Latest news with #ultraProcessedFoods
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Inside RFK Jr's conflicted attempt to rid America of junk food
Over the space of the last year, Robert F Kennedy Jr. has made the term 'ultra-processed foods' something of a household phrase. Once a term only used by nutritionists and food policy researchers to describe the most processed foods in the supply chain (think: chips and sodas, packaged bread, microwave dinners and even some yogurts), ultra-processing has become a calling card of the 'Make America Healthy Again' ('Maha') movement. The movement, which is focused on addressing 'America's escalating health crisis' by investigating food, pharmaceuticals, vaccines and environmental contaminants (and has frequently platformed pseudoscience), found a home in Donald Trump's administration after Kennedy endorsed the president. Indeed, during his confirmation hearings to become head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy called ultra-processed foods 'poison' and the main culprit of the United States's 'chronic disease epidemic'. Many food experts were surprised, and grateful, to find an ally in Trump's administration. Today, ultra-processed foods make up 73% of the US food supply and are linked to a range of health conditions including diabetes, obesity, depression and certain cancers. Despite this rhetoric, experts are skeptical that ultra-processed foods will go anywhere. Rather than reining in ultra-processing, the Trump administration's food policy has mostly undermined Maha's stated goals. The first report of the Maha commission made headlines in May when it raised concerns about a 'chronic disease crisis' in children. Echoing language that Kennedy campaigned on, the report argued that 'the American diet has shifted dramatically toward ultra-processed foods' and that 'nearly 70% of children's calories now come from UPFs, contributing to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions'. (The report also received criticism for including fake citations, though those in the food policy sections appeared accurate.) Those are concerns that food policy experts share – and the report listed many expert-backed solutions to rein in ultra-processing. 'The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare,' the report found. It went on to describe the dismal state of nutrition research in the United States: 'Government funding for nutrition research through the NIH is only 4-5% of its total budget and in some cases is subject to influence by food industry-aligned researchers.' It is 'extraordinary' how quickly Kennedy's Maha commission has 'made chronic disease, specifically big food' a political priority, said Jerold Mande, a nutrition professor at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and a former food policymaker who served under Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama. 'It's a bit breathtaking and refreshing to see this administration put out a report where they just clearly say a root cause of all of this sickness and death is the industry.' As head of the Maha commission, Kennedy has also promised to introduce regulatory reforms, including phasing out synthetic food dyes, ending a loophole for untested food additives, introducing a new regulatory program and restricting how supplemental food funding is spent. Under Kennedy's direction, the Food and Drug Administration has begun asking companies to voluntarily stop using six common food dyes, and outright banned two others. Food policy advocates have long called for greater regulations on synthetic dyes, and some states, most notably California, have already begun banning certain dyes. Kennedy has ordered the FDA to explore how to eliminate a policy that allows food companies to decide themselves whether food additives are safe, called the Generally Recognized as Safe (Gras) loophole. 'That's a really, really big deal,' says Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. 'Ninety-nine per cent of compounds in food were added through this loophole.' In May, the FDA and National Institutes of Health also announced a new joint Nutrition Regulatory Science Program (plans to form such a program were finalized under the Biden administration). In recent weeks, the program issued requests for research proposals specifically tied to two themes: contaminants in school meals and exercise (food companies have emphasized the individual responsibility to exercise as a distraction from reformulating food). Meanwhile, at Kennedy's encouragement, several states are also pursuing policies that would limit spending from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) on 'junk food'. To date, the federal government has approved waivers for six states to ban such purchases. Mande thinks that's an effective strategy to motivate food companies to reformulate their products. 'Snap is just by far the biggest lever the government has that the food companies are going to do what Snap policy requires of them,' he said. Despite the Maha report and other recent moves by Kennedy to call out ultra-processed food and its role in the chronic disease crisis, some food policy experts warn that the administration's actions are undermining that goal. That came into focus earlier this year when Trump appointed several nominees who favored deregulatory policies, or had outright ties to the food industry, to his cabinet. One of the key ways to rein in ultra-processing is to make sure that youth have access to fresh produce, says Mande. Yet the administration has slashed the very programs that do that. In March, Trump's agriculture department cut a host of previously approved grants, including the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant and Local Food for Schools and Childcare program, which paid farmers and ranchers to supply schools with local foods and build gardens. Those cuts don't only harm schools, but farmers as well, says Marion Nestle, a professor emerita at New York University and author of the book 'Food Politics'. Mozaffarian called the choice to cut the Farm to School Grant 'a bizarre decision that goes completely against the goals to make America healthy again'. Nestle believes that misalignment between promise and practice is purposeful. The Trump administration and Maha movement have 'hijacked the food movement in order to use it as publicity for the kind of cuts that are being made', she said. It's also being used to 'forward an agenda which is exactly the opposite of what you would hope' – one that's focused more on cutting programs than reforming industry. Nestle says the administration's calls to end subsidies for 'junk food' with Snap are disingenuous, and just a guise for cutting the program altogether. 'The business about taking sodas out of Snap is a cover for cutting Snap benefits,' she said. The current Republican budget bill, which Trump signed into law last week, proposes a 20% cut to the program. In addition to increasing access to fresh produce, the other most effective way to tackle ultra-processed foods, Mande says, is robust industry regulation – which also hasn't happened. 'It's become a pattern that they announce ambitious plans, they say a lot of the right things about what the problem is and what we broadly need to do about it, but the specifics are either missing or really not properly aligned to the task,' said Mande. 'It's still early, but it's happened repeatedly enough to be concerning.' The Trump administration's announcements about combatting food dyes and additives, for instance, have not been paired with specific plans or funding details or regulations. 'Historically, Republican administrations have been reluctant to use some levers of government, particularly funding and regulation to advance policy, but there is no way to tackle this issue successfully and effectively without funding and regulations,' said Mande. 'At each juncture, when one would expect or hope to see funding or regulation as a step to achieving a policy that they played out, they haven't done that.' Even with funding, Nestle wonders how effective those reforms will be 'when the FDA's workforce has been decimated'. In April, the Department of Health and Human Services laid off 10,000 workers, about an eighth of its workforce. More than a third of those fired were at the Food and Drug Administration. In the wake of those layoffs, the National Institutes of Health's leading nutrition researcher, Kevin Hall, opted to take an early retirement offer. Hall has conducted one of the most cited studies on ultra-processed foods, which found that people who ate an ultra-processed diet consumed nearly 500 calories more a day than those who did not, and had other projects in the pipeline. 'Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science,' Hall wrote in a social media post announcing his decision. In an interview with the New York Times, Hall described multiple incidents where NIH officials censored his work, including altering his responses to journalists and asking him to remove language about 'health equity' from his research (he opted to remove his name from the paper instead). In May, he told Stat News that he's unlikely to return to the scientific agency. That said, Mozaffarian believes there are still powerful ways the Trump administration could regulate ultra-processed foods with minimal staff or funding. Funding and a plan are key to making that work successful, he said, but if that's not possible, the agency could take other actions. He suggests three such alternatives for ending the Gras loophole: requiring 'public notice and public disclosure of all the safety data that would then be put on a searchable public database' that other groups, like academics and consumer watchdogs, could review themselves; implement stricter standards for which foods are allowed to call themselves 'generally recognized as safe'; or adopt the food regulations of other countries, such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Canada which have already banned 'many substances that are allowed in the US'. Nestle is more skeptical that incremental change could tackle ultra-processing and chemicals in the food supply. Addressing color additives, for example, she says is a 'no brainer' because companies are already 'using alternatives in Australia and New Zealand.' What could be more difficult is getting other chemicals out of food, like the mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals emitted by coal-burning power plants that also contaminate soil and waterways. 'Nobody has ever been able to get coal burning power plants to clean up their emissions' and in fact the Trump administration has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to relax controls on those emissions, she adds. 'There's no policy here.'
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Inside RFK Jr's conflicted attempt to rid America of junk food
Over the space of the last year, Robert F Kennedy Jr. has made the term 'ultra-processed foods' something of a household phrase. Once a term only used by nutritionists and food policy researchers to describe the most processed foods in the supply chain (think: chips and sodas, packaged bread, microwave dinners and even some yogurts), ultra-processing has become a calling card of the 'Make America Healthy Again' ('Maha') movement. The movement, which is focused on addressing 'America's escalating health crisis' by investigating food, pharmaceuticals, vaccines and environmental contaminants (and has frequently platformed pseudoscience), found a home in Donald Trump's administration after Kennedy endorsed the president. Indeed, during his confirmation hearings to become head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy called ultra-processed foods 'poison' and the main culprit of the United States's 'chronic disease epidemic'. Many food experts were surprised, and grateful, to find an ally in Trump's administration. Today, ultra-processed foods make up 73% of the US food supply and are linked to a range of health conditions including diabetes, obesity, depression and certain cancers. Despite this rhetoric, experts are skeptical that ultra-processed foods will go anywhere. Rather than reining in ultra-processing, the Trump administration's food policy has mostly undermined Maha's stated goals. The first report of the Maha commission made headlines in May when it raised concerns about a 'chronic disease crisis' in children. Echoing language that Kennedy campaigned on, the report argued that 'the American diet has shifted dramatically toward ultra-processed foods' and that 'nearly 70% of children's calories now come from UPFs, contributing to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions'. (The report also received criticism for including fake citations, though those in the food policy sections appeared accurate.) Those are concerns that food policy experts share – and the report listed many expert-backed solutions to rein in ultra-processing. 'The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare,' the report found. It went on to describe the dismal state of nutrition research in the United States: 'Government funding for nutrition research through the NIH is only 4-5% of its total budget and in some cases is subject to influence by food industry-aligned researchers.' It is 'extraordinary' how quickly Kennedy's Maha commission has 'made chronic disease, specifically big food' a political priority, said Jerold Mande, a nutrition professor at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and a former food policymaker who served under Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama. 'It's a bit breathtaking and refreshing to see this administration put out a report where they just clearly say a root cause of all of this sickness and death is the industry.' As head of the Maha commission, Kennedy has also promised to introduce regulatory reforms, including phasing out synthetic food dyes, ending a loophole for untested food additives, introducing a new regulatory program and restricting how supplemental food funding is spent. Under Kennedy's direction, the Food and Drug Administration has begun asking companies to voluntarily stop using six common food dyes, and outright banned two others. Food policy advocates have long called for greater regulations on synthetic dyes, and some states, most notably California, have already begun banning certain dyes. Kennedy has ordered the FDA to explore how to eliminate a policy that allows food companies to decide themselves whether food additives are safe, called the Generally Recognized as Safe (Gras) loophole. 'That's a really, really big deal,' says Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. 'Ninety-nine per cent of compounds in food were added through this loophole.' In May, the FDA and National Institutes of Health also announced a new joint Nutrition Regulatory Science Program (plans to form such a program were finalized under the Biden administration). In recent weeks, the program issued requests for research proposals specifically tied to two themes: contaminants in school meals and exercise (food companies have emphasized the individual responsibility to exercise as a distraction from reformulating food). Meanwhile, at Kennedy's encouragement, several states are also pursuing policies that would limit spending from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) on 'junk food'. To date, the federal government has approved waivers for six states to ban such purchases. Mande thinks that's an effective strategy to motivate food companies to reformulate their products. 'Snap is just by far the biggest lever the government has that the food companies are going to do what Snap policy requires of them,' he said. Despite the Maha report and other recent moves by Kennedy to call out ultra-processed food and its role in the chronic disease crisis, some food policy experts warn that the administration's actions are undermining that goal. That came into focus earlier this year when Trump appointed several nominees who favored deregulatory policies, or had outright ties to the food industry, to his cabinet. One of the key ways to rein in ultra-processing is to make sure that youth have access to fresh produce, says Mande. Yet the administration has slashed the very programs that do that. In March, Trump's agriculture department cut a host of previously approved grants, including the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant and Local Food for Schools and Childcare program, which paid farmers and ranchers to supply schools with local foods and build gardens. Those cuts don't only harm schools, but farmers as well, says Marion Nestle, a professor emerita at New York University and author of the book 'Food Politics'. Mozaffarian called the choice to cut the Farm to School Grant 'a bizarre decision that goes completely against the goals to make America healthy again'. Nestle believes that misalignment between promise and practice is purposeful. The Trump administration and Maha movement have 'hijacked the food movement in order to use it as publicity for the kind of cuts that are being made', she said. It's also being used to 'forward an agenda which is exactly the opposite of what you would hope' – one that's focused more on cutting programs than reforming industry. Nestle says the administration's calls to end subsidies for 'junk food' with Snap are disingenuous, and just a guise for cutting the program altogether. 'The business about taking sodas out of Snap is a cover for cutting Snap benefits,' she said. The current Republican budget bill, which Trump signed into law last week, proposes a 20% cut to the program. In addition to increasing access to fresh produce, the other most effective way to tackle ultra-processed foods, Mande says, is robust industry regulation – which also hasn't happened. 'It's become a pattern that they announce ambitious plans, they say a lot of the right things about what the problem is and what we broadly need to do about it, but the specifics are either missing or really not properly aligned to the task,' said Mande. 'It's still early, but it's happened repeatedly enough to be concerning.' The Trump administration's announcements about combatting food dyes and additives, for instance, have not been paired with specific plans or funding details or regulations. 'Historically, Republican administrations have been reluctant to use some levers of government, particularly funding and regulation to advance policy, but there is no way to tackle this issue successfully and effectively without funding and regulations,' said Mande. 'At each juncture, when one would expect or hope to see funding or regulation as a step to achieving a policy that they played out, they haven't done that.' Even with funding, Nestle wonders how effective those reforms will be 'when the FDA's workforce has been decimated'. In April, the dDepartment of Health and Human Services laid off 10,000 workers, about an eighth of its workforce. More than a third of those fired were at the Food and Drug Administration. In the wake of those layoffs, the National Institutes of Health's leading nutrition researcher, Kevin Hall, opted to take an early retirement offer. Hall has conducted one of the most cited studies on ultra-processed foods, which found that people who ate an ultra-processed diet consumed nearly 500 calories more a day than those who did not, and had other projects in the pipeline. 'Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science,' Hall wrote in a social media post announcing his decision. In an interview with the New York Times, Hall described multiple incidents where NIH officials censored his work, including altering his responses to journalists and asking him to remove language about 'health equity' from his research (he opted to remove his name from the paper instead). In May, he told Stat News that he's unlikely to return to the scientific agency. That said, Mozaffarian believes there are still powerful ways the Trump administration could regulate ultra-processed foods with minimal staff or funding. Funding and a plan are key to making that work successful, he said, but if that's not possible, the agency could take other actions. He suggests three such alternatives for ending the Gras loophole: requiring 'public notice and public disclosure of all the safety data that would then be put on a searchable public database' that other groups, like academics and consumer watchdogs, could review themselves; implement stricter standards for which foods are allowed to call themselves 'generally recognized as safe'; or adopt the food regulations of other countries, such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Canada which have already banned 'many substances that are allowed in the US'. Nestle is more skeptical that incremental change could tackle ultra-processing and chemicals in the food supply. Addressing color additives, for example, she says is a 'no brainer' because companies are already 'using alternatives in Australia and New Zealand.' What could be more difficult is getting other chemicals out of food, like the mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals emitted by coal-burning power plants that also contaminate soil and waterways. 'Nobody has ever been able to get coal burning power plants to clean up their emissions' and in fact the Trump administration has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to relax controls on those emissions, she adds. 'There's no policy here.'
Forbes
02-07-2025
- Health
- Forbes
MAHA's Focus On Improving Nutrition Is At Odds With Trump Policies
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert ... More F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event introducing a new Make America Healthy Again Commission report in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The commission, which is tasked with studying the potential causes for the "childhood chronic disease crisis," recommends reassessing the nation's childhood vaccine schedule, scrutinizing ultra-processed foods and studying pesticides used in commercial farming. At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed a FY2026 budget of $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services — a reduction of about 26-percent from the 2025 level — cutting programs and staff at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Photo by) In introducing the first Make America Healthy Again Commission report, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the focus is childhood chronic disease prevention, with a particular emphasis on nutrition. But several key Trump administration policies appear to be inconsistent with this goal. And the report does not include several notably absent topics that are known to cause certain chronic diseases. The first MAHA Commission report released in May identifies multifarious drivers of childhood chronic disease, including poor diet and specifically the shift over time to ultra-processed foods, overuse of pesticides in agriculture, food dyes in products for sale in grocery stores and a cumulative overload of chemicals in the environment. The document offers a potpourri of high-level policy recommendations to counter these trends. In a tweet, Kennedy touted on June 19th that 'artificial dyes and additives are being removed from America's food supply.' Thus far, however, only Red Dye No. 3 has been banned and this occurred under the Biden administration. Manufacturers have until Jan. 2027 to remove this specific dye from their products. The HHS budget for 2026 proposes $14 billion in discretionary funding for programs that aim to reverse what Secretary Kennedy calls the 'chronic disease epidemic,' as it consolidates entities housed under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into the Administration for a Healthy America, namely the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. AHA is being called the 'primary federal agency committed to transforming the health of all Americans by addressing the root causes of chronic disease, promoting preventive care, advancing mental health and substance use services, and increasing access to a healthy environment and foods.' But only $2 million is being allocated to nutrition, an amount experts suggest is inadequate. They believe the figure should be doubled to at least $4 billion to achieve the objectives laid out by Secretary Kennedy. And despite the MAHA report raising concerns about American agricultural products, other Trump cabinet officials insist that the nation's food supply is safe. Differences in views on glyphosate, a commonly used chemical sprayed on crops, illustrate the disconnect. Glyphosate is cited in the report as a major contributor in the rise of chronic disease. It is a substance that may cause serious health problems, including cancer. But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, doesn't want to further regulate glyphosate. On food safety generally, Kennedy appears to be at odds with director Zeldin's decisions to deregulate pesticides. The MAHA report makes dozens of references to dietary guidelines and food standards in Europe that prohibit the use of certain pesticides in agriculture. However, Zeldin has promised no more regulations, arguing that European-style mandates would stifle economic growth. Furthermore, Congress and the Trump administration back cuts to assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that would seem to undermine efforts to improve people's access to food, whether of high or low quality. Food and diet researchers are also criticizing the direction the National Institutes of Health are going in possibly stifling debate regarding the merits and demerits of different foods. According to STAT News, more than 70 top U.S. nutrition scientists signed a letter last month demanding that NIH director Jay Bhattacharya address alleged censorship at the agency, writing that their colleagues 'need the freedom to present their findings in scientific meetings without political oversight, and to author and co-author freely in the scientific literature.' The letter is in part a response to censorship allegations from former top NIH nutrition scientist Kevin Hall, whose research on ultra-processed foods was cut short when he resigned in April, complaining of interference from his superiors. The MAHA Commission report attributes adverse health effects to nutrient depletion owing to 'ultra-processed grains, sugars, and fats,' as well as intake of more calories and inclusion of food additives. There is empirical support for this. For example, a 2024 review of the evidence, which included dozens of analyses, linked 'higher consumption of ultra-processed foods to poor cardiometabolic health, increasing the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease.' At the same time, the scientific evidence for how ultra-processed foods affect our health isn't unequivocal. In fact, according to a story by the New Scientist covering a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, scientists don't agree that simply opting for less processed foods guarantees a healthy diet. Additionally, former Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations from 2015 to 2023, Susan Mayne, says the report omits other well-accepted drivers of chronic disease, such as high intake of sodium and saturated fat. Instead, it criticizes the current set of U.S. dietary guidelines for 'problematic reductionist recommendations' in reference to advice to 'reduce saturated fat' or 'limit sodium.' But in the case of sodium, this seems to ignore decades of research showing that sodium is over-consumed in the U.S., contributing to chronic disease. There are other conspicuous apparent oversights regarding HHS policy. For instance, STAT News notes that the MAHA Commission report includes no mentions of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa or binge-eating. Such eating disorders have been on the rise for decades, especially among young women and girls. Evidently, research on these eating disorders is being disproportionately affected by ongoing federal grant terminations, according to experts in the field. Also, Reuters reports that despite rising levels of alcoholism, which is conducive to a myriad of chronic diseases, revisions to the U.S. dietary guidelines under RFK Jr. may loosen federal guidance on alcohol consumption that currently advises no more than one to two daily drinks.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
11 sneaky ultra-processed foods you should avoid if you're over 50, according to doctor
The health risks associated with ultra-processed foods have been getting a lot of attention recently. Not only have they been associated with higher risk of obesity and several other chronic conditions, but new research is shedding even more light on the negative impact they can have on your health. What's more is that Canadians are consuming more ultra-processed foods than ever, with these products making up 43.4 percent of the daily energy intake of adults 20 and older, according to a recent study by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. You may also be surprised to learn that ultra-processed foods also include some surprising items labelled as health foods — it's not just junk food like candy and chips. This article is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Contact a qualified medical professional before engaging in any physical activity, or making any changes to your diet, medication or lifestyle. Of course, risks associated with ultra-processed foods aren't limited to one age group, body type or socioeconomic demographic. But if you're over 50, you may want to be especially mindful of how much of these all-too-common staples you consume. Read on for more information on the risks — and which foods to avoid on your next grocery run. 'It's important to avoid ultra-processed foods, as there is mounting evidence that they negatively impact the diversity of bacteria in your gut,' said Dr. Michael Schopis, MD, a gastroenterologist at Manhattan Gastroenterology in New York. 'Studies suggest that ultra-processed foods may increase the growth of pro-inflammatory organisms and decrease the growth of protective bacteria in the intestine. Moreover, some studies suggest that ultra-processed foods may impair intestinal barrier function which may ultimately lead to an inflammatory state.' Inflammation isn't all bad — it's your body's response to injury, disease and infection-causing bacteria and viruses, and it aids in healing. But when inflammation persists, it can cause numerous health issues. Aging leads to persistent inflammation, which has been dubbed 'inflammaging." This chronic, low-grade inflammation can impact brain health and lead to frailty. Researchers believe it's also the reason our risk of certain diseases increases with age, including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and heart disease. To boot, ultra-processed foods are now known to be responsible for more than a third of heart and stroke deaths in Canada. 'Ultra-processed foods can sometimes be difficult to identify,' says Schopis. 'The simplest way of knowing what's ultra-processed is by reading the nutritional label and looking for the presence of cosmetic or preservative additives that either improve the taste of the foods or extend its shelf-life.' Common ultra-processed ingredients to look for are things like: Additive colours Flavour enhancers Emulsifiers Artificial sweeteners A good rule of thumb is to look for the inclusion of ingredients you don't find in your kitchen. While all processed foods contain additives like these, ultra-processed foods typically contain many more added ingredients. 'Typical foods that fall into this category are sugar-sweetened beverages — think energy drinks or sodas, candies, savoury or sweet packaged snacks — think flavoured chips or cookies, instant noodles, ready-to-heat pizzas or pastas or processed meats,' says Schopis. These are typically considered the worst ultra-processed foods because they tend to be highest in sugar, sodium and saturated fats which can raise cholesterol and lead to obesity. But, if you're over 50, there are several seemingly-healthy staples to also be aware of, including those found in the health food aisle. Research shows that many older adults consume ultra-processed foods regularly for several reasons, ranging from their affordability and convenience, to simply being foods that they've consumed throughout their lives. And, with many Canadians over 50 reporting that they actively try to eat healthy, some may be turning to ultra-processed foods labelled as being natural, healthy or organic without even realizing it. Keep in mind that while the original ingredients in a product may well be natural or organic, the process by which the food was made is what makes it ultra-processed, and in turn, less healthy. Packaged breads Margarines and spreads Cereals Fruit-flavoured yogurt Ready-to-eat meat, seafood and poultry products Plant-based meat Protein bars Protein and energy shakes Meal replacement shakes and powders Instant soups (powdered and packaged) Boxed pasta Availability and affordability may make it difficult to completely avoid ultra-processed food — and some ultra-processed foods are fortified with important vitamins and minerals, like vitamin D and iron, which are crucial for good health. And, let's face it, some of these are just so darn tasty that you can't imagine saying goodbye to them forever. If you're looking to cut back, here are some ways to help you eat better and cut back on ultra-processed foods: Read nutritional labels and avoid foods with lots of additives Limit ultra-processed foods to those with a higher nutritional value Look for healthier substitutes, like plain yogurt over flavoured options Cook yourself more often using whole foods as much as possible
The Guardian
21-06-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Key RFK Jr advisers stand to profit from a new federal health initiative
Federal health officials are seeking to launch a 'bold, edgy' public service campaign to warn Americans of the dangers of ultra-processed foods in social media, transit ads, billboards and even text messages. And they potentially stand to profit off the results. Ultra-processed foods are a fixation for the US health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine skeptic who believes the US industrialized food supply is a 'primary culprit' behind many chronic diseases. 'We need to fix our food supply. And that's the number one thing,' Kennedy said at his confirmation hearing. Bringing healthier foods to Americans has proved to be one of the most resonant issues of Kennedy's 'Make America healthy again' (Maha) campaign – and arguably the only one that Democrats and Republicans agree on in principle. Kennedy has spent most of his tenure as health secretary dismantling key components of US vaccine infrastructure, instituting mass firings and defunding chronic disease prevention programs, such as for tobacco use. The secretary has been less successful in reigning in food makers. Food advocates have described voluntary changes between the government and manufacturers 'disappointing'. Kennedy was criticized by congressional Republicans for targeting agricultural pesticides in the 'Maha' report before it was even released – showing the limits of Republicans appetite for regulation, then the report itself was riddled with errors, likely generated by AI. 'The campaign's creative content will turn heads, create viral moments on social media, and – above all else – inspire Americans to take back their health through eating real food,' said a document published by the federal government that described the campaign. The campaign is expected to cost between $10m to $20m, according to documents. Anyone seeking to apply for the award will have a quick turnaround – the deadline is 26 June. 'The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes,' it continued. The new public relations campaign also highlights the Trump administration's unconventional approach to hiring – including its reliance on special government employees. A key adviser to Kennedy, Calley Means, could directly benefit from one of the campaign's stated aims: popularizing 'technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your own health'. Calley Means is a senior Kennedy adviser, and was hired as a special government employee to focus on food policy, according to Bloomberg. He founded a company that helps Americans get such wearable devices reimbursed tax-free through health savings accounts. Casey Means is Calley's sister. She also runs a healthcare start-up, although hers sells wearable devices such as continuous glucose monitors. She is Kennedy's nominee for US surgeon general, and a healthcare entrepreneur whose business sells continuous glucose monitors – one such wearable device. Calley Means's company also works with Casey's company. Due to Calley Means's status as a special employee, he has not been forced to divest from his private business interests – a situation that has already resulted in an ethics complaint. Consumer advocates, such as the non-profit group Public Citizen, had warned such hiring practices could cause conflicts of interest. HHS did not respond to a request for comment about Calley Means's private business interests, or his role in crafting the publicity campaign. Although the publicity campaign focuses on the ultra-processed foods connection to diabetes, at least one high profile nutritionist was queasy about its focus. 'The ultra-processed foods – some of those include breakfast cereals that are ultra-processed because they are fortified with vitamins,' said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'Those are good if they're whole grain breakfast cereals and whole grain breads,' he said. Ultra-processed foods are generally recognized as sodas, salty snacks and frozen meals engineered to be shelf-stable, convenient and inexpensive. Such foods are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes – or insulin resistance. The mechanism by which such foods could increase risk of diabetes is unknown, a problem that extends in part from the 'heterogeneous category' of foods that the ultra-processed category encompasses. The publicity campaign proposal does not venture into defining the category, even as Kennedy has fixated on it 'poisoning the American people'. 'When you say processed foods you don't envision a Coke in your brain, and that's the biggest problem,' said Willett, who added that most public service campaigns are carefully crafted and tested for effectiveness.
