What the rise of ultra-processed foods means for our health and society

So in Mexico and Brazil, Columbia, Chile, in about a decade, particularly obesity went from being pretty much unheard of to being the dominant public health problem. And so some research team in Brazil led by a guy called Carlos Monteiro looked at the products that were causing harm, these new industrially produced products, and tried to create a definition that would wrap up all the harmful products.

And so it is a description really of an industrialized, and I hate to say this on an American program, it is an American diet.

CHAKRABARTI: You can say that. You can.

VAN TULLEKEN: I hate to say that. Because America’s brought so many wonderful things into the world. I don’t want to, I’m not anti-American. And the food system comes with a lot of benefits, but it is the American diet, that when it is exported everywhere, we see that is the food that immediately starts causing, certainly weight gain, but now we have very good evidence about it.

So we, the definition, the team came up with it in 2009, 2010. And now we have 13, 14 years of really good research on this category of food. And so we’ve done epidemiological research, we’ve done the laboratory research, and we’ve done clinical trials. And we have now very good robust data that this is the source of a huge number of negative health outcomes.

In fact, we’d say what happened between 2010, 2019 is poor diet overtook tobacco as the leading cause of early death on planet earth. And so what we’re now pretty sure of is that when we say poor diet, what we mean is a diet high in industrially processed or ultra-processed foods. And the formal definition is that it doesn’t matter how you describe it, you could describe these as typical American foods, or you could say it’s anything wrapped in plastic with a health claim on it. That would also be UPF.

Part II

CHAKRABARTI: Sometimes we put out the word of a future show to listeners and ask for their comment, and we really touch a nerve on sometimes and this ultra-processed food was one of them. Because we got a ton of early feedback from listeners. So here’s a couple of things.

This is Thomas who lives in Vermont, and he tells us he does everything he can to try to avoid, I’ll call them food UPFs from now on, because he’s concerned about what goes into his body. So he looks at all the ingredients on the foods that he buys at the grocery store.

THOMAS: It’s chemicals, additives, gums, all kinds of stuff that our body doesn’t know what to do with it.

I personally follow the advice when I go to the grocery store and I look at packaging and ingredients, which everybody should do. I always say if it’s not in your kitchen, if you can’t pronounce it, don’t pick it up. It’s not good for you.

CHAKRABARTI: So that’s Thomas in Vermont. And here is a really good question from Ted in Rhode Island.

TED: I’m a 62-year-old guy status post bariatric surgery gastric bypass. And I’ve been seeing. A lot of non-scientific, non medical articles in the press. My interest is, what are the short- and long-term impacts of ultra-processed foods? What are they, and how do you determine what’s ultra-processed and processed on the food shelves?

CHAKRABARTI: Okay, Ted. So we’re going to actually take the second part of your question first here, and then we’ll talk about the impacts. Dr. van Tulleken, you described that, broadly speaking, we can define ultra-processed foods as anything that’s wrapped in plastic and has ingredients in it that are not found in a domestic kitchen.

Name some of those ingredients.

VAN TULLEKEN: There are, in the United States, around 10,000 different food additives, and even naming the individual categories would take us well over the rest of the next hour. So there are humectants, there are foaming agents, there are anti foaming agents, there are bulking agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, non-nutritive sweeteners, modified starches, the gums, guar gums, xantham gum, all of these additives serve slightly different functions.

The emulsifiers are a nearly universal category. You’ll find them in almost everything. And emulsifiers are found in nature. Your body is full of natural emulsifiers. They’re simply molecules that bind fat and water. So egg yolk, when we make a mayonnaise, binds the fat to the vinegar and makes it creamy.

Milk is an emulsion. Cream is an emulsion. It’s the synthetic or modified emulsifiers that we find in ultra-processed food that seem to have quite a wide range of effects. So the first thing is they are a proxy for ultra-processing, which is a whole suite of different processes that food is put through.

So if something has an emulsifier in it, it will also have lots of other things done to it that may cause you harm. But the emulsifiers are part of the category of foods and the expert from Dana Faber that you quoted spoke to this. They seem to affect the microbiome. So they act as detergents.

Detergents, of course, are emulsifiers. They bind fat to water, and that’s how you wash your dishes. And they scrub out the friendly bugs from the gut and thin the mucus layer protecting the gut. And so we think that doesn’t just affect your immune system, it also causes the gut to start leaking. Nonnutritive sweeteners, modified starches, maltodextrin, all do the same thing.

They all start to promote the growth of bugs that shouldn’t be there, reduce the populations of healthy bugs, and generally promote gut inflammation. And one of the things we’re seeing that’s really remarkable and striking is these rising gastrointestinal cancers. And it may be to do with lack of immune regulation in the gut.

It may be to do with fecal leakage into the bloodstream, drains to the liver. And so we think this may be causing the increased rates of liver and gastrointestinal cancers. So going through that long list of additives is, would be exhausting, but the sort of two things to know are the additives, some of them we know are harmful, but the main thing is they are signifiers of food that has been developed in a very particular way.

So this is food made by a very small number of transnational food corporations. For my book, I spoke to huge numbers of people in the food industry, and everyone confirmed the same thing. When the food is made, it’s put through focus groups.

So the project is you have formulation A of your high fiber cereal you were talking about earlier, and formulation B. The box that people eat quicker in the focus group. That is the box that goes to market. So if you like, there are loads of dials on all these boxes of food. All of which can be tweaked, whether it’s the salt, sugar, fat ratio, the emulsification content, the different stabilizers, and all of them are dialed up to 11 to make us unable to stop eating the food.

So what results from the system of production is an addictive product.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. But there’s also some things that those ingredients do that seemed to me beneficial. For example, you talk about how there’s slime in ice cream but that some of the added, first of all, I’ll get you to explain what that is. But then, but that some of the additives that go into ice cream make it more tolerant for transportation, right?

So maybe the refrigeration trucks don’t have to be as cold, now that saves a little energy, it saves a lot of money, makes the ice cream cheaper. Those actually don’t seem like entirely terrible things. Plus, ice cream is great.

VAN TULLEKEN: Well, that’s only true if you’re running an ice cream company. And one of the, most of my research now, so I’m an infectious diseases physician, and that made me interested in how companies affect people with low incomes.

And now most of my research focuses on economics. And what we see is our food system is extremely financialized. So all the companies are owned by institutional investors and every decision that’s made in the food system, the incentives are all to do with money and finance. And we can show this very easily, using economic indicators.

And so what we end up with, from the perspective of people within the food companies, is they need to hammer down the cost of production and you can’t really modify energy. It’s hard to change some ingredients, but the thing you can do is replace real ingredients with synthetic ingredients. If you have dairy fat, you’ve got to feed a cow, milk a cow, process it, get the butter out.

If you can grow, if you can cut down some rainforest and grow oil palm monoculture, that fat is, depending on the market commodity price, three to six times cheaper. So it’s about, if you have eggs carry risks of salmonella, you need to clean them. You need to sterilize them. If you can replace them with a synthetic emulsifier in your ice cream, then that’s what you should do.

So there is a purpose to all these ingredients, but it is always about reducing the cost of production of the food. And some of that cost is definitely passed on to the consumer.

CHAKRABARTI: So I want to just actually stick with ice cream for another second here. Since I mentioned slime, you want to clarify that?

VAN TULLEKEN: Xanthan gum is the thing that lots of people are going to be familiar with. And xanthan gum is in loads of things. Because the way I would understand, it’s a bacterial exudate. So bacteria need to cling to things. And so they secrete slimes in order to cling to surfaces. So if you’re ever cleaning out your dishwasher and you get that filter out from the bottom, it’s covered in a sort of coating of goo.

That’s a bacterial biofilm slime. And xanthan gum is something like that. So, it’s used to replace gluten in bread. It’s used to thicken ice cream. And we don’t think, we haven’t studied it enough to know if it is directly harmful. There is early research that it does modify the friendly bugs in the gut.

So I use it in the book, when I’m writing the book, because actually in the book, I don’t say to stop eating this food. I give no advice in the book whatsoever, mainly because for many people listening right now, they will be unable to stop eating.

CHAKRABARTI: That’s right.

VAN TULLEKEN: Because this is the only affordable available food for people.

So when I talk about xanthan gum as a bacterial slime, I’m using a bit of artifice. Because what I want to do is discussed my reader. So there is a project running throughout the book. I’ve written it in the same way as that book called “The easy way to quit smoking,” which the project I invite the reader to participate in is to keep eating this food while you read, keep learning about it.

And by the end of the book, you’ll probably stop being able to eat it. But I never tell anyone how to eat because firstly, it’s none of my business. I think people should eat what they want. No one has an obligation to be healthy.

But secondly, the food system is such that for particularly in the United States, people living with disadvantage, which is broadly people of color, indigenous, people without addresses, migrant populations, immigrant populations, they are people who are essentially forced to eat food that we are very sure is driving pandemics of cancer, metabolic disease, inflammatory disease.

CHAKRABARTI: So I have to cut in here because I’ve got, you just said something that I think maybe we should have a full show on later about. No one has the obligation to be healthy. I would say that’s quite a morally debatable point. Because of the economic and social costs of the exact kinds of increases in the diseases that you’re talking about.

Maybe we do, if not have an individual obligation to be healthy, we have a societal one to, societal obligation to help people be healthier. I’m going to set that aside for a moment here, because I do want to talk about the fact that you made an experiment of yourself in terms of what may happen when people eat high amounts of ultra processed food.

So can you tell us a little bit about what the experiment was and why you undertook it? And then I want to navigate through your experiences. (LAUGHS)

VAN TULLEKEN: Through my, you may not want to, by the time we’ve discussed all the health effects, but I don’t know what time this is going out. So I did this, actually, it wasn’t just Supersize Me. I did this as a pilot study. I was the first patient in a pilot study to gather data for a much larger study that I’m now conducting at the hospital I now work with colleagues. So I went on a typical diet for a UK teenager. I ate 80% of my calories from ultra-processed food for a month.

And that’s the diet that one in five people in the UK and approximately one in five people in the U. S. This is a normal American diet.

CHAKRABARTI: 80% ultra-processed for one month, you said.

VAN TULLEKEN: And I wasn’t force feeding myself. I was just eating what I felt like when I wanted, which is what I normally do.

And several things happened.

CHAKRABARTI: So what did you eat? Give me some examples.

VAN TULLEKEN: Very normal food. So for breakfast, I would have, we heard the ad for Kellogg’s Frosties. I would frequently have a breakfast cereal like that, pressed cornflakes, puffed rice flavored with chocolate covered in sugar, maltodextrin, emulsified and added malt flavor.

So that would be a normal breakfast, or I’d have emulsified bread. So almost all of the bread that you buy in the supermarket is ultra-processed. It all contains an emulsifier called datum, which is diacetyl tartaric acid ester of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids. And that’s partly why our supermarket bread in the States and in the UK is, it’s a foam, really, it’s an emulsified foam and it’s creamy and it melts in your mouth and it’s extremely soft compared to anyone who’s, you probably have a lot of sourdough aficionados being in NPR, but people eating rye bread, there’s a much more robust bread. So that’d be. For lunch, I had a very typical British lunch of a sandwich.

Any sandwich you buy in the shop is made with that emulsified bread. It will have mayonnaise with emulsifiers, maltodextrin, and it will have flavorings and other condiments, a pack of crunchy stuff always flavored full of stabilizers and probably flavor enhancers that give things that umami taste.

And then a can of fizzy pop, often a kind of diet fizzy pop actually, because I wasn’t trying to make myself sick.

CHAKRABARTI: What about the meats in the sandwich?

VAN TULLEKEN: Meat of course is not necessarily ultra-processed. Even cheap meat is just actually whole food that you cook.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay.

VAN TULLEKEN: Even processed food. So if you buy traditional ham that’s just a processed food.

And there’s lots of, humans have been eating ham for centuries. Most of the meat in the sandwiches is ultra-processed in the sense that it’s covered in a coating or has flavorings on it. Flavoring enhancers. It’s often colored, any kind of ultra-processed meat, lots of the sliced sausages will be ultra-processed.

CHAKRABARTI: What about the people often are concerned about the nitrates and preservatives in meats?

VAN TULLEKEN: So there are known health outcomes of those, some of the nitrates and nitrites, although you could say they have been used in food traditionally for quite a long time. They don’t necessarily meet the definition of ultra-processed food, but broadly processed meats are typically ultra-processed.

They’ll have dextrose in them. They’ll have flavor enhancers. They’ll often have flavoring. So that will make them ultra-processed. And then dinner would be, I’d have a frozen meal or some fish fingers, oven chips or oven fries. I guess you’d call them a microwave lasagna. Pretty normal stuff.

So it was, I wasn’t having to eat as often. What was nice is as a man, I was doing this in my early forties. And as a physician with young kids, I had started to eat quite healthily. And so what I was looking forward to on this diet was really going back to the kind of naughty foods of my youth, fried chicken takeouts and lots more burgers.

And so I was really looking forward to this diet. I said, “I’m sorry, Dee, I have to order in tonight.”

CHAKRABARTI: But your 40-year-old body is not the same as your 20-year-old body.

VAN TULLEKEN: It really isn’t. So there were three main effects physically, which was that I put on an enormous amount of weight.

I put on six kilos in a month. So if I’d continued the diet for a year, I would have doubled my body weight, and I wasn’t trying to eat to excess. Then we did brain scans, and whilst I’m only one patient, I did this with colleagues at our National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery. We were doing these very robustly, and we saw enormous changes in my brain, in the connectivity between the habit centers at the back of the brain and the addiction reward centers in the middle.

So it was definitely having significant effects. The final change that was in a way the most alarming is that my hormonal response to a standard meal was dramatically altered. So at the end of the diet, my hunger hormones remain sky high at the end of a big meal. So this is food that’s interfering with our body’s ability to say, “I’m done.”

And we’ve all evolved. We do have a system inside us that controls all kinds of things, our oxygen intake, the way we get rid of carbon dioxide, our salt and water levels. We have a way of managing our intake and expenditure of everything. And this is food that’s hacking our ability to detect the energy coming in.

But the biggest effect was just before the end of the diet, I was organizing some research with a colleague in Brazil, and we were talking about this food, and I kept calling it food. And she kept saying, “It’s not food, Chris, it’s an industrially produced edible substance.” It’s like a tick.

She just kept saying this. The end of the phone call, I ordered fried chicken takeout. I could barely finish it. And we know that with addictions, and I am someone who I would say I have lived with an addiction to these products for a long time. With addictions, you can flick from addiction to disgust very quickly.

They’re very closely related in the brain. And lots of listeners will know this with, you often have it in human relationships. You go from being quite maybe obsessed is a strong word, but you’re deeply committed to an individual and quite quickly, they can become someone you really don’t want to see.

And we see it with cigarettes, drugs of abuse. And this is what happened with me with the food so that the book is really an invitation to people to engage with the food in the hope that I can pass on some of that disgust to them.

Part III

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. van Tulleken, I have to tell you, we’ve got the best, keenest listeners anywhere in public radio.

VAN TULLEKEN: (LAUGHS)

CHAKRABARTI: Because I’ve got a question here from Eric Wilson, who —

VAN TULLEKEN: Can you call me Chris, by the way? Sorry, I’m feeling like —

CHAKRABARTI: You want me to call you Chris?

VAN TULLEKEN: Of course, call me Chris. Sorry, I’m calling you Meghna.

CHAKRABARTI: I have no problem doing that, it’s just the Associated Press style guide says if you have an MD, I have to call you doctor.

VAN TULLEKEN:  (LAUGHS)

CHAKRABARTI: So I have permission from Chris to call him Chris.

No one get mad at me out there. Anyway, so we have this great listener, Eric, who just sent us a message. He was listening keenly at the top when I was describing my breakfast and he said, “I’m guessing that the milk Meghna poured on her cereal was labeled ultra pasteurized.” I’m pretty sure it was. I’m not a raw drink, raw milk drinker.

So does that count as ultra processed?

VAN TULLEKEN: No, very much not. You can drink milk out of the cow, but you risk brucellosis and another of a number of other infectious complications that I know all too well about in my work as an infection doctor. Processing, homogenization pasteurization, these are completely normal things to do to milk.

They don’t change its nutritional quality. So no, those are traditional processes. They’re simple processing and they don’t change milk out of that category of being a whole food.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So thank you for answering that.

VAN TULLEKEN: Good question. Eric.

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah. Yeah. And keen listening. So onward with my celebration of our listeners because when we said that we were going to talk to you last week, we got a very good voicemail from another listener.

Her name is Monica Reinagel, and she’s a licensed nutritionist in Baltimore, Maryland. She also hosts a podcast called the Nutrition Diva. And she wanted to point out to us that just because something is labeled ultra-processed, according to her, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad for you.

MONICA REINAGEL: Ultra-processed foods may, in certain cases, play a very important role in meeting people’s nutritional needs. We might not want to be so quick to just paint the entire category with a broad brush as the problem. There’s a very good study that was just published by Julie Hess. I just had her on my podcast a couple of weeks ago, in which they actually formulated a diet that got 90% of its calories from things considered to be ultra-processed foods and was significantly healthier than the average American diet.

So I think this is a great topic, but I hope that you will look beyond the obvious demonization and get into some of the subtleties and nuances.

CHAKRABARTI: Some of the subtleties and nuances again come between that definition of ultra-processed versus processed. But in order to dig deeper, we actually reached out to a couple of the co-authors of that very study that Monica mentioned.

So one of the authors is Dr. Joanne Slavin. She’s a professor in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota. And she doesn’t think that processed is a bad word when it comes to food.

DR. JOANNE SLAVIN: Processing can help us make it safe, make it convenient and also enhance what we want. I do a lot of work in the whole grain world.

And how do we get whole grains into foods people will actually eat? That is processing.

CHAKRABARTI: Cheerios, for example, she says, are processed to have more whole grains and important nutrients like iron, and most nutritionists consider Cheerios a perfectly healthy food choice. Slavin said in addition to adding nutrients, processing can prolong a foods shelf life.

SLAVIN: As soon as you pick a plant, it starts deteriorating, and so you have to stabilize it and either dry it, a processing effect, you can it, you freeze it. There’s a lot of things you can do to stabilize it, and if we can get them where their shelf stable for a year, what can be better than that? It’s actually got some huge advantages to decreased waste.

CHAKRABARTI: What she means is that making foods more shelf stable can actually help fight climate change. Because food waste causes between 6% and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions and rotting food emits heat trapping methane.

Now Slavin herself happens to own and manage a farm so she produces whole and unprocessed foods. But she also says she enjoys going to the grocery store and restaurants where other people do that processing for her.

Now for that study she co-authored, the one that had been mentioned by our listener, Slavin says her research group was able to assemble a food menu with more than 90% ultra-processed foods that closely aligned with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s dietary guidelines for Americans. Interesting. Maybe these weren’t exactly ultra-processed. Because she said the menu included things like frozen vegetables, canned beans, low fat yogurt, and gluten free pasta. It also fell short in a couple of places. She says it was a little low in vitamins D and E.

However, for the most part:

SLAVIN: They got really high scores. And a lot of that is the ultra-processed foods, they’ve gone out of their way to make sure they provide nutrients and they’re lower in sodium and higher in old grains. So it didn’t get a home run, but it got like a triple. It did really well.

And I think that should help consumers know that just avoiding ultra-processed foods will not potentially improve their diet at all. It’ll make it more expensive. And there really is no mechanism that processing is got a biological mechanism for making us less healthy. Now, it’s not that simple.

CHAKRABARTI: So that was Dr. Joanne Slavin, professor in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota. So Chris, I have to say I’m confused all over again. I thought I had a handle on the definitional difference between processed and ultra-processed. But we just heard Dr. Slavin include things like frozen vegetables, canned beans in the ultra-processed category.

VAN TULLEKEN: Yeah. What I’m hearing from Dr. Slavin is something that I, because I’m communicating a lot about this on behalf of World Health Organization, of UNICEF, this is a message we often get back, and it’s a message pushed by the food industry, saying that processing is harmless, it’s important, all of which, of course, I completely agree with.

Ultra-processing is entirely different to processing. And so the conflation of these two categories is something that the industry is doing. Now, what’s interesting is the paper that you cited about the development of a diet of ultra-processed food that met U.S. nutritional guidelines is a paper that’s quite well known to me.

Now, if you go to the conflicts of interest section of this paper, you’ll see that a number of the authors work for the food industry. And one of the authors is director of the Nutrition Science and Research for the Soy Nutrition Institute. Now the Soy Nutrition Institute is funded by soybean farmers via the Soybean National Checkoff Program.

So the soy industry is one of the main feeders to ultra-processed foods. The logic of ultra-processed food is you take commodity crops. Corn, rice, soy, wheat, a small number of animals, pigs, cows, and chickens, and you reduce those commodity crops to their, almost their molecular components. Soy protein isolate, it’s soy oils, modified starches from the corn, high fructose corn syrup.

And then you can reassemble these nearly infinite shelf-life powders and pastes into anything you want. So I’m afraid that the messaging where we’re saying, “Oh, ultra-processing is the same as processing and processing is fine.” That is absolutely standard fare from the food industry. And what’s a lot of my work now is trying to figure out how to convey to people that when we talk to scientists, when you hear scientists on the radio, or you read about scientists in the press, you have to ask who is paying for them, who’s paying for their research and who’s paying for the institution that they work for.

And then in the case of that paper, when you actually look at what the paper claimed to do, it wasn’t testing, it wasn’t testing the health effects of an ultra-processed diet. Now we, what it was doing is saying, “Can we make an ultra-processed diet that meets U.S. dietary guidelines?” That may well be done, but what we have is, what I have on my side is independent research conducted at the world’s leading institutions on now millions of patients, all of it, prospective epidemiological data and the independent science is very clear.

And so this isn’t just my opinion, my book cites 400 different papers. And I am aligned with the senior nutrition team at UNICEF and the world health organization, the world obesity federation, and big public health bodies, governmental bodies in France, Israel, Canada.

So it’s not like I’m not another media doctor pushing a diet solution. I’m drawing together a huge body of independent research. The only pushback, and I really believe this, the only significant pushback is papers in the academic literature, is papers like that, that have significant food industry funding. And what they always do is critique the definition.

They never critique the science. So you cannot go to the academic literature and find any paper that says these are the flaws in the epidemiology. What you find is people going, “Oh, these are the flaws in the definition.” Or, “They deliberately make things confusing.” So the food industry is doing what the tobacco industry did extremely skillfully, which is creating doubt, creating confusion.

In fact, we know that listeners, your listeners have got this concept extremely skillfully. They’re just like, “Yeah, if it doesn’t, if it’s not in my kitchen, it’s probably not very good for me.” We know that the public find the definition of weird additives in their food being harmful.

We know they find that useful, easy to understand. The hard thing is switching away from it.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. I need to do my homework more thoroughly, more often. No, but Chris I want to actually just, I pulled up the paper to read it in more detail as you were describing the conflicts of interest.

So I want to be fully transparent with listeners here. First of all, the paper, as per usual identifies the funding for the project. It says the work was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. It’s the title of the paper is “Dietary Guidelines Meet NOVA: Developing a Menu for a Healthy Dietary Pattern Using Ultra Processed Foods.”

It was published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2023. And then the authors. All of them. Are Julie Hess, who we mentioned before, Madeline Comeau, Shanon Casperson, Joanne Slavin, who you heard from, Guy Johnson, Mark Messina, Susan Raatz, Angela J Scheett, Anne Bodensteiner and Daniel Palmer.

And in the conflicts of interest, I just want to just let listeners know, you’re not making this up, Chris.

VAN TULLEKEN: (LAUGHS)

CHAKRABARTI: It says right here that Michael, no, sorry, Mark Messina serves as the Director of Nutrition Science and Research for the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, which receives funding from soybean farmers by the Soybean National Checkoff Program and via membership dues from companies involved in the manufacturing or selling of soy ingredients.

And then it says Guy Johnson serves as Senior Advisor to the McCormick Science Institute. Joanne Slavin serves on the advisory consultant boards for Simply Good Foods Quality Carbohydrates Coalition and the Sustainable Nutrition Scientific Board. So that’s directly on the paper there. Your point is very well taken.

Gosh, we could spend a lot of time on conflicts of interest in science, but I do feel compelled to move on to one more thing, Chris, because.

VAN TULLEKEN: I just want to leave your listeners knowing that when they hear this pushback, it is in, I’m in the UK. I get a deluge of this every day where, newspapers come out with a headline.

And this happened yesterday in the UK. There was a huge headline here. Ultra-processed foods are fine, top UK officials, the UK officials that were cited, one of them was on the board of one of the biggest food companies in the world. Another one had been working for 15 years at the seat as a senior scientist at Nestle.

The institution wasn’t a UK official body. The institution itself was funded by Unilever and Procter and Gamble and Coca Cola. The industry are controlling the message, and I know I sound like a tinfoil hat, but really, they are acting as the tobacco industry, and we need to be very aware.

CHAKRABARTI: The way I see it is that the funding helps determine what questions are being asked, right?

VAN TULLEKEN: Exactly.

CHAKRABARTI: The science that goes into answering that question is perfectly sound, but it’s the question itself that’s driving the inquiry. And maybe we ought to be asking different sets of questions, but you can’t if you don’t get funding for it.

So that’s how I see it. But this takes us to the sort of global food system and capitalism as a whole. So there’s one more question, which came from Susan Johnson of Tower, Minnesota, and she was asking us about what happens even before the processing takes place. Here’s what she said.

SUSAN JOHNSON: I’m specifically interested in the big four companies.

Like Monsanto, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and others who have ultimate control over the seeds used to grow the plants from which our food is made, and this is food that obviously is harmful to us.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay, so Chris, we only have about two and a half minutes left, and I just want to tell listeners that for sure one of the messages in Chris’s book, which you ought to read, is, “Do what you can to try and eat less ultra-processed foods.”

It’s going to be harder for some than others due to food availability and cost. But I wanted to end with Susan’s question, Chris, because it gets us again to the fact that the entire food system in many countries and increasingly, countries that are developing their economies, is built around these kinds of foods from the top down, right?

So what do we do when companies like Monsanto and others have so much control over even just the ingredients that are going into these things.

AN TULLEKEN: It’s such a good point. There’s an ABCD group that make around 90% of global grains. So this is Archer Daniels Midland, Bungie, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus.

And these four companies’ control, they’re the kind of primary producers. Around 75% of all the calories eaten on earth are made by six companies. And then there are about 15 companies that do all the processing. And they’re the ones we know. There’s Coke, Nestle, Dannon, Pepsi, Lay, Kraft Heinz.

These are companies, each one of them has the same amount of revenue as a medium sized country in GDP. Their annual marketing budgets dwarf the entire annual budget of the World Health Organization, for example, by about five times. So this is a huge problem. And I think my project at the moment, and there are other people doing great work in this space.

Bloomberg is doing amazing work. Is to frame the food companies as a tobacco industry. The source of optimism is to go, “We have previously regulated a global industry that was causing a pandemic of terrible harm.” And there is a template. But it’s going to take lawsuits, it’s going to take grassroots activism, and it’s going to require everyone to start seeing the food companies, not as these friendly cartoon mascot companies that are just feeding the world with nutritious whole foods, but seeing them as enormous transnational corporations that don’t pay another enough tax and a fundamentally extractive.

They need regulation. And for Republicans out there who feel that this is nanny state and creeping socialism, I would say I’m sympathetic that the moment our lives are controlled by unelected corporations, and we should at least have the corporations controlled by elected officials.