier to have a discussion on or try to find somewhere physical activity is not beneficial. And it's interesting that the body makes room for physical activity by adjusting to whatever the demands of it are. I'm assuming there's some evolutionary reason for this. That people evolved having to be physically active just to get by in day-to-day life. But is that true? Have we inherited something in that regard? I think we have. And we went from hunter gatherers where you had to take your body and go out and find the food you needed to eat, to we don't have to hunt and gather very much anymore, at least in the US and other developed countries. The most hunting and gathering we do is go to the fast-food restaurant or the grocery store. The body has adapted to that. And I think that's one of the reasons that the body is so resilient. Now you think about it, Kelly, somebody who's had a pretty major coronary event. What's the one thing that gets recommended for them? Become more physically active, start exercising. And the body starts to bring itself back. Not maybe to the way it was before that, but it helps to regenerate the body in ways that other kind of things just don't do it. I think that there's definitely this physiology underpinning that we really need to keep thinking about. Speaking of coronary events, and you probably know this history way better than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong. But I remember hearing about the important historical role that a cardiologist named Paul Dudley White played with Dwight Eisenhower when he was president. And as I understand the story, Eisenhower had a heart attack, and the prevailing wisdom of the day was let you rest for a really long time after a heart attack. Like the heart was worn out and needed to recover and mend itself. But he reversed that, put that on its ear, didn't he? Yes, he did, and I think that kind of laid the groundwork for where we are with cardiac rehabilitation and cardiac treatment along the way. And that was probably the groundbreaking thing that happened where don't be afraid to start moving. And that has now evolved to diabetes, cancer treatment. You start to name all the conditions where it seems like activity is good. Even if you've had these conditions, as you go through your treatment plan. We've focused mainly so far on the physical benefits of physical activity. What about the psychological ones? I think that there's probably so many of those too, Kelly, and this is maybe where you know more than I about some of these types of things. But there's such great data that came out, maybe 20 years ago, where we were seeing studies coming out looking at depressive symptomatology, for example. And some of the stunning findings they were that people, even with known depression, could benefit and actually reduce their depressive symptomatology with at that time aerobic forms of physical activity. I think it's evolved to all types of different forms of physical activity. So, we have these depressive symptoms that can be dealt with, or maybe even prevented. We've seen it with mood and enjoyment, you start to just start going down the list. And I think the most evolving field that we're seeing right now is just in terms of the entire brain. You know, brain functioning, cognition. And we're realizing that the brain itself is an organ and physical activity in some way is actually impacting that as well. So, it's not just the physical, it's the emotional, it's the psychological. It's this overall wellbeing that we like to talk about. You mentioned the work on the brain. Is this effect that you're talking about showing up in studies of risk for dementia and Alzheimer's and things like that? It absolutely is. And I think we're still trying to completely understand the mechanisms by which this is occurring. Is it because activity is having some effect on inflammatory markers? Is it having something to do with blood circulation in the brain? Is it affecting other biomarkers that we hadn't thought about before? But yes, absolutely. It's affecting cognition. It's affecting dementia. It's affecting Alzheimer's. And we're finding that this is a really important thing for older adults. And I think the field is exploding at this point in this space. Let's get back to the physical benefits of exercise and talk about how they occur. One might think that physical activity exerts its influenced by affecting something like a risk factor, which in turn is what's affecting health. So, you're being physically active, it helps regulate your blood pressure and it's the regulation of blood pressure that's producing the overall health benefit. So, it's exercise does X, fill in the blank, and then that creates Y benefit. But is there a direct line between the exercise and the physical health? It doesn't go through risk factors like that. How does that work? Yeah, I think that it somewhat depends upon what the outcome is that you're looking for and what you're trying to move. And it gets a little, I'll say wonky. Because at some point there are intermediaries along the way that are probably impacted. Just for example, we've done studies in the field of obesity with physical activity that found that not only is the activity affecting the risk factors, the blood pressures, the insulin, the glucose. But it's affecting like the cardiac tissue itself. It's affecting the factors that are affecting that cardiac tissue. It's affecting the blood vessels themselves. Now, they're clearly intermediaries, but they're probably not the traditional risk factors we're thinking about. They're probably more signaling mechanisms, mitochondrial factors, these types of things that are more physiologically based as opposed to what we would consider our traditional risk factor base. I think the thing that we've known now for a long time, you go back to some of the Harvard fatigue laboratory studies where they were actually trying to get performance out of individuals. How do you get people to perform at a higher performance? Basically, the equivalent of being an athlete nowadays. And what you find is that, yeah, that's how you get people to perform at a high level. But that's also how you get people healthy in everyday life. We really learned how if you stress the body a little bit, the body adapts and makes it stronger as you go forward. It's good to know that, and it doesn't hurt to get wonky sometimes. That's a very interesting description that you gave. You mentioned weight control. Let's turn our attention to that for a minute. You were the lead author on a consensus statement from the American College of Sports Medicine. A very highly regarded organization, on the role of activity in body weight. Let's talk causation. Most people appreciate the key role of diet in the genesis of weight problems, but less so the role of physical activity. How important is it? I think it's critically important, but I also want to be very cautious about saying that it's more important than diet or energy intake. I don't like to take that stand because I think there's inputs coming from all angles here that are regulating body weight. And I think that we can get ourselves in a little bit of trouble if we say, what's only this, or it's only that, that it's one thing. It's a little bit of everything. And I think that what we're finding a bit in our research and others as well is that there's a variable response depending on the person. We know that if a person becomes active over six months without intentionally trying to change anything on their diet, they're probably going to lose a couple of kilograms. Two, three kilograms, maybe a little more depending on how much they do. But there are going to be some people that lose a lot more. Some people are going to lose a lot less. The question is, why is that? And in some of our work, Kelly, we have found, and others have found this as well, is that for some people, when they become physically act

Today we're exploring civil society's efforts to shape the food system and land use in the United Kingdom. Our guest today is Sue Pritchard, Chief Executive of the Food, Farming, and Countryside Commission (FFCC). The deeply grassroots work of the commission brings people together to find practical solutions to climate, nature, and health challenges. The goal is to shape fairer and more sustainable food systems and a just transition for rural communities and the countryside. Interview Summary Well, Sue, I am really interested to start off learning a little bit more about you. Can you tell us why are you interested in food and farming and the countryside?    So, I'm talking to you from Wales, from my farm in Wales. I live and work on a small, organic, conservation orientated farm that produces native breed cattle and sheep. It's so authentic. I have a duck in my office with me at the moment. So, if any of your listeners hear any odd sounds, I promise you that's her, not me.  I come from a family in Wales, which either went down the mines or farmed and had small holdings. My father went down the mines, but we always, as a family longed to get back to our deeply felt roots. And it was about 27 years ago that my parents and I, my family, were able to buy our farm here in Wales, which is, I suppose, the culmination of a dream. And although we were not naive about farming, when you're deeply embedded in the everyday life of the farmer and operating in the farming system (the food and farming system) you learn some different things pretty quickly. And so, for a fair few years, I was working out how to make the farm work economically. But also, how the farm could make a really good contribution to tackling the climate crisis and the nature crisis. How we could sequester more carbon on the farm. How we could build more natural infrastructure on the farm to help nature thrive here again. You will recall, the UK had its own political, should we call it a little, a minor apocalypse back in 2016, when the UK voted to exit the European Union. And, the implications of that vote were pretty, pretty, extraordinary for farming and for food systems and the environment. As a result, civil society, business organizations got together and were able to get some philanthropic funding to set up a commission (Food, Farming, and Countryside Commission) to shape a different future for food and farming and the countryside outside of the European Union. And when that job was advertised, it was my dream job, bringing together, as it did, the future of farming, the future of food systems, and being able to impact and influence policy at a really, really critical time. I want to make sure I understand a little bit more about what's happening. Because of Brexit, that means the UK is no longer part of the common agricultural policy and is now needing to reconstruct its agricultural policy structure. It sounds like the commission was brought in to do some of this work. I would like to understand what in particular challenges are facing the food and agriculture scene in the UK post Brexit.  I think that the first thing that we were able to do in the work of the commission was to start talking about food as a system. That was relatively unusual in the UK. One of our leading thinkers, Professor Tim Lang, used to say that the UK's food policy was basically leave it to Tesco, which is one of our big supermarkets. It was essentially left to private markets to determine the kind of food that we had on our plates. It was clear that that strategy was not working anymore. And given the really quite startling system changing implications of that particular vote, we were able to take a different perspective on food systems and start thinking about food as a system. We talked about, as it says on the tin, food and farming and the countryside, but we also talked about food and farming's relationship with climate, with nature, with health and wellbeing, and with equity and justice. In bringing that more, if you like, systemic view into people's consciousnesses, we were able to demonstrate really how central food policy is to UK's economy, health and wellbeing of UK citizens. Perhaps in a way that had not been done with quite the same heft as before. Lots of people have been trying but hadn't quite landed center stage in policy terms. And we were able to show through our work and then our reports, the relationship between food and farming and diet-related ill health. Farming systems and the climate crisis. Farming systems and biodiversity loss and the nature crisis. And also, starting to reveal the inequities, the inequalities embedded in the food system when we start looking not just within our own borders in the UK, but beyond our borders to how the UK trades with the rest of the world. Because countryside is one of the major themes, it's in the title of Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, and I've spent a little time in England and the countryside. And I'm from a rural area and the United States, and I'm interested to understand how you all are thinking about the needs or the challenges, or even the opportunities that the countryside faces in the UK. One of the things that I realized when I started this job back in 2017 was that for many people in London, the countryside is just the gap on the map between the cities. They had very little understanding of the contribution of the rural economy, the importance of the rural economy, particularly the countryside's importance, criticality, even for tackling the climate crisis, tackling the nature crisis. It's there where a lot of the problems occur, but also where a lot of the solutions can be found too. And so, talking about the countryside, not as a kind of poor relation to the rest of the economy, but actually central to a version of the future that was able to be more resilient, more adaptive to whatever kind of scenarios might unfold. That felt like a pretty important thing for us to be doing. And when we were conducting our work in those early days, we did all the usual things that a commission might do. We did a literature review, we held workshops, we held all sorts of kind of formal research processes. But we also set out around the country, around the UK on a bicycle. My researchers set out around the UK on a bicycle. Because we wanted to do something pretty iconic to show the richness, the diversity, the variety, the political salience and the economic salience of the countryside to policy discussions in Westminster. I think one of our successes has been to bring those voices into policy decisions. And to give them much more gravity, I think, in policy considerations that often feel very distant in London. How have they shaped the way you all have done the work at the FFCC? Are they altering or informing the work in different ways? Yes. Absolutely. We work with citizens in a number of different ways. So that first moment, the kind of bicycle tour around the UK was if you like, a symbolic moment of connecting with people in their communities. Going out to where people are, letting them tell us in their terms, what mattered to them, what they cared about, what they were concerned about. But in a really kind of barefoot ethnographic way, I think, being able to hear directly from folk. But we also built long term relationships in three, if you like, sentinel parts of the country: in Devon, in Cambridgeshire, and in Cumbria. Different parts of the UK reflecting different kinds of priorities and different pressures in the countryside. Devon is a grassland community, it's very touristy. Cambridgeshire is one of the bread baskets of the country, but with huge pressures on housing and infrastructure. And Cumbria is the uplands, the high mountainous uplands that people understand as a holiday hotspot. But working in those places in depth over for five years now, we have been able to both test out policy ideas in, in real places, in real time. Our land use framework project is a case in point. In thinking about how we make better decisions about land, we worked with people for whom those decisions are incredibly material. It's about what happens in their communities, what happens around them. We were able to develop policy contributions based on testing different options, different possibilities with people in places. And of course, we were able then to bring forward their ideas, their thoughts, and their really practical activities to the view of government, to the view of policy makers and to businesses. It was a kind of reciprocal relationship, testing out ideas in communities, but also bringing community ideas into government, into policy makers. You know, demonstrating how people are already doing things, already doing really interesting and radical and progressive things, whether or not government is supporting them or not. More recently, we've embarked on a very, very substantial project. It's called the Food Conversation and the Food Conversation is a project that was designed to really test out the answer to the question, so what do people really want from food? I wonder if you have the same experience in the United States, Norbert, but certainly in the UK, we hear over and over and over again, particularly from lobbyists, but often from government, that people don't really care about food. People just want cheap food. They just want convenient food. Nobody wants to be told what to eat. Nobody wants a nanny state. And those kind of toxic narratives, those devices were being used over and over again to limit government's appetite for policy intervention. And after this happened, again about two years ago, after the government commissioned its own national food strategy and then declined to respond in any meaningful way to it, I rather spat the dummy in in leadership terms and decided we were really going to have to test out this narrative, this way of framing food policy change. So, we set out 18 mo

Today, we're going to explore Daily Table, an innovative non profit grocery chain dedicated to providing fresh, convenient, and nutritious food affordable to everyone, even those on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. In today's economic climate, where rising food prices are impacting households across the country, the concept of a non profit grocery store seems to fill a real need. Our guest today is Daily Table CEO, Sasha Purpura, a software engineer who spent 15 years in the tech industry and product management and development roles. Interview Summary Sasha, it is such a pleasure to connect with you. I'm intrigued to hear more about where Daily Table is today because I too was a Daily Table shopper. So, let's begin just hearing about what Daily Table is and what's the driving mission of the organization. Absolutely, Norbert. Simply what's driving the organization is the belief that everybody deserves access to healthy food. Daily Table is such a simple solution, but so incredibly innovative. It's a grocery store where everybody can afford healthy food. To me, seems like that should be there already. Unfortunately, it isn't. Historically, the way we have addressed hunger in this country is food pantries. And food pantries play a critical role and they're very necessary. However, there's spaces designed for people with low income. To say you're low income, you can't afford food, come here. And we know that 40 percent of the people that qualify for food pantries won't go to a food pantry because of that stigma. And because they want agency. They want the dignity of providing for their families and choosing what they want to eat. So Daily Table creates that shopping experience. People who don't use food pantries, they shop for themselves. And the sad reality is they have not been able to choose healthy food every day. They can't. It is not affordable. If you are lower on the income scale, you cannot afford to put fruits and vegetables on your table every day. Daily Table makes it possible for every person to afford to put fruits and vegetables on their table every day. And we are a normal grocery store. Anybody can come in there. We welcome everyone. It is not set up for people with a low income. It is a shopping experience. It is bright and colorful. It is dignified, enjoyable. Let's go look at all this beautiful produce. Daily Table dedicates a third of its footprint in each store to produce. Think about any grocery store you go into. That is not the case. We are focused on healthy, beautiful, fresh food. So, it's produce. It's proteins. And then finally, we have a commissary kitchen in our Dorchester store. It serves all of our stores, and we make healthy meals. A lot of people working two jobs cannot cook for themselves. Don't have the resources. And unfortunately, in many cases, turn to fast food, which isn't even that affordable these days. We make a chicken meal with a big chicken leg and 2 sides starting at $2.99. We have a large garden salad for $2.99. We have smoothies. We have soups that aren't extremely high in sodium. So, we provide healthy, tasty, prepared meals alongside fresh produce. If you can cook it, it's the ingredients are there. If you can't cook it, we cook it for you. And so Daily Table, our mission and what we do every day, is ensure that healthy food is truly affordable to everybody. This is really a useful way of hearing about what Daily Table is. As someone who used to live in Boston, I would visit the Dorchester store. And I remember all they asked is to tell us what zip code you're from and we would go shopping. We don't even ask that anymore. Oh, you don't even ask that anymore! That is awesome. And, you know, what's great it was easy to take my very young daughter at that time into the store and feel good about what we were getting. And my wife was like, can you believe these prices? In a good way! In a very good way. And so, it was always a positive experience. And it was great to know that there were people in that local community that were in the store. That were part of the staff. And it was a great place to visit. So, I'm glad to be able to connect with you on this. But I got to ask this question, how did a software engineer all of a sudden end up in a nonprofit grocery store? What happened? What drew you to this work? Well, it wasn't all of a sudden, but it was definitely a path. I met my husband when we were working at Nokia. I was in product management at the time. And in 2005, he quit to start an organic farm. A dream he'd always had. Went to it full time, that's how he makes his living. And he'd always had a big garden and just been a food person and I learned through him. I'd work with him on the weekends and getting the farm started and go to farmer's markets with him. And I, I discovered food in a way I'd never really understood it. I fell in love with it. I fell in love with the way that food creates community. I mean, it is the center of community. It's how we show love. It's how we come together over holidays. But to work with my husband creating this really beautiful produce, healthy, and to share that and just, just at a farmer's market, see how people come together that don't know each other. And 'how do you use collard greens? Or what is this vegetable?' It was just life. It was just life and I wanted that. So, I quit in 2009. I worked with him on the farm for a couple of years while I went back to school just to expand my network and nonprofit and other things. And in 2012, I began as an executive director of another hunger relief organization. And what was amazing, what is amazing to me, whether it's at a food pantry or Daily Table or a farmer's market, it is the same experience. It is people coming together around food and sharing. And it is beautiful and it, it creates healthy communities. It's not just nourishing us physically, but that's critical. By the way, healthy food is the cheapest form of healthcare. If we would just invest in that. But it also nourishes a community. It's mental health. It's sitting around the table with your family. It's cooking. It's not being hungry. And so, to go from the one extreme of a local organic farm in a farmer's market that isn't cheap. You know, my husband isn't making money off of it. He's not getting rich, but the food, it takes a lot to grow food. So, to go from that experience and bringing together people who can afford farmer's market prices and seeing that same experience in a food pantry or at Daily Table, it is, it's about food. It's not about money and it should be accessible to all. It is really amazing. I loved the two years on the farm and bringing access to local food to people. And to now do that to folks who otherwise simply couldn't get access to healthy food. It's, it's just an incredible honor to be a part of that. Thank you for sharing that. And thank you for sharing part of your story. I'm interested to go back to Daily Table and understand how is it different than other nonprofit organizations, especially in the food justice space? Help us to appreciate that you gave us a bit of an idea when you were talking about comparing it to food pantries. But I'd like to hear sort of more of your thoughts on that. Well, my thoughts are not so much are how are we different, but how do we fit into the emergency food system? One of the beautiful things... I'm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Daily Table is at Cambridge and Boston and Salem. And I've worked now for 12 years in this field in Northeastern United States, Massachusetts. And what I've discovered is there is a network of food justice, hunger relief organizations. And we are an incredibly large community of people that care about the same thing and working together. So, we need a lot of different solutions. SNAP, as you mentioned, the supplemental nutrition access program, that is hunger relief, right? That lets people have access to purchasing food. Then there's Daily Table where you can use your SNAP benefits to buy produce. To buy very healthy food at very low prices. Then there's a food pantry for people that perhaps don't even have access to SNAP. They can go to a food pantry and access food, or people can shop at Daily Table and supplement what they're buying a Daily Table at a food pantry. We work with an organization called the Boston Area Gleaners that uses volunteers to rescue food off of farms. And has their own farm now and grows some produce that we sell at Daily Table. We work within a network of different types of food justice organizations that are serving people in different ways and meeting them where they are. We work with Fresh Truck, which is a mobile market that goes into communities with a truck with fresh produce on it, right? So, all of these things are necessary. I would say Daily Table is absolutely critical to serving all of those people who are not comfortable getting free food. The last organization I worked for was called Food for Free, and it was wonderful, and it served hundreds of thousands of people. But there are hundreds of thousands of people that are not going to take food for free and Daily Table assists folks in that way. Yeah. I am really appreciative of the way you've talked about this. And sometimes I get a sense that there is competition in this space. And what you're talking about is, no, we're actually all part of a large network and that we're serving different needs and that we are stronger together. Finding ways of collaborating and giving people options and in the community. I find this really encouraging. Thank you. I'm so excited to hear more about this and to think about what that means as we go beyond the Boston area. Beyond the Northeast. And talk about replication, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I've got to ask. This can't be easy, I mean, to offer these products at the low prices that you do and the fact that they're all nutritionally oriented. And I'm interested to

On our podcast, we have often talked about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. In many of those conversations, we've talked about the benefits and eligibility, and ways to improve the work that SNAP does to help low-income families meet their food needs. In today's podcast, we're going to turn our attention to a particular challenge, and it's the SNAP skimming fraud. To help us understand this and the larger context of SNAP, we have the great pleasure of talking with Salaam Bhatti, who is the director of SNAP at the Food Research and Action Center, or FRAC. Interview Summary So, let's provide a little bit of level setting for our listeners. Can you tell us what role SNAP plays in the lives of individuals who are facing low income or food insecurity? Yeah, Norbert, the problem with being in the richest, most powerful nation in world history is that we are facing a food and hunger crisis. We have the means, we have the resources to solve for it, but we haven't. For the record, the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, did a study last year. They do this study every year where they report food security in the country. In 2023, 86.5 percent of U. S. households were food secure. The remaining 13.5 percent, which is 18 million households, were food insecure. And this was an increase from 2022. So, 86.5 percent of food security is barely a B+. To be in the most powerful wealthiest nation in the world and we're barely getting a B+ in this space is unacceptable. And so, we saw some really interesting policies happen during the pandemic. We saw emergency allotments come in for the SNAP program, where all households received the maximum benefit amount for their households. And that, unfortunately, sunset. When that emergency allotment was in place, food insecurity-surprise, surprise-decreased. But not just that, we also saw Medicaid healthcare spending costs decrease as well. Because who would have thought that when people had food security, they didn't need to go to the emergency room because their blood sugar was low. So, we're experiencing a lot of challenges where we've seen the government show its hand that it can end poverty. It can end hunger. It just chooses not to. We know that SNAP is an entitlement program. It's available to anyone who meets the eligibility requirements. But we know that everyone who's eligible doesn't participate in the SNAP program. Can you help us think about how more people can be enrolled who are eligible. And maybe we even need to think more broadly about what is eligibility? What are your thoughts about this? In a given month these days, about 42 million people participate in SNAP. That's a lot of people. I would say that 42 million people are participating in it every day, but unfortunately, SNAP benefits do not last the whole month. By the third week of the month, people's SNAP benefits have been exhausted. Now, taking a step back, in case the listeners don't know how SNAP benefits work, it's a, as you said, a government program. And it comes in the form of an electronic benefits transfer card, an EBT card. It looks like a credit card, looks like a debit card. But really, it's more like a hotel card key, because it doesn't have the security measures, which we can talk about later in the show. It doesn't have the security measures that a credit and a debit card have. It is essentially a glorified hotel key. It's got the magnetic stripe on the back, circa 20 years ago. Maybe 15. I'm dating myself. I don't know how long ago it was we were swiping the cards. But all you gotta do is you swipe the card and you type in your PIN. And then you can use it at the EBT retailer. That is in a nutshell how 40 million people are utilizing SNAP benefits every single month. The program itself is also vital to retailers as well. We've seen that every dollar of SNAP benefits generates about $1.54 in economic activity during an economic downturn. So that means that when somebody is using their SNAP benefits at the grocery store, it's helping that grocery store keep the lights on. You know, employ the cashiers. And we need to employ cashiers, enough of this self-checkout stuff. It helps to pay the truck driver who's transporting the produce to the store. And it ultimately even helps pay the farmer for growing the crop. So, it's a great investment from the federal government into not just our households to help them put food on the table, but really into the whole local economy. And it is immediately used directly by the people and helps so many people. Now so, to your question about how do we enroll more people? Well, luckily we are at a time where the USDA reports that in the fiscal year 2022, 88 percent of eligible individuals were participating in SNAP. And that is the highest participation rate we've seen since they started tracking this in the past 50 years. That's great. But again, it's just a B+ so we can do better. There is room to improve. In the study, it showed that older adults, those who are over 60, they're participating at lower rates with only 55 percent of eligible members in that age category participating. We also have so many military families and veterans who are eligible, but don't participate. This SNAP gap is something that our partners are working throughout the states, throughout the entire country. We're working in partnership with a lot of federal agencies and partners as well. So, how do you ultimately close the SNAP gap? We're seeing a lot of targeted outreach. Seeing a lot of education efforts, but, you know, with 88 percent of eligible people participating, what's going on-on the local level? And unfortunately, Norbert, we've seen that state agencies which administer the SNAP program are unfortunately understaffed and they're underfunded. I used to be a state advocate at the Virginia Poverty Law Center. And when I was, hustling in the halls and lobbying for a million households with low income, I became friends with our social services agency because we had similar goals. We wanted to help households with low income. And we came to learn that the agency that we are relying on to administer the program was never getting their budget met by the legislative assembly. So, what we did was we got into partnership with them to advocate for their budget so that they could retain their staff, and so that the staff could do the job. That is something that we have to do across the states. Support these social service agencies in getting the funding so that they can have the staffing so that they can administer the programs in a timely way. Unfortunately, I don't know if you've seen this but earlier this year, the USDA Secretary Vilsack sent out a letter to like 44 state agencies, including D. C. and Guam. Being very concerned about their timeliness issues because they're supposed to complete the application reviews and determine eligibility within 30 days. And that's for a normal SNAP application. You have seven days for expedited applications. And 44 of these agencies were not meeting the mark. That's bad for, in terms of deadlines, but even worse for the families experiencing the food insecurity. So that is a very layered answer. It's the seven-layer dip answer of how we increase participation. Well, we need more staff to, to help that out. I hear that, and I'm really grateful for how you hit it at this point, and I want to draw a little more attention to it. While you talk about 88 percent participation, it looks different on a state-by-state level. Some states have a higher level of participation, other states don't. Do you think it's really the ability of those state agencies to provide that support, or do you think there are other factors that may be influencing the differential participation rates across states? Yeah, so we saw a big retirement, the great resignation, that happened during the pandemic. There were so many state agency employees, you know, who were, who were doing the job because they were passionate about it. They were also at retirement age. So, we saw quite a resignation happen. Because it was incredibly difficult. It was traumatizing to be involved in this space. And so, they resigned, or they retired, or they moved on to somewhere else. The new workers came in and they learned the programs with the flexibilities that were provided during the pandemic. Now, they have to relearn the program because all those flexibilities are gone. So, we're seeing a lot of administrative burden taking place within these agencies. I have a colleague, Carolyn Barnes, who's worked on this idea of administrative burden and the challenge of what's sometimes referred to as street level bureaucrats. The people who are on the ground who do the administration of these programs and the challenges that they face and the ways they engage folks. I appreciate hearing more about this. And I'm going to ask a potentially controversial question then. What if we took that responsibility out of the hands of state agencies and privatized that? What would that look like? Oh, and people have tried that. Governments have tried that, and it's always resulted in net losses. Not only has it cost the states more, but it has also led to the participants not receiving their benefits, or receiving less than, or receiving an error of more than. So many errors have resulted, which has made the program and administration worse. Which is an interesting question because a lot of people don't know that there are skilled employees at the helm within the agencies that are working on these eligibility determinations. They're known as merit-based staff. And every now and then you'll see a Farm Bill, that's the piece of legislation that houses the SNAP program, it'll come in and they'll try to privatize parts of the program. In the guise of, 'Oh, we're just wanting to help the agencies out and get the benefits to the people.' But listen, the several states that have privatized their b