The Dr. Hyman Show - Ultra-Processed People: How Big Food Is Rewiring Our Brains | Chris Van Tulleken

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Ultra-processed food is the new cigarette—and it's fueling a global health crisis hiding in plain sight. In today’s episode, I’m joined by Dr. Chris van Tulleken—infectious disease physician, BBC broadcaster, and author of Ultra-Processed People—to expose the truth behind ultra-processed foods and the industries driving their consumption. To find out what this food is really doing to us, Dr. van Tulleken became the first subject in a groundbreaking clinical trial—eating 80% of his calories from ultra-processed food for a full month. We unpack what makes ultra-processed food fundamentally different from real food—even when the ingredients look similar, and why its impact on your brain, metabolism, and long-term health is far worse than anyone thought… You’ll learn: How ultra-processed food hijacks your brain’s reward system The science behind food addiction and satiety hormones Why food labels and front-of-package claims are designed to mislead you What the latest data says about UPFs and 32 chronic diseases The global policy movements and lawsuits now underway to fight back This episode is part science, part exposé, and a wake-up call for anyone who thinks food is just about calories and willpower. If you care about your health, your kids, or the future of our food system, you need to hear this. https://linktr.ee/ultraprocessedpeople View Show Notes From This Episode Get Free Weekly Health Tips from Dr. Hyman https://drhyman.com/pages/picks?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Sign Up for Dr. Hyman’s Weekly Longevity Journal https://drhyman.com/pages/longevity?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast

Coming up on this episode of the Dr. Hyman show the ultra processing which includes the marketing the coloring the texture effects the physical Processing thermal chemical processing that is the stuff that allows you to eat so much of the sugar salt and fat In functional medicine we always start with the gut It's at the core of nearly every aspect of health, from digestion and immune function to brain and skin health. Your gut microbiome regulates inflammation, absorbs nutrients, and maintains the integrity of your gut barrier. That's why I take and recommend Seeds DS01 Daily Symbiotic,

a next level probiotic designed to go beyond digestion. With 24 clinically studied probiotic strains and a pomegranate-based prebiotic, Seeds DS01 supports gut immune function, gut barrier integrity, and even heart health through the gut-liver axis. But here's what's really exciting. Research now shows that gut health directly impacts skin health through the gut-skin axis.

SEADS DS01 contains targeted strains clinically validated to support clear, hydrated skin from within. As a member of SEADS' clinical board, I've seen the science behind their formulations. And new research shows SEED's DS-01 supports short-chain fatty acid production, which is key for gut barrier function, immune health, and healthy aging. If you're ready to optimize your gut health,

SEED is offering my community 25% off your first month. Just head to seed.com slash Hyman and use code 25-hyman at checkout. That's seed.com slash Hyman with code 25-hyman for 25% off your first month of seeds DS01. Did you know there's a newly discovered essential nutrient that could be the missing piece to your long-term health? It's called C15 and it's changing the way we think about aging. C15 is a science-backed healthy fat found in whole dairy and it's been shown to strengthen cells, support metabolism, and fight inflammation, key factors in preventing diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. But here's the

problem. Most of us aren't getting enough, especially if you avoid dairy like I do. That's where fatty 15 comes in. It's the first and only supplement to deliver pure, vegan-friendly C15 in a simple daily dose. Research shows that this essential fat works at the cellular level, helping to repair and restore your body from the inside out, in ways that even Omega 3S can't do. Plus, studies have linked C15 to improve sleep, better energy, and even a longer lifespan. It's a small change that can make a big impact on your health and longevity. Want to give your body the essential fat it needs to thrive? Head to fatty15.com slash Hymen and use code HYMAN for 15% off your 90-day subscription starter kit. Now before we jump into today's episode, I'd like to note that while I wish I could help everyone by my personal practice,

there's simply not enough time for me to do this at scale. And that's why I've been busy building several passion projects to help you better understand, well, you. If you're looking for data about your biology, check out Function Health for real-time lab insights. And if you're in need of deepening your knowledge around your health journey, check out my membership community, the Hymen Hive. And if you're looking for curated and trusted supplements and health products for your health journey, visit my website at drhyman.com, or my website store for a summary of my favorite and thoroughly tested products. Welcome to The Dr. Hyman Show. I'm Dr. Mark Heiman and this is a place for conversations that matter. Today our guest is an esteemed physician from the UK, Dr. Chris VanTeleken,

who is a physician, scientist, and broadcaster known for his expertise in public health. And he has written a book, which I think you all will find very interesting, called Ultra Process People. Why do we all eat stuff that Isn't Food and Why We Can't Stop. It's an incredible book that examines the pervasive impact of ultra processed foods on health and wellbeing. It's had a lot of global conversations sparked around this book, around food systems, industry practices and the urgent need for dietary reform. Really pretty, pretty important book.

But more importantly is his work really around changing policy. He's a huge advocate for public health initiatives in the UK that address systemic issues and healthcare nutrition. And he's really gotten into tremendous work on ultra processed foods and publications around that. He's presented at the parliament in the UK. He's won many awards. He has found that ultra processed foods are not like other foods in the

way they affect our biology. Now we can debate what's the definition and so forth, but we all kind of know when we see it. My professor in medical is called the Aunt Millie sign. How do we know it's the Aunt Millie sign? Well, walks like Aunt Millie, talks like Aunt Millie, it must be Aunt Millie. In other words, when you see an ultra-processed food, whether it's a Dorito or a Twinkie or a Cheese Whiz or some weird thing that we don't even know that it's food, we know it's ultra-processed. So we're going to get into why it's an issue, why we should be concerned about it, and what we can do to protect ourselves, and maybe some policy issues that also need to be addressed

when it comes to how do we protect ourselves as a society from the harms of these foods, which by the way, comprise about 60% of adult calories and 67% of kids' calories, and about 73% of everything that's on store shelves today. So this is an important issue. Listen up. Here we go. So Chris, it's amazing to have you on the Dr. Hyman show. I've been wanting to have you on for a long time. We had a chat last year and your work around ultra processed food, your advocacy policy work, your intention to sort of shift consciousness around what's killing us has been tremendous.

And I think, you know, this whole narrative around ultra-processed food is catching steam. It was sort of invisible until recently, and with the Maha movement in America and Bobby Kennedy talking about it, and now Trump talking about it, and it's a thing. And ultra-processed food has become the new cigarette and the target for a lot of potential policy changes and yet there's still some controversy about the definition whether it's the right classification news whether not it's valid and whether we should be focused on other aspects of nutrition like content or other macronutrient ratios to actually explain what ultra-processed food does or doesn't do. And there's a lot of data that you've kind of write about in your book, Ultra-Processed People, which is by the way a great book, everybody should get a copy of it, that kind of outlines a lot of the harms that are done.

And there's even more recent studies that show that ultra-processed food is linked to 32 different kinds of health conditions from heart disease to mental health issues to type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, sleep issues, GI issues, dementia, the list goes on and on. And if that's accurate, and these are observational studies usually mostly which are population studies that don't prove cause and effect, but if that association turns out to be causal, then this is a huge nuclear bomb when it comes to our health. It's kind of the smoking gun of why we're getting sicker and fatter and costing our governments around the world more and more money.

And the question is, for you, is how did you kind of first come to understand that this was an issue? And then I'd love you to share your own personal experience because you actually decided not to just research this issue, not just talk about it and write about it. You did something that I would never do, is you ate ultra-processed food for a month. And it kind of like supersized me,

but kind of a little different, and to try to see what the consequences were. So I'd love you to kind of unpack, you know, first what was it that got you kind of started thinking about this? Because you're an infectious disease doctor, and two, you know, what was the experiment like, and what happened to you?

And we'll start with that, I think, and then dive into the data and the research a little bit more. I think for a start, anyone who's watching the video, firstly, thank you for your wonderful, kind words. That's a lovely introduction. I'm gonna find it hard to live up to it, but I'll do my best.

Anyone who has any doubt about the effects of ultra-processed food need only look at the video feed for the podcast right now and sort of put Mark and my heads next to each other and go, that's four weeks of ultra-processed. I used to look like you. I did it because my clinical work is I treat patients with complex infections at the Hospital for Tropical Disease in London, part of University College London Hospital. But my academic work is food systems and nutrition. And the two are linked because many of my patients are from very low-income countries, where we see that nutrient deficiencies and poor nutrition drives a huge number of

poor health outcomes in the global north and in the global south. So there's an overlap. In fact, I did this experiment. The experiment was we filmed it for a BBC documentary, but the reason we did it, we got ethics approval because I was the first participant. I was the kind of pilot patient, if you like, in a big clinical trial that I think it's the largest randomized controlled trial of ultra processed food versus minimally processed food in free living subjects. And this is in process right now. This is not published. This is in process. So I can't, we, I, now where are we? One of my students is leading it

and I think I can't talk about any of the data, but it will be the largest randomized control trial of UPF and ever done so far in the world in free living individuals. And I think at all, cause it will be the third published randomized control trial of UPF. Because on top of the one you referenced earlier, there was a study that replicated Kevin Hall's work in Japan, and now we will be the third. But it's a slightly different trial design. So I was the first participant to go, what changes in Chris?

What can we measure? How should we kind of design the rest of the experiment? And I'll be honest, kind of like Kevin Hall, who's my now very well-known investigator at the NIH who did the first randomized control trial, I was maybe not skeptical, but it seemed to me that eating what is a normal diet for four weeks would not have any big effects on my health. You know, this is 80% of my calories from ultra processed food for four weeks. This is a diet very typical for an American teenager. This is not a weird diet. So there were kind of three, three big things that happened. I gained weight, a huge amount of weight, six and a half kilos, more than six and a half kilos in four weeks.

That's like 15 pounds, right? In American pounds, yeah. I would have doubled my body weight in a year if I'd kept doing it. And you reference Super Size Me, I was not force feeding myself. So I was just eating to appetite, so long as 80% of my calories came from UPF. So I was, the experience of doing it

was incredibly educational. I was never full, I was never hungry, I was just sort of eating all day, because that's what the food allows you to do. So weight gain is very well evidenced. We then did brain, we did functional MRI scans and looked at connectivity between different parts of the brain. This was sort of the most terrifying bit is we saw a massive increase in connection between that the automatic behaviour bits at the back of the brain in the cerebellum, the habit forming bits and the reward addiction bits in the middle of the brain. These changes were very surprising to all of us. They were very robust

and they persisted for eight weeks after. What were the changes in your brain? We just saw huge amounts of increased connectivity between the habit bits and the reward bits. And it was, the findings are best described as if I had developed a new addiction. All of the fMRI data that you generate from any experiment is hard to be really sure of what's causing what, but we saw very significant changes. And it's notable they were between those two regions.

And bear in mind, I was 43 when I was, it was a few years ago, I was in my mid-40s doing it. You know, what is, it raises the question of these kind of brain changes to children who are eating much more UPF over a more prolonged period of time. And then the other, in a way, the change I was most fascinated by,

well, there were two others, but the physical change was that we measured my hormone response to a normal meal. So this isn't something you can fake. We would, at the beginning of the experiment, I went and I ate a standardized meal and we measured changes in the hormones you see, you have fullness hormones and hunger hormones, they go up down. So you just didn't rely on your subjective feeling about how hungry or full you were, you actually measured the hormones like gray, linen and leptin that actually tell you whether or not you're full or hungry biologically. And what we see is that after eating the same standard meal, at the end of the UPF diet,

my fullness hormones went up much less and my hunger hormones stayed much higher. So at the end of the same meal, so the diet is modifying your body's ability to feel full after any food. And that to me was the most kind of significant thing. It's not just that the food doesn't fill you up, but we think it may be having changes about the whole way you handle food and feel full at the end of meals. Really important to say, I know I'm one participant. That's why we've turned it into a big registered clinical trial funded by our research council and an independent research trust. That's why we're doing it robustly with ethics permission. You know, it's a registered trial. Kevin Hall is one of them.

How many people are in that trial? There are two arms and we're doing it robustly with ethics permission. You know, it's a registered trial. Kevin Hall is one of them. How many people are in that trial? There are two arms and we're doing, how many have we registered? Somewhere over 30, I think. So it's not a huge trial, it's a bit bigger than Kevin's. Yeah, ethically, you know, it's like you're feeding people what you know is hurting them. It's a little tricky, but people are willing to do it.

I think for science, that's amazing. Well, the, of course, so the way the trial is designed is we're actually feeding, we're trying to feed people the healthiest ultra processed food versus a minimally processed diet. So we didn't feel it was ethical for them to just eat any old ultra processed food. I think the jury is in on that evidence. So instead we fed people a diet of ultra processed food that is in line with our national dietary guidance versus a minimally

processed diet are the same thing. So we're trying to investigate the claim that if we make the ultra-processed food as healthy as we can, does it still cause negative health outcomes and especially does it do that in comparison to a minimally processed diet? It's asking the same question in a different and hopefully more ethical way. That's interesting because I think people will say, well, it's not the ultra-processing, it's just the crappy food and it's the high glycemic load or the lack of fiber or the macronutrients that are different and the calories that are different. And if you just ate a high glycemic diet like sugar and white flour that was organic, you'd have the same

problem. I think that there are two questions. First of all, and this has been very kind of hotly contested between people funded by the food industry and more independent scientists is, is the definition of ultra processed food useful or is it just describing food that we already think is unhealthy?

And there are a number of ways to answer that question. I think the way we currently define unhealthy food isn't working in policy terms. Whatever definition you're using, in the US you have very weak definitions of unhealthy food. It's not entirely easy to say how you define unhealthy food in the United States. You have dietary guidance, which is fairly good and bits of it are aligned with international guidance. But there's nothing I can see where you go, these are a set of thresholds and criteria by which we will declare a product to be unhealthy. So for a start when we say is the definition useful, you have to say, well, is it useful in comparison to what? There's no question it's been incredibly

powerful as a research tool. And that's what it was designed for. So the definition is set in stone. It went through a revision, but it's been in stone since 2018. And this is the NOVA classification developed by Monteiro from Brazil, which is now part of their standard dietary guidelines, as well as Canada and other countries that are using this as their metric for food. France, Israel, Belgium, most South and Central American countries, Canada, give advice using the NOVA classification. It's a nine paragraph definition, but the definition, and it broadly describes modern,

prepackaged, pre-prepared American industrial food. I'm sorry, I know this is an American audience. In fact, many transnational corporations make these products, but we're talking about food wrapped in plastic made using additives. Now, the definition was never designed to be used in law to ban something or tax something. So when commentators say, oh, the definition has it's too vague, you can't use it to define a product. Absolutely. And no one, I don't think anyone sensible is saying we should use this as the way of labelling food or taxing it or banning it. But the definition has had research power because it was testing a hypothesis.

It was saying, is there something more to harmful food than simple levels of salt, sugar and fat? And is industrially produced food different to the food you cook at home, even when you adjust for that? And so across now hundreds of research studies, I mean, you know, just a few years ago, there were for any one health outcome, there were maybe 10 to 15 longitudinal studies. We now have really more than a hundred of the kind of prospective studies that we use to link cigarettes to lung cancer. We now have these for ultra processed food and negative health outcomes. And what's the sort of hazard ratio? In other words, with traditional cigarettes, it was like 10 to 20 times an increase in risk of lung cancer. So, an observational study, that's

a slam dunk. If it's over two or three, you usually probably have some causality. And that's two or three hundred percent. And smoking was two thousand percent. And so the question is, how big is the delta on them? Is it like a twenty percent increased risk, a hundred percent, two hundred percent? Almost nothing. I can't think of anything other than maybe asbestos that has that same hazard ratio or odds ratio, however you want to calculate in epidemiological terms, in terms of the magnitude of harm it causes. What we see with UPF, depending on the outcome you look at, is we see increases of, you know, it's times 1.5, times 2, times

3. So big increases in absolute risk. Exactly the kind of risks that we accept for many, many other links between, let's say poor sleep quality and early mortality, for example. So cigarettes, we see enormous deltas, but ultra processed food, it's smaller because diet related disease has many, it's very causally dense,

and there are lots of different ways that dietary patterns affect you. So one of the really important things to say is when we look at those hazard ratios and different studies report this in different ways, almost all of the epidemiological evidence has made adjustments for dietary pattern and for nutrient profile. So if we look at, this was a study, a really well reported study done by one of my PhD students, Sam Dickin. He's now not a PhD student. He's now leading this update trial that I was telling you about.

So Sam did a review of the evidence. This is in 2021 and looked across at whether or not the epidemiological studies controlled for dietary pattern. And they almost all do. Going back to your question about how much ultra-processed food increases your risk of a particular health outcome, one of the things is that in those epidemiological studies, adjustments are made for salt, fat, sugar, fibre and dietary pattern. Now, the logic of doing that is you're trying to go, is processing itself playing a role? And we

have lots and lots of evidence that factors other than those nutrients now are playing a role. It's not simply a deficiency of fruit and vegetables or an excess of salt. But of course, one of the ways that ultra-processed food harms you is because it is incredibly high in salt, saturated fat, you is because it is incredibly high in salt, saturated fat, sugar, energy density, it has a high glycemic index. And so all of those things, when you adjust for them, they dilute essentially the effect. But the overall effect of the food on your body will have all of those different factors coming to bear on your health. So the questions you're asking are really complex epidemiological questions.

And just for those who are not scientists, like who are not scientists, when you do an observational or population study, you know, there's a lot of things called confounding factors or variables where, for example, in the meat studies that I've talked about on the podcast before, it found that meat was harmful, but the people who ate meat in these large trials who are just population studies, they followed people over a long period of time, they get their dietary records and ask them a food frequency questionnaire, which is super unreliable. It turns out that the meat eaters weighed more, smoked more, drank more, didn't eat fruits and vegetables, didn't take their vitamins, didn't exercise, and that was why they had

more heart attacks and disease. It wasn't because of the meat. Another observational study showed that people who shopped at health food stores who were vegans or who ate meat, both had their risk of death reduced in half. So it's a context of what your overdose, your pattern is, your lifestyle is. So I think that's what these various factors are being looked at in these ultra-processed food studies, and they're being controlled for as best you can. But you're saying even if you've taken into account all these variables that could mess up the results,

you still see a signal for ultra-processed food independent of the fact that it's got high sugar, salt, fat, or whatever else has got crap in it. You do, but it's really worth saying, Mark, if someone said to me ultra-processed food is only harmful because really worth saying, Mark, if someone said to me, ultra processed food is only harmful because of its salt, sugar and fat content and its energy density, I would go, you know what, I would buy that as maybe 80% of the harms. If you want to say 100, we can still do business. No problem. So long as you're enthusiastic about improving justice in the food system, improving

the equity of access to food, improving life for disadvantaged populations about regulating corporate power. If you want to do it, like the thing is what you notice is that- We're going to get into regulations of corporate power. That's a good one. But it's the people who say, oh, it's all sugar, salt and fat. When you say, well, okay, let's talk about progressive sugar taxation, you don't hear those same voices calling for that. You don't hear those voices calling for strong

marketing restrictions on foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat. To some extent, the ultra-processed evidence, what it tells us is that food processing is important. I mean, we know that processing affects human physiology. Are we saying that the only way that ultra-processed food harms you is not through sugar, salt and fat? I mean, that would be absurd. What I would say, the simplest way of understanding it is that the ultra-processing, which includes the marketing, the coloring, the texture effects, the physical processing, thermal chemical processing, that is the stuff that enables and allows you to eat so much of the sugar, salt, and fat.

Because no one eats sugar, salt, and fat from the bowl on the table. It's the processing. So it's a different matrix. Yeah, it's a different matrix. Yeah. I mean, I think it's worth stopping for a second and defining what is ultra processed food and the NOVA classification, just briefly, that was developed by Montero in Brazil, that's now used as a standard in many countries

for their dietary guidelines. And I think it's a very useful way to think about things. Because we've been processing food for thousands of years. Making sauerkraut is processing food. Making miso is processing food. Making tofu is processing food. But these are still relatively whole foods. There's also cooking and food added, and things you add to your cooking

at home that sort of makes it more complex. And so the ultra-processing is quite different, and it's an industrial process that breaks down the commodity crops, basically soy, wheat, and corn, into these sort of chemically different molecules that then are reassembled into what looks like food, but technically by the definition of food is not really food. There is no definition in law in a lot of places that's widely agreed of what food is, but I think the idea that it's... Well, there's a Webster's dictionary definition I'm going by. It's basically something that

supports the health and growth of an organism. Right. And should nourish us. Exactly. And the purpose of food should be to support health and growth. And that's not what UPF does. So the definition, you can look it up. It's housed, I've got it in front of me. It's housed on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization website. So this is not a definition agreed on by a single academic group promoting their work. This is a definition that UNICEF use, the World Health Organisation in some context use, the UN use, many governments around the world use, and then research groups at Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, UCL, and

so on. So the NOVA classification divides food into four groups. Group one is these minimally processed foods. Things like an oyster or an apple, obviously you haven't processed it all, you eat them raw. But minimally processed foods includes things like rice. You've husked it or grains. It's gone through a degree of processing. Pastas are minimally processed food. But they're usually single ingredient

and you can eat them whole or you can boil them. Frozen vegetables. I mean canned tomatoes as processed food, which is tomatoes, water and salt. Exactly. So that's minimally processed. Then we have processed foods, which would be canned or bottled things, tins of fish, they're processed, but these are processed using traditional methods and there's not a lot of financial growth in processed food. So we have number one, minimally processed. Nova two is kitchen ingredients.

So things like vinegar, salt, oil, spices, things like this. And then group four, and then so processed foods is mixtures of one and two. That's how it's defined. So you take some broccoli, you pour olive oil all over it and you fry it, you add some salt. Now you've got a group three processed food. So you can make Nova Group 3 foods at home when you bake a cake. That's a Nova Group 3 food. You've combined groups one and two. Nova Group 4 is ultra-processed foods. When you say the

term ultra-processed foods, that is what you mean and you mean a particular definition. So you hear the whole time, oh, the definition isn't agreed on. The definition is agreed on. You may not like it, but it is agreed on. People may not agree about its utility, but it exists. And it's long, but it describes products that are formulations of ingredients that have at least some ingredients that are purely of industrial use, and they contain cosmetic additives. So when you cook at home, you don't use artificial sweeteners, colours, humectants, foaming agents, bulking agents, anti-bulking agents. You just cook with groups one and two. So UPF can only be made by an industry. And importantly, its purpose is profit and it is marketed. So even if you go and buy food coloring at home, you're still not making UPF because your purpose isn't to make profit. For example, I'll just give an example.

Like I think people can go bake a chocolate chip cookie at home from real chocolate, regular flour, butter, eggs, right? But if you go get a Chips Ahoy cookie, the ingredients are unleached and rich flour. Okay, you could say that's okay. Chocolate, but in the chocolate chunks, they have dextrose and soy lecithin, which are not things you have in your kitchen.

It has weird things like ammonium phosphate, high fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, caramel color, artificial flavor. These are the things that are kind of invisible. It looks like a chocolate chip cookie that you make at home, but it's not. And you're saying this is materially different in terms of what we're talking about. The definition was invented to test the hypothesis that industrially processed foods affected human health in ways beyond the ways that domestic cooking does. And it's done that robustly. What the hypothesis doesn't say is that that ammonium phosphate or the soy lecithin is harmful. Those things are proxies for ultra processed food. They're a sign that your food has been designed in a system that is about profit, not health. So we can argue there are certain classes of additives, and I think you've

had some very sophisticated thoughts on this and have spoken a lot about this. There are some classes of additives I think have quite good evidence for health harms. There are others where, who knows, a bit of potassium sorbate probably doesn't do you any harm. There's lots of things like acetate or propionate your body makes anyway. So a lot of thebate probably doesn't do you any harm. There's lots of things like acetate or propionate your body makes anyway. So there and the colour, a lot of the colouring probably doesn't do much harm. There's natural flavouring. These are signs that food is industrially processed. So taking that definition, the question is then to go if,

do for whatever reason, does that definition of food, do products that meet that definition, cause negative health outcomes? And so we then have a set of criteria, as you very well know, to evaluate evidence where we go, are we just mistaking food that's eaten by people who live in disadvantage, people with low incomes, people who also smoke and drink? Are we mistaking food that's signifying a poor lifestyle for food that's actually causing harm? And of course, we now have across, I mean, we can go through this in detail, the Bradford Hill

criteria. I would say ultra-processed food has more than met the threshold for causality, where we can say with confidence it causes negative health outcomes. And we have experimental evidence, we have epidemiological evidence, and so on. I kind of, you know, having you explain all this, because I recently read a paper that was published in 2022 as a debate between Montero, who developed the NOVA classification, and Dr. Astrup, who's from Scandinavia, who, you know, have opposing views. And the argument from Dr. Astrup was that this is just sort of not a very helpful classification, because it can all be explained through other things that you now kind of refuted. And I went and actually looked up the conflicts of interest of Dr. Astrip. And you know, he worked for Nestle and other big food companies. And I'm like, McDonald's. I'm like, oh, okay, okay.

I wonder if you are going to, I wonder if you are going to, I have them in front of me actually. I spend a lot of my academic life and my broadcasting life critiquing people who don't declare and who do declare significant conflicts of interest. The interesting thing about that debate is there was very little scientific merit to what Astrup was saying in terms of the arguments he was making were not good faith. So he would set up propositions that no one else was setting up in order that they would be easy to knock down. So he was setting up straw men saying it's not a useful policy instrument. No one is saying we should take the evidence around ultra processed food

and just directly apply it to policy any more than we should say, you know, we have good evidence that alcohol is harmful, so we should ban alcohol, we should go back to prohibition. I mean, no, that's not how you use scientific evidence, you use it with nuance. It's a strange debate and it did not feel good faith. He also understood some fairly basic, misunderstood some basic epidemiology, which I think was embarrassing for him. Well, this is really important point because, you know, as the world is getting sicker and fatter, and America is, and America is tanking because of this, I think this is gonna be the end of us, literally,

because the economic burden of it is huge. We have over 60% with a chronic illness. We have 93% who are metabolic and healthy. We're 48th in life expectancy. We spend 40% of the dollars that are spent on healthcare from the federal government, this sort of almost $5 trillion. It's about 30 percent of the entire federal budget, one in three dollars. It's both affecting us from an economic perspective, from a health perspective, from

a social perspective, and it's a crisis. And so now, you know, recently in America, Trump was elected president, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and he's been all about ultra processed food. And so the question is, when you have the keys to the kingdom and you're trying to make a difference, how do you use the framework of ultra processed food to drive policy or don't you? And recently, the FDA came out with a ruling for front of package labeling and it's not been adopted yet, but it's out there for comment, which is to me kind of a throwback

to the past, which is this concept of nutritionism that you talk about, this idea that most of nutrition science has broken down the effects of food based on their individual ingredients, salt, sugar, fat, whatever, and then you can dial it up or down. So we found that was the enemy back in the 70s and 80s. So we basically said everybody should eat low fat. That led to the rise, I think, of obesity and increased sugar in food. So we said you got snack-well cookies and all these foods that were ultra processed

that actually had huge amounts of sugar but no fat. And so we kind of can invite food companies by having this new ruling which basically says just the amount of saturated fat, sugar, and salt as metrics, high, medium, or low, to me doesn't go far enough to help educate people. I think it doesn't really tell people the degree of processing or how it's gonna affect them.

And what you're saying essentially based on the data is that salt, sugar, and fat are not enough to explain the full impact of ultra-processed food. There's something else. There's another element that makes it even worse. The question is, how would you take this framework of ultra-processed food and use it to help inform policy, whether it's dietary guidelines, whether it's front-of-package labeling, whether it's school lunches, or what we do with our food stampers or assistance program? That's

kind of where I'm struggling is to figure out how do we, you know, because to me it's like, if you put class one to four, four is like really bad for you, that would be an easy thing to do for a front of packs label. But you're saying it's not really the thing that we should be doing. Okay, you're really good at asking

10 very hard questions at once. Let me, you're too smart, Mark. I want to talk to you about protein, a critical nutrient that's often misunderstood. Many people don't realize that when we consume protein, our body doesn't use it in its current form. Instead, it breaks the protein down into amino acids. The building blocks of protein and then reassembles those amino acids into the specific proteins our body needs. That's why I'm so impressed by Perfect Amino. It contains the precise ratio of essential amino acids your body needs to build new proteins without the excess amino acids that turn into calories. This means you get better results. Faster lean muscle creation, improve recovery,

reduce soreness, stronger bones, and no unwanted fat gain. If you're looking to build or tone lean muscle and recover faster without the caloric impact or breaking a fast, Perfect Amino is a game changer. This is the future of protein supplementation. I recommend you try it for yourself. Just go to bodyhealth.com and use code HYMAN20 to get 20% off your first order. I know many of you are as focused on recovery and longevity as I am, especially when it comes to managing pain and optimizing healing. After a recent back procedure, I needed something to help support my recovery and ease tension and that's when I found the Bon Charge Infrared PEMF Mat. This technology combines infrared heat to boost circulation and reduce inflammation with pulsed electromagnetic field, also called PEMF therapy, to stimulate cellular

repair and relieve deep muscle tension. It's been a game changer for me. Whether I'm recovering from physical therapy, decompressing after a long day, or simply supporting my body's natural healing process, I just lay down, let the warmth and PEMF pulses do their thing and I feel the benefits. Better mobility, reduced soreness, and even deeper sleep. If you're dealing with back pain, stiffness, or just want to enhance your recovery and performance, I highly recommend trying it. Head to bondcharge.com and use code DRMark to save 15%. That's B-O-N-C-H-A-R-G-E.com code DRMark for 15% off. We all know how important gut health is. It's key to our immune function, brain health, mental performance, and even our emotional health. That's why I want to tell you about a new product from our friends over at Peak. Their fermented Puerh tea contains naturally

occurring prebiotics and probiotics to support healthy digestion and metabolism. The problem with good Puerh is it's hard to source, it's a pain to brew and you're never quite sure what's inside. But with all of Peek's products, these problems are a thing of the past. You can have peace of mind knowing they only use wild harvested leaves from two 5-0 year old trees and they screen their tea for heavy metals, pesticides and toxic mold. There is also zero prep time because it dissolves in water in seconds. I start my mornings with their Poo Air Green Tea. It

covers my bases for immune support and revs up my mental clarity and energy. And I go for their pure black tea in the afternoon to kickstart digestion. It's really become my daily go-to. Right now, Peak is offering 20% off for life plus a free starter kit with a frother and glass beaker. Just go to peaklife.com. Try it risk free with their 90-day money back guarantee and feel the difference. Let me try and break this down as I see it. A huge amount of the harm of ultra processed food comes from the very high levels of salt, sugar and fat and just calories. But here's the thing. When you cook at home, you also cook with salt, sugar and fat. If you make a chocolate brownie at home, you just gave me your recipe for chocolate, your, you know, the Mark Hyman chocolate cookies. Now let's say we match them.

Let's say you really let your hand slip with the salt because you understand how food processing works. So you make salty, sugary, fatty cookies because that's what we all love. In fact, they're exactly as salty and sugary and fatty as the big brand you also mentioned. What you aren't able to do is to engineer your cookies so I'll have three of them. Even if you cook with as much salt, sugar and fat, because you haven't put people in MRI scanners in order to develop your cookies and we know that the big food companies use brain scanners to do product development. You haven't employed 100 PhD nutritionists

to optimize every product through a thousand focus groups over three decades. We also know you won't use as much salt, sugar and fat. So it's per bite of the industrial cookie, I get more salt, sugar and fat, but because of the processing, the marketing, the coloring, the texture effects, the glycemic index, I eat more of it food. So I get more salt, sugar, fat per mouthful and I take more mouthfuls. And that's what the, those who resist the definition can't

seem to grasp is the salt, sugar and fat are part of the ultra processing. They are their part and parcel. So in terms of what it teaches us, look, it tells us the products regulate. It tells us that what we see with diet-related disease, and we see this in natural experiments all over the world, when populations start eating an ultra-processed diet, that's when their risk of obesity, metabolic disease, kidney disease, dementia, anxiety, depression, cancers,

it all starts to go up at the same time. So it tells us the focus of policy needs to be on in industrially processed products. The difficulty is not that it would be wrong to put warning labels on UPF. It has a loophole and it would be legally hard to do. The loophole is this, the companies are getting more and more sophisticated

at selling us very high salt, fat, sugar foods that are very delicious, they're very soft, they're high glycemic index, but they don't contain the additives or they use natural additives. And so it functions like ultra processed food, but it doesn't quite meet the threshold. So it's not that the definition is too broad. It's the definition is now too narrow. So we can give, we can give people all dietary guidance should say avoid ultra-processed food, and there should be a simple working definition of that. That's what France, Belgium, Israel, Canada, as I said, that's what they all do.

In order to label a package, my research where I am at UCL and we've partnered with the Pan-American Health Organization with WHO to do this, we can show that more than 99% of ultra-processed food has excessive calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar. In order to regulate the food, you can actually just... It's like a proxy. Yeah, you can... It's fine. Like, we're going to miss one percent, but it's very hard to make addictive food that isn't either very energy dense or fatty or salty or sugary. And most of the time it's all of them. Now the front of package label you talk about, the problem is that I am in the weeds of this.

Okay, Mark. So I can be boring. We could, we could do like a four hour special nutrient profile models and how to best capture on healthy food. There's no perfect way of doing it, but you use tight levels for salt, fat and sugar, and then you put a proper warning label on. So at the moment on your US proposal there's going to be high, medium, low for saturated fat, salt and sugar. It's not a bad way of doing

it but the low, you get low for added sugars, well for added sugars and it should be free sugars but that's a separate thing, but you get low if it's five percent sugar. Now WHO say and UK government say you shouldn't eat more than 5% of your calories from free sugar at all. You'll get health benefits all the way down to 5% if you can get it down. So saying that 5% is low when that's at the upper edge of what WHO recommend for a daily intake, it feels lax. Maybe if you take on the front of package, you just change the proposed rule. Instead of having to say low, medium, or high, you put low as green, you put a medium as orange,

and you put the high as red, like a stop sign. I think you know what I think about this. So what you then end up with is products that, and we have these in the UK, so we have the traffic lights in the UK, and you have a product with a red, green, and an amber. Now what do you do with that traffic light? Is it good?

Is it bad? In South America, Central America, they've got a really good system, but they just use black octagonal warning labels. Once you're over the recommended daily maximum, you get a black octagon. But the most important thing, right, is the warning labels don't do much. For every policy problem, you need five policies to solve it and every policy should be solving five solutions. This is the sort of public health maxim. So you can't just stick octagons on. If a product has an octagon, the monkey has to come off

the box. Okay. If it's got three octagons, it's got to have progressive taxation. You know, you just cited some of the economic data around how much this is costing. So don't, we don't want to make food more expensive for people who are disadvantaged, but you have to tax the worst products. If a product has an octagon, it cannot be marketed to children. It can't have an online or TV ad.

The warning label does nothing. What you have to do is find a really tight way of defining unhealthy food. The food you are trying to label is ultra-processed. You use your fats, sugar, salt, energy thresholds to label the UPS. So you're in charge of the FDA. You get to decide how it's going to go. You have full autonomy. What's the solution? Because literally, we're in this conversation right now about how do we really change the labeling and what other policies need to happen.

You mentioned ending marketing, you mentioned taxation. These are extremely unpopular ideas in America. I think free speech and First Amendment is about the marketing and I don't agree with it. I think we don't allow smoking advertising anymore. We don't allow Joe Camel on the package front of cigarettes to advertise to. You know, we've done a lot to kind of roll those things back, but it's a tough sell. And the taxation issue is a very big concern. And what I hear a lot is the pushback from the industry, you know, and there's hunger

groups that I know you, you know, and talked about are co-opted because a lot of big industry food companies are on the boards and fund those organizations. But the talking points are pretty kind of obvious. They go, well, you know, we're going to be taking away safe, affordable, convenient food. We're going to be penalizing the poor. We can't tax the poor. It's regressive. There's all these arguments that seem socially conscious and forward thinking and, you know, very elevated. And of course, no, we don't want to take away food from people. We don't want to make it hard for them to eat. We don't want to take away the safety and food.

We don't like who's against that. Right. So it's sort of it's very smart. And it's propaganda from my perspective. And it's sort of like the old the old. Chris Van Tullekin wants to ban food for poor people is the way the headline gets written. If you put me in charge of the FDA, I'll tell you what, the most important thing, so I'm very careful how I use my voice. I am ostentatiously a man with privilege of a particular age. You know, I'm educated. I'm insulated from the problem in so far as anyone

is. The most important thing is the goal of policy is not to reduce people's consumption of a particular product of food. The goal is to improve justice and to approve affordability and choice in the food system. If people want to eat ultra processed food, to some extent, I don't care what people do. I'm a big believer in freedom and choice. I like freedom of expression. I do think that corporate free speech when it's misleading

is better characterized as propaganda and corruption. So in terms of how you do it. So free speech is good, propaganda, no. Lying, no. This is not rocket science. So the most important thing is you want to make things. So leave the taxation on the table for a bit. The first thing is warning labels. I think for the most part, we actually have a lot of data and the traction that this is getting in the States is, and we're seeing the same thing in the UK. My book has been peculiarly popular for a detailed science and food policy book, I think

because people are at a point of maximum fury. This is all about communication. If I was running the FDA, I'd say, look, I don't think you want to be predated on by transnational corporations. Many of them aren't even American. It's not like they're all paying loads of tax in America to clean up the plastic and the obesity crisis. And Nestle is a Swiss company and... Many of them aren't even there. They're housed in other places. If, you know, they're not even paying tax in those places. So framing this as protecting people from predatory corporations as improving

democracy and increasing choice and taxation. Yeah. I mean, you've got to be really careful. You don't tax the bread and you don't tax ingredients. You know, that's completely sensible. You also need to make sure if you do have to, I mean, food is already taxed. You just need to shift slightly, change the proportions and change the tax on, on the healthy stuff. Yeah. I mean, the taxation works. They've demonstrated this in California and other states or cities in America where they've actually implemented this. And the consumption goes down and health gets better. I mean, there is data about this already. So I think it's unpopular,

but I think some kind of strategy that's progressive taxation based on the framework you talked about makes a lot of sense to me I think it's it's gonna be a tough sell in America I think that the thing I want to dive into now a little bit is we've established that ultra processed food is different than just Home-baked cookies and then it's these weird ingredients that are not in your kitchen cabinet that are put in food to make it addictive To make it palatable to make it easy to consume lots of. It makes it uniquely different than just regular processed food. And there's something kind of particularly harmful. And I would say I would agree with that based on my experience. And I would also

say that it brings up the question that you kind of hinted at of how these corporations are operating in the world and what they're doing and what they know and what they don't know that are producing these foods and how it impacts our health. You kind of touched on the fact that these big companies put people in functional MRI machines to look at the effects of different foods on the addiction centers of the brain in order to optimize what they call the bliss point of food, which is something Michael Moss talked about

actually on my first podcast and ever did. He really kind of wrote this book called, Sour Sugar and Fat, where he interviewed all these food-intriguing experts and executives and scientists and kind of whistleblowers. And they kind of peel back the layers of how they do this. And they have taste institutes where they hire craving experts to create the bliss point of food and find out ways to create heavy users, meaning taking people who are already using it and get them to eat more.

And it's a very deliberate thing. And there are many other examples of pernicious ways in which the food industry and big ag and other industries like alcohol, tobacco actually push their products. And you introduced me to a gentleman from the World Health Organization that I had a conversation with where they talked about this white paper they're creating on the commercial determinants of health, the ways in which transnational, multinational corporations subvert public health and privatize profits.

And I didn't call it that in my book Food Fix, but essentially that's what I was writing about, which is the ways, in the various ways in which they use funding of research, they use funding of front groups, they use funding of social groups, they use funding of front groups, they use funding of social groups, they use funding of academic centers, universities, they use heavy lobbying, and in every particular tactic they can come up with to undermine our public confidence and to actually confuse us, confound us, and kind of make the whole thing messy when it's really quite simple.

These foods are bad for us and we shouldn't be eating them. And there's no argument really to say that they're healthy or safe. And if you eat it once in a while, fine. If you have a bag of Skittles once in a while, it's not gonna kill you. Or Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. But if you consume these things on a regular basis.

It's like saying, you know, just, if you have one line of cocaine and one cigarette once a month, once a week, it's not going to do you any harm. But you know, the great difficulty about cocaine, cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, they're a little bit moreish. You know, you tend to tend to want that that second one. Well, the Super Bowl was on because we're recording this just after the Super Bowl and it was on last night and I was watching and there was a commercial for Lace potato chips

and the whole thing was about this organic farm and looked like this little girl and this potatoes and how beautiful this bucolic scene was. And at the end it was for Lay's potato chips. And I was like, oh God, it's just like they are so good at just kind of capturing our imagination and they don't really help us understand what's really going on. So I was kind of like, yeah, it's bad. You've alluded and I think you and I can name this, there's a community of scientists who are very aggressively opposed to what I'm saying. I want to say, I sit on two World Health

Organization expert working groups. Okay, I work at a big university as an associate professor in the UK. I'm not a sort of fringe lunatic. I work with UNICEF. But there's a community of industry funded academics who violently oppose this concept of UPF. What they don't want to come up with, what they never propose, is what is causing the public health crisis? Because we have had salt, sugar and fat in our diet for a very long time. We've been processing food, as they frequently say, for hundreds of thousands of years. What happened in the mid-1970s? I went and spoke to Howard Moskovitz. He's in the 70s designing tomato sauce. They start making lots of different recipes and putting them through focus groups. This is adopted.

Now, I've seen this in big food companies companies I've spoken to. I spent a huge amount of my time writing my book, Ultra Process People, talking to food industry insiders. Because the industry funded academics critique the concept, but the people on the inside are like, oh yeah, no, we design the food to be addictive. How else do you think, if the people at Danon are making the food that way, what are the guys at Nestle supposed to do? I mean, this is an arms race for customers. That's right. Stomach share. They call it stomach share. So we know two of the most important things they measure are how much food people eat and how fast do they eat it. And we interviewed Francis McGlone, who's head of neuroscience

at Unilever, one of the world's biggest ice cream companies. And he talked about putting people in brain scanners and looking at them eating ice cream. And he said, the orbital frontal cortex, and I'm going to quote him directly, lit up like a furnace. So when you find, if someone listening to this is eating ice cream out of the tub, or, you know, they do this later this evening, and you know, you get the tub out and you make yourself a little bowl and then you put the tub back in the freezer. And then as if drawn by some gravitational force, you find yourself back at the freezer opening the tub again and eventually the whole tub. That's because the ice cream was invented by scientists using brain scanners. It's not your fault. You can't stop eating it.

So the commercial determinants of health framework, tell us how you see that playing out and unpack that a little bit. Because I think people don't understand the way in which they're being taken advantage of, the way in which they're being manipulated by both commercials, marketing, the design of the food, the pernicious ways they subvert policy. I mean this is not just, oh we just made these foods and we didn't know that they were a problem. They're actively trying to protect their territory and to kind of advance their products in the face of overwhelming research that they're harmful. So some of the ultra-processing

is like how you mix together the flavors. Some of it is the focus group, some of it is the brain scanners. But part of ultra-processing is suing the lawmakers who would seek to regulate you, is funding the patient group. So if we look in the UK, the commercial determinants of health kind of academic framework is just asking how do profit making entities affect our health in good ways and in bad ways? You know, we

try and have a neutral perspective. In the case of food, one of the things they do is they control the entire narrative. So our government scientific advisory committee on nutrition 65% of members have financial relationships with companies like and including Coke and Nestle. The biggest food companies run breakfast programs and education food programs in schools. They fund our biggest food charity, the British Nutrition Foundation. Their healthy eating week last year, two years ago, was sponsored by Coca-Cola. That's the British Nutrition Foundation. We have our...

Why does Coca-Cola make that you eat, only drink? You can't credibly claim to have an interest in nutrition and do these kind of things, in my strong opinion. We have our Science Media Centre, who do the briefings to the press. We have patient advocacy groups. We have social media influencers. And then from my perspective, after I published the book,

the first email that arrived from the food industry was not a lawsuit. It was an invitation from McDonald's to see if I'd become an ambassador for them. So. Here's a million dollars, Chris. Would you become an ambassador and shut up? Well, I should say, I'm proud to speak to you today, Mark,

in my capacity as global menu innovation ambassador for McDonald's. Amazing. No, I said I didn't. I just took a position with Coca-Cola as chief science officer. Should I have disclosed that before I came on the podcast? I wanted to ask them how much money, but I couldn't risk, I can send you the email, you know, I'm not making this up. Well, I know McDonald's paid a friend of mine

who was sort of a healthy eating proponent a million dollars to be their advisor a year. That's so painful, a million dollars, it's so much money to me. But anyway, I did say no. I didn't want them to have an email from me going, how much are we talking here? So we used to think that cigarettes was an exceptional industry. You know, the tobacco industry made things they

know kill people and are addictive and they do it anyway. Then in the mid 1980s, the cigarette industry bought the food industry. So the biggest food companies in the world, and it was Michael Moss again, I think, who did some of the work exposing this. Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds bought General Foods, Crass, Nabisco. They used their molecules and the product development techniques and the supply chain to make the addictive foods. And now we see the same is true in automotive. We see it in fossil fuels, a perversion of academic interest,

corruption of science, manipulation of policy. So exposing all this is important because it helps you re-see that Super Bowl ad where you're like, oh, it's not, you know, some, I don't know what some farmer in his kitchen stirring a pot of, you know, vegetable oil with, you know, hand chopping the potatoes. It's not like that. And I think the public, I feel the US public are, I mean look, why are you popular? You know, you're saying all this and people are up for this, that you have an asymmetry of power. You aren't as powerful as Nestle, Mondeley and Kraft Heinz, but you know, I think truth

gives you enormous power. I think you're right. I mean, just speaking truth, the power is key. And I think exposing the nefarious ways in which the food industry acts often can help people understand that this is not their fault. The people, and the big talking points of big food has been essentially, it's your fault, your fat.

Number one, all calories are the same. It's all about moderation. Eat less, exercise more. And implicit in those talking points, which by the way have been used by government leaders, by scientists, by doctors that have bought it, is that all food is the same. You could have a thousand calories of Coca-Cola or a thousand calories of almonds and it's exactly the same. Now, that's true in a laboratory. If you burn them, they release a certain amount of energy, which is what a calorie is, right?

It's the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one liter of water, one degree centigrade. It's just a scientific term. But when you consume them, it's very different. A calorie burned is a calorie burned, but a calorie eaten is not a calorie eaten, to quote my friend Robert Lustig.

And when you actually get that, it's like, wow, well, when you eat a food, it has to go through your microbiome, the molecules that regulate your hormones, the immune system, neurotransmitters. All are affected by the kind of food you're eating and then people don't realize that. The way your body interacts with a thousand calories of almonds is somewhat different to the way your body interacts with a thousand calories of coke in terms of appetite. I mean, we humans don't just choose to eat the 2500 calories per day. You know, we're guided to it in the same way we're guided. Our internal physiology guides us to breathe a certain amount

and to drink a certain amount of fluid. And it's the same with food intake. So it's, yeah, it's very odd this idea that humans can kind of eat to numbers. Adam Chapnick It's what's strange to me also is that the food that they make in the United States is far worse than the food that they make, the same kind of food they make in Europe or even in the UK. Like Kraft macaroni and cheese is full of artificial dyes and chemicals in the US, but it's not in the UK. Or if you look at, you know, the amount of ingredients or additives we chemicals in the US, but it's not in the UK. Or if you look at the amount of ingredients or adibs we have in the United States, it's like 10,000 different food additives. Where in the European Union, it's about 400. Now maybe 10,000 are somehow more broken down into subclassifications, and maybe it's not

10,000, maybe it's 5,000. But still a lot of things that are unregulated, that are not proven. And then by the way, people don't understand this. The way these things get into the food is the food company goes, hey, this food, this ingredient we found is safe, FDA. And FDA goes, oh great, cool. We'll regulate it as a safe to eat substance.

Generally recognize it's safe. Whereas imagine if they did that for drugs. Imagine the drug company goes, hey, we just developed this new drug, it's safe. And the FDA goes, oh cool, great, let's just prove it. That's exactly what happens with food. We used to do that for drugs. Imagine the drug company said, hey, we just developed this new drug. It's safe. And the other thing was, oh, cool. Great. Let's just prove it. That's exactly what happens for food. We used to do that for drugs. And then we realized none of the drugs worked. And so we started regulating the drugs. But this is the system of food additive regulation.

So I put a chapter in the book on the US system because someone said to me, food additives are not really regulated. Someone I trusted. And I was like, well, that's not true. Of course they're regulated. You've got an FDA. So I call up Emily Broadlieb, who's at Harvard. She runs the Food Law Policy Center there. And she's like, yeah, no, there's not any real, you know, you have this self-determination system where the companies can decide for themselves. It's astounding. Yeah. So you do have, no one knows how many additives you have because they're also not all formally registered. So yeah, it is, it's a mess. Yeah. And there's things on there. There's things that are in foods that are ultra-processed

that aren't even on the label. Like microbial transglutaminase is basically gluten. It's put in foods to make the food hold together. Gluten is like glue. And so they use it in industrial food and they grow it in bacteria and it's a form of gluten. And then we've seen this incredible rise in gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, potentially can create leaky gut. And we know that also ultra-processed food has adverse effects on the microbiome,

increases inflammation, and so forth, but that transglutaminase is something that's not on the label. Or there's emulsifiers in food that are most of these processed foods that make the food have a good mouthfeel and make it all sort of the right texture. And these compounds have been shown to cause leaky gut, autoimmune disease, and many other inflammatory conditions. And yet, we don't

regulate. In terms of what the industry responds to all that is they say, well, you can't prove harm. The data on emulsifiers, okay, you've got some animal experiments, you've got a bit of human data, you've got some epididymies, there's actually quite a lot of data on some of these emulsifiers now. But you haven't really proven it. But the burden of proof should not fall to independent academics to say that adding synthetic molecules to food is harmful. The burden of proof should be the other way around and that the molecules should have to go through a proper stringent regulatory process. We we do have a much more stringent process in Europe and the UK, but it's still not very strict.

So we don't assess molecules in combination. We don't often assess the right dosage. And when it comes to food additives, we don't look at long-term effects. We don't have any assays for effects on the microbiome or obesity, for example. So I think one of the things we know is that we can make very good, safe, cheap food

without all these additives. And their primary function is to save the company's money. We did a paper last year on financialization of the food industry. So instead of working with nutritionists, I worked with a lot of economists. And we just used the food industry's own financial data and compared it to their claims. Because all the big companies will say that they're mainly interested in reducing carbon emissions, cleaning up plastic, improving public health, improving the nutritional profile of the product portfolio and so on, improving women and children's labour rights. And so you just say, okay, well, we've got all these claims, how does

this stack up when they make money? What do they spend it on? They spend it on share buybacks and dividend payouts. So even as Coca-Cola claimed, for example, to be trying to create a world without waste, that was their kind of strap line for a while, they had been the world's largest plastic polluter for several years in a row. The companies are very, very good at positioning themselves as being the solution to the problems that they've caused. And for me, the one thing, if you give me this control of the FDA, the one thing is to go, you need to be regulated and regulatory relationships are at arm's length. You know, you cannot be taking money from the people you regulate. That's kind of step one. If there's any progress

to be made is to, is to stop the flow of, I would describe it as dirty money between the companies that need regulation, whether they're tobacco, alcohol or food, and those that would regulate them, whether they're formal regulators like the FDA or they're informal regulators like charities and activists and people like you. I think that getting rid of the conflicts of interests and the reverse incentives that exist is a big part of the solution.

I think about this a lot, and you're right, there's not just one policy solution that's gonna fix it all. We need to start from the field and how we grow food, what we grow, how we subsidize agriculture to, you know, how we incentivize companies to make better food, to how we educate people about what's in their food, how we warn them with labels. Anybody, my wife was in Mexico, she sent me a picture of like some food product and said, you know,

here's all the warning labels. This is not safe to eat for children at the bottom. Like it was all these warning labels. I was like, that's really said, here's all the warning labels. This is not safe to eat for children at the bottom. Like it was all these warning labels. I was like, that's really good. That'll probably stop a mother from buying that food for their kid. And yet in America, we don't have any of that. And people don't know.

And I think this is what makes me so upset is that people really don't understand. So if you're an individual who's listening and you wanna not be caught in the web that the food industry has spun to catch you to eat these foods. What are the few things you can do personally to actually empower yourself to stop doing this

and how do you sort of take back control of your diet and simple changes they can make to kind of actually not eat this stuff? In my book, I do not advise anyone to stop eating ultra-precise food. In fact, at the beginning, there's an invitation to the reader that they should eat UPF while they read the book. I'd say, you know, eat more of it almost. Oh boy, that was never, I never did that. I read the book.

I didn't expect, you know, I suspect you read it at a different level to many other readers, but what had happened to me on this four week diet is around week three, I had a chat with a colleague in Brazil, we were designing this study, and she kept saying a thing that you, I've heard you say before, it's not food, Chris, it's an industrially processed edible substance. She said this kind of again and again, it was, it was like, it was annoying tick. I sat down that evening to eat my favourite fried chicken brand, I got a little bucket of it, I was so looking forward to it and I couldn't finish it. She had made it disgusting.

And this is the gift I wanna give the reader, is the food will be your greatest teacher. Eat the food, lay it out on a china plate. If you think you really love this, put it on a china plate, get a knife and fork, this is not food that stands up to scrutiny. By the end of the book, I don't promise this, I'm not selling anyone

a solution, but if you're addicted to something, we have pretty good evidence that this works with cigarettes. First of all, engaging with the substance, not forbidding it is helpful, but understanding the incentives of those who are selling you the substance is important. Understanding the tobacco industry massively helps smokers and understanding the food industry really helps people who are addicted to UPF. Mark, you've written some stuff on UPF where I was like, has he copied me? And then I realized you'd written it first. So then I was like, man, he's gonna think I've copied him. So you can read anything that either of us have written

or there's other great stuff out there if you can't afford to buy a book. Read about the food and eat it. And you can do little experiments. One of my favorite things is get your tube of saddle-shaped chips. I can never mention brands in the UK. Pringles, Pringles, Pringles.

I'll mention it. Pringles or similar. So you get your Pringles or similar. This is independent media. This is a podcast. No one tells me what to say or do. I can say whatever I want. I can say any words I want.

I can name any companies I want. They might come after me. Get in touch with Mark's lawyers. I also get, I'm getting legal attacks constantly from the food industry. It takes up a huge amount of my time. And you think it'll be fun. And actually I want to talk about

your Suits in a Second. Oh, they come after you. They pay attention. I mean, they write articles about me. The Corn Refiner's of America sent me nasty Graham letters. I mean, it's interesting. It's how you know. It's one of the ways I think you know you're saying the right thing.

But get your Pringles, get them out of the tube or other brands, crunch them up into a powder, put the powder in a bowl and eat it with a spoon. And that way you will discover if you really love Pringles. Because part of that ultra processing is the the hyperbolic paraboloid shape. Part of the ultra processing is the mythology, the branding on the tube. And once you've reduced them to a powder, it's a really good experiment to do. That's a great experiment. Actually, actually, just before we go to the lawsuits, I just want to tell you a story. I had a friend of mine who's a nutritionist and he was a

psychologist of nutrition. And he had a patient who was trying to help lose weight, and the patient's like, I'm really busy, I want to lose weight, but I'm really going so fast in my life, and I just stop at Burger King. I get my big whopper every night, and this is what I do, and I have to do that because I don't have time to do anything else.

He's like, okay, what I want you to do is you don't stop eating it, but I want you to go in there, and I want you to sit down in the restaurant and I want you to take each bite and savor it and take like at least, you know, 20 chews on each bite. Just experience the food you're eating. And he's like, he came back and he was like,

this was gross, I couldn't eat it after I did that, you know, and he just stopped eating it. It is all like that. I've gone back, my wife and I were on a long car journey a couple of years ago and we just stopped at a McDonald's kind of, you know, as many of us are in the habit of doing. I mean, I know I'm embarrassed saying this, I'm a physician, whatever. We did and we were like, oh, now we know about, we just couldn't, I'm embarrassed to say we just threw it all away and stopped and got some groceries.

But yeah, it's not food that stands up to scrutiny. It's not complex food. It is all almost equally salty and sweet. So the other thing to remember is your breakfast cereal is as salty as your microwave lasagna and your pizza is as sugary as your pudding. It's all like this quite a straightforward formula of like acid, salt, sweet, fat, plus the additives and drip out all the real food, keep it cheap. It's weird stuff. So I'm very conscious as well. I don't like telling people what to do. I'm quite a weak, fallible person myself. So I also don't want to put myself on some pedestal where if I am snapped going into McDonald's, anyone's going to see me. But what I can say at the end of my diet, I genuinely do not want any of it anymore.

I eat it to be polite. Are you ever in this position where you're at some thing? You have probably never heard this, but I'll be at a friend's house, and it's the parents at my kid's school, and I just don't wanna be that guy. So I'm like, yeah, sure, I'll have some chips and dip. Yeah, absolutely, I'm here.

I can't bring myself to do that, unless it's actually real food, and then, you know, if it's tortilla chips and some like whatever, it's fine. But it's like, I definitely, it's just, it doesn't look like food to me. It looks like a rock or a piece of wood. Like I wouldn't just eat it, you know?

Like it's really, my experience has really changed. So when I go by like a case of delicious looking process, things like you see in like the window of a Starbucks, the window of a Starbucks at the front of the store, it doesn't look like food to me. I'm not even attracted to think about it. It's because I think I've reset my nervous system. Will Barron It's exactly my experience. Part of it was Fernanda going, it's not food, it's industrially produced edible substance. And part of it was, uh, it was Nicole Avena who you may have spoken to. She's a food addiction scientist. And she said, um, it's not that the food would be beige. It's the lot of this food, if it

wasn't dyed, it would be gray. And I thought that was amazing. I'm like, Oh, it would be, wouldn't it? Once you start looking at the pastes and powders. So that was very powerful, but no, I went cold. I went completely, I just stopped wanting it. Cold turkey, what happened? So there are all these things that people don't report on. The food is so salty that you get very, you know, you eat it in the evening

and then you have to drink all this fluid. So then if you're a man in your 40s, you're kind of up all night peeing as well. And then you're exhausted and you get constipated. I mean, you get your soul and your lifestyle and you're angry and tired and stressed. And so you get up in the middle of the night and then you're eating more because you're tired and your cortisol level goes up. Within 48 hours of stopping, I felt massively better. Losing the weight took me two years. And in the end, I just fasted it down. It was grim. Many of your listeners will be struggling with weight, I'm sure. I just want to say, I want to reach out and

hug all of you losing. I had to lose six kilos and I have every possible advantage doing it and it was really, really, really hard. The injustice of this is it is really not people's fault. It is this food that is it is really not people's fault. It is this food that is engineered to get around your fullness system. So this has to get fixed. And if it doesn't get fixed, the consequences are pretty grim for society, for the world. I'm not just America, but everywhere, which is now being the receptacle of the inventions that happen here and elsewhere. And it's like America's created the worst diet on the planet and exporting it to every country.

It's our biggest export. The countries, there's a few countries that don't have fast food. I don't know if it's like Myanmar or Myanmar or like what used to be Burma or some countries. It's North Korea. North Korea, right? They don't have any of these problems. It's quite Korea, right? They don't have any of these problems.

It's quite interesting, right? We've embargoed them and had sanctions on them and we don't allow them to trade with us. And so they can't get all this stuff that is all over China, by the way, now. I remember when I went to China in 1984 and there wasn't anybody overweight. And then I went back a few years ago and it's like, wow. And now they've gone from one in 150 people with type 2 diabetes to one in 1984 and there wasn't anybody overweight. And then I went back a few years ago and it's like, wow. And now they've gone from like one in 150 people with type 2 diabetes to one in 10,

which is almost approximating what we have in the US. And it's because we've basically exported our Western diet. Same thing in the Middle East. They were nomads, healthy, fit, drinking camel milk and eating camel meat and herding their sheep and goats. And then within a generation, they had enormous wealth and they were able to purchase a lot of the things that we have in the West, just genetically adapted to that. And they have now one in four people there have diabetes.

You're putting this so powerfully. And one of the things people who object to the UPF evidence, I'm left going, well, just what do you think it is? This, we are living not just in a crisis, this is an emergency in the sense of something that needs immediate action. We can't wait to deal with this. We always are like, oh, this will end up costing. It's like, no, in the UK, it already costs the economy a hundred billion a year, and we have a tiny economy

compared to the US economy. It's already, it's unaffordable in terms of its effects on the planet, plastic pollution, carbon, all the rest of it. So it's an emergency, but we've been living in the emergency for well over a decade. The sort of, oh, well, we need to fiddle around the edges of policy and kind of make a, you know, put a salt, fat sugar warning on foods. It's like, no, there has to be a spectacular kind of revolutionary thinking and really imaginative policy proposals. I have to say lawsuits are going to be the way

forward. So we've seen, and I think you've helped with this, there's been a complaint, a 16 year old boy, he was 16 at the time, now he's 19. It's not a class action yet against some of the biggest, all the major food companies you can name, brought by a small group of lawyers who I've been speaking with. I think you've spoken maybe with them too. Lawsuits are going to force discovery and that's going to expose documentation that whatever all the conflicted academics say about the evidence around UPF, it's just going to be the company documents that are like, yeah, no, we invented all this stuff so that people couldn't stop eating. It's all going to be there, black and white. So the lawsuits- Yeah. Well, that's really important. I mean, because that's how tobacco was stopped. It wasn't

through legislation and regulation. It was these class action lawsuits that brought them down. And it painted the industry as acting in a corrupt and criminal way. And it's astounding to me in the US and the UK. There was a cigarette was the boogeyman. Is ultra processed food the boogeyman we should go over and attack, or is it something else? I mean, the complaint you can download, I'll send you a link that your listeners can download because it's a great, great, great summary of the evidence. Lawyers are incredible at assimilating evidence. I was surprised they decided to pick ultra-processed food.

To me, the easy case to start with would be sugar, that it is an obscenity that a can of high sugar cola doesn't have a warning about tooth decay on it. So I'd keep it to that straightforward. No one disputes that sugary drinks rot teeth. In the US and the UK, it is- Just go to Appalachia where Mountain Dew is this beverage of choice. It's like these kids, none of these kids have teeth. And it's a tragedy. And we think, oh, it's only teeth, but it's like, this is a

major course of sickness and suffering in, in low income communities and across the United States. I mean, we, my country is famously struggles with his teeth and has for a long time because of our sugar intake. So that to me would be the, the easier avenue, but the complaint is, they've made it is very persuasive, whether it will win. I don't know. I mean, this is the first cigarette lawsuits didn't win either, but eventually, you know, there's a drip, drip, drip, and I think there's more and more attorneys general that are focusing on this.

Yeah, no, I've been involved with talking to some lawyers who are doing class action lawsuits against ultra processed food and these companies, and I think the discovery is key. And I think, as I was researching my book, Food Fix, I got a lot of FOIA requests for documents, which you can get from the government. So in other words, all government documents,

unless they're classified or available to the public, a bit of a pain in the ass, you have to go through the Freedom of Information Act and ask for them. But for example, you can get emails from the CDC with Coca-Cola. Like Coca-Cola is not gonna give you their emails, but the CDC has emails from Coca-Cola and you can read there and they have to release

them and they're like yeah well we're funding you and we're doing this or that it's like it's kind of crazy. I think when people start to understand that they're being taken advantage of, that they're being used, that they're being manipulated, that they're being controlled, that their health's undermined, that their well-being is undermined, their financial security is being undermined because if you're sick you can't work and be a productive member of society, and both on an individual level and also on a societal level,

what we're doing to society with this burden of chronic disease. I've been a doctor for 40 years. This has all happened in my lifetime. I graduated from a medical school. There was not a single state with an obesity rate over 20%. Now there's not one under 30, and most are over 40. It's astounding you've been a doctor for 40 years. I've been a doctor for over 20 years and

it looks more like 40 years. But it's almost kind of in the UK, it's almost within my time. I mean, you asked this great question. 40 years is a long time, like, wow, I'm old, you know, but that's okay. I'm still kicking. But you asked this great question, is it the boogeyman? And you kind of threw that question away, but it, it's such an important question because it's like, I sometimes I duck and dive on this because I don't want to be a UPF purist. I don't think anyone's saying like it's the only thing, but when you ask it that starkly, it's like, yes, yes, ultra processed food is the boogeyman.

And anyone who says, now some people say, oh, yes, ultra processed food is the boogeyman. And anyone who says, now, some people say, oh, the mechanisms of harm are disputed. Here's the difficulty with the way in which ultra processed food harms you. The barrel is so full of fish, it's hard to hit the right one. Is it the softness? Well, it's all soft. Is it the energy density, the salt, the fat, the sugar? Is it the emulsifier content? Is it the marketing? We know marketing drives excessive consumption. Is it the trans fats? Is it some other property of the RBD oils? Is it an on and on and on? It's like, it's every aspect of every product has been optimized so you can't stop eating it. So I, I want to be clear. It is, it is the boogeyman and it's just, it's the thing that needs to be

tackled. I mean, there are problems with the definition and there are arguments and, you know, often we'll get disputed by the food industry. But I think if you're gonna have a catalyzing concept for Americans or for the world, I think it's useful. And I think it somehow has to be embedded in the way we think about policy and how we shape policy. And we'll have an offline conversation because I'm involved in some of the policy conversations

of what do we do next in America, because we have this opportunity, whether we like who's in power or not, to actually do something. And with people who are very aware, like I know the commissioner of the FDA very well, I know Robert F. Kennedy very well, I know Dr. Oz, who's had a Medicare very well,

we've been friends for 22 years. Like all of a sudden the kids have keys to the candy store. What are we going to do? And how do we do the right things and not do the wrong things? Which is, you know, it's just fraud. It's a landmine kind of covered territory where we're trying to navigate to the right policies that make the biggest difference or the most leverage, that have the greatest impact on the health of the population and not be too punitive or too oppressive to the population or to taxation. So it's a very interesting moment. And this concept has been around for a while, but now it's sort of like it's sort of caught

the national imagination here. And I think I'm happy for that. I'm a little concerned that the food industry is so big, so powerful, they're so on target. I mean, they're so deliberate about their messaging. They're so good at their propaganda to confuse and confound people, to sort of discredit people who are making these claims like you or me.

So it's pretty interesting. The framing, my sister-in-law Dolly is an academic in the UK at Cambridge and she's all about, she's a food systems academic, she's about how you frame the problem. So she's aligned in the UK, she has been with the political right, unusually for a public health academic. And she's all about, look, if you frame this stuff as justice, as freedom, as choice, and also as creating business opportunities for small and media sized businesses. So that the political economic right hates monopolies. You know, monopolies are terrible. They're terrible for the economy. They're terrible for everyone.

And at the moment you've got oligopolies of food producers. You've got really a huge amount of global grain being traded by a tiny handful of companies. This very small number of crops traded by a very small number of companies. I think it's like nine big food companies really control almost all the market and they own all the other companies that you might think are healthy brands and they buy them up. Like General Mills, for example, bought up epic meat bars, which are regenerative, organic, grass-fed, bison bars.

So they're like, they kind of have this sort of... It's like buying innocent smoothies. And this is something, this comes up a lot in the discussion, is going, well, a lot of vegan food is ultra-processed. Do you want to ban that too? And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa. No one's saying we're going to ban all ultra-processed food. No one's saying it's all... That's another really important thing. It's not all equally bad, but it is all almost without exception bad. And the vegan stuff is often made by the same companies that are producing enormous quantities of meat, often in quite inhumane, unethical, unsustainable ways. Like Tyson has just bought huge amounts of these alternative meat company stocks and shares. If you're kind of really concerned about the ethics

and you want to eat a good vegan diet, eating an ultra processed food that's made by Cargill or Tyson, even if it's vegan, it will probably be made, can only exist because it's made from the byproducts of the animal feed industry. So it's not, I feel those arguments don't have heft. There's a way of eating ethically and sustainably.

If you wanna be vegan, if you wanna eat meat, none of it requires ultra processed food. Amazing, wow. Chris, I could talk to you for hours about this. I haven't had to do it again. It's an exciting moment because I think both in the UK, around the world, governments, people are starting to sort of pay attention.

I'm very interested when this report comes out on the commercial terms of health, if it'll sway governments to change their behavior. But we can see across South America, they've been extremely forward about this. Canada, countries like the UK, already are doing things like banning a lot of marketing. They're already doing better food labeling. So we have a lot to learn from what's going on around the world. And I think you're right about the political framing of this as a choice, as you know, autonomy is, you know, freedom of speech, all these things that people

care about, you can, you can actually kind of frame it in the right way. So that's it's actually makes sense. And again, nobody's talking about banning anything. It's about how do we tell people what's what. So they make a choice that's good for them. I love that. Yeah, if you want a strong military and a good football team,

you've got to fix the food system. You know, it doesn't matter where you're, but if you care about social justice, you got to fix it. It all points to everyone's on the same team here. We all live on the same planet. It's such a joy speaking to you, Mark. I feel so full of energy after we communicate on email or anything. So it's such a joy speaking to you, Mark. I feel so full of energy after we communicate on email or anything. So it's such a delight.

Yeah. Thanks, Chris. Yeah. Keep up the good work. Let's keep care notes. Let's talk about policy more. Let's talk about lawsuits. I'll get you offline and I want to talk to you about, you know, the right strategies going forward. Because we have this very moment that's both filled with possibility and fraught with danger.

So, you know, I think it's an interesting moment and we're kind of at the precipice of potentially doing something that could shift things and we'll see. I'm very pleased you're in the discussion and thank you so much for having me on today. And everybody definitely check out Chris's book, Ultra Process People.

Hopefully that's not you, but if it is for sure you want to read the book and keep up with his academic work and his policy work. Do you have a place where people can find you or learn more about what your work is? Instagram at Dr Chris, Dr D-O-C-T-O-R, like spelled out Chris VT, I guess. Or I'm on Twitter, this OX on the same handle, at Dr. Chris VT. Okay, great. We'll put it on the show notes. Great to talk to you, Chris, and see you soon.

Mark, it's such a pleasure. I wanted to share something exciting with you. My team and I just launched the Hymen Hive, a powerful new wellness community designed to help you put personalized health into action with the tools, support, and accountability to make it last. Inside the hive, you'll get monthly live sessions with me,

office hours with our resident functional nutritionist, science-backed protocols, exclusive challenges, behind-the-scenes content, and access to a thriving community of people who are just as committed to their health as you are. We're already seeing incredible conversations, connections, and breakthroughs inside, and it's only the beginning.

If you want in, now's the time. Founding member pricing ends April 30th. That's just $27 a month for full access to everything the Hive has to offer. After that, the price goes up. So join us today at drheimann.com. That's drheimann.com. I'll see you inside. If you love this podcast, please share it with someone else you think would also enjoy it. You can find me on all social media channels at Dr. Mark Hyman. Please reach out.

I'd love to hear your comments and questions. Don't forget to rate, review, and subscribe to The Dr. Hyman Show wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to check out my YouTube channel at Dr. Mark Hyman for video versions of this podcast and more. Thank you so much again for tuning in. We'll see you next time on The Dr. Hyman Show. This podcast is separate from my clinical practice at the Ultra Wellness Center,

my work at Cleveland Clinic, and Function Health where I am Chief Medical Officer. This podcast represents my opinions and my guests opinions. Neither myself nor the podcast endorses the views or statements of my guests. This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional care by a doctor or other qualified medical professional.

This podcast is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services. If you're looking for help in your journey, please seek out a qualified medical practitioner. And if you're looking for a functional medicine practitioner, visit my clinic, the Ultra Wellness Center at UltraWellnessCenter.com and request to become a patient. It's important to have someone in your corner who is a trained, licensed healthcare practitioner and can help you make changes, especially when it comes to your health. This podcast is free as part of my mission

to bring practical ways of improving health to the public. So I'd like to express gratitude to sponsors that made today's podcast possible. Thanks so much again for listening.