ZOE Science & Nutrition - Food additives exposed: The artificial dyes and chemicals to avoid | Marion Nestle

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

Those long, unpronounceable ingredients at the bottom of food labels—what are they really doing to your health? In this episode, we’re joined by Professor Marion Nestle, a world-leading nutrition expert and author of the groundbreaking book ‘Food Politics’. Marion has spent decades exposing how powerful food companies influence what ends up on our plates — and how little regulation may stand in their way. We dive into the hidden world of food additives and the regulatory systems meant to protect us. While the U.S. allows companies to self-certify ingredients as “safe” without independent FDA approval, Europe and the UK take a stricter approach. But does stricter always mean safer? Marion unpacks how these systems differ, which substances might be harming our health, and what consumers can do to reduce their risk. We explore what the science says about additives, inflammation, gut health, and more. Unwrap the truth about your food 👉 ⁠Get the ZOE app  (US Only) 🌱 Try our new plant based wholefood supplement - Daily 30+ *Naturally high in copper which contributes to normal energy yielding metabolism and the normal function of the immune system Follow ZOE on Instagram. Timecodes: 00:00 Are common food additives tested for safety? 02:44 The shocking number of additives in a simple loaf of bread 04:14 The real reason your bread is so soft 05:55 The loophole that allows 10,000 additives into our food 07:24 How companies get to approve their own additives 08:46 Why it's so hard to prove an additive is harmful 10:27 The concerning difference between US and European food regulations 12:30 When the FDA revoked an additive's "safe" status 14:23 You won't believe where this common food dye comes from 15:36 A study linking food dyes to behavioral problems in children 18:59 Are the thousands of other food additives safe to eat? 22:51 Why we can't trust food companies to police themselves 26:45 The US state that just banned 44 common additives 28:52 Why food companies say they can't get rid of artificial colors 31:42 The hidden additives you'll never see on a food label 34:21 The surprising reason farmers use antibiotics to fatten animals 36:16 Why your chicken is probably contaminated 40:39 The hidden health and environmental costs of cheap food 43:51 How food companies use the "pester factor" to market to your kids 47:56 The one regulation that would fix our broken food system 51:36 The simple 7-word rule for a healthy diet 55:13 The childhood discovery that shaped my diet for life 📚Books by our ZOE Scientists The Food For Life Cookbook Every Body Should Know This by Dr Federica Amati Food For Life by Prof. Tim Spector Free resources from ZOE Live Healthier: Top 10 Tips From ZOE Science & Nutrition Gut Guide - For a Healthier Microbiome in Weeks  Mentioned in today's episode Navigating the U.S. Food Additive Regulatory Program Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (2011) Oral administration of potassium bromate induces neurobehavioral changes, alters cerebral neurotransmitters level and impairs brain tissue of swiss mice Behavioural and Brain Functions (2016) Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive EFSA Journal (2021) Food Dyes a Rainbow of Risks Center For Science in the Public Intrest (2010) Health risk assessment of exposure to ractopamine through consumption of meat products International Journal of Advanced Research (2014) Have feedback or a topic you'd like us to cover? Let us know here. Episode transcripts are available here.

Welcome to Zoe, Science and Nutrition, where world-leading scientists explain how their research can improve your health. Food additives, they're everywhere, and there are thousands of them. In recent months, many of us have become alarmed about their impact on our health and the health of our children, due to increasing news coverage on the topic. Now, the concerns around additives aren't new. Government agencies exist to evaluate their safety. But loopholes, shady incentives, and the use of outdated classifications are raising serious questions about these agencies' ability to protect us. Now, while the rest of us may have just begun to talk about this,

that's not the case for today's guest. Marion Nessel has been on a mission to challenge the powers that be in the pursuit of better public health, the 1980s. A New York University professor and prolific author, her best-selling book, Food Politics, exposed the influence that food companies have on regulators and government policy. She's been discussing the potential risks of additives and colours for a long time. And today she equips us with the knowledge to make more informed choices for us and our families. Before we begin the episode, I want to highlight that Marion has practiced what she

preaches since her 20s. You won't find her eating any additive. or any processed foods. She flew in from New York to record today and really kept me on my toes before rushing off to give a lecture in front of a large audience in another city. And Marion is just about to celebrate her 90th birthday.

I found her totally inspiring. Marion, thank you so much for joining me today. A pleasure to be here. So we always like to kick off this show with a rapid-fire set of Q&A's from our listeners, and we have some very strict rules about this, Marion, which is you can say yes or no, or if you have to, a one-sentence answer, are you willing to give it a go? Oh, why not?

All right. Marion, are the health effects of all new food additives tested before approval? Of course not. Are there additives in our foods that are regarded as potentially carcinogenic? Some. Are there substances in our food that don't show up on the ingredients? label? Hmm, probably.

Do food colourings harm the health of children? Some people say yes. What do you say? I think probably some. And finally, what's the most surprising thing that you've discovered about food additive regulation? Then nobody's paid any attention to them, until now. I'm holding in my hands a loaf of bread, it's a wonder bread, that is sold in your hometown New York. town New York. And I thought it would be fun just to look at this loaf of bread, which looks

very much like any other loaf of bread, and do what I've slowly learned to do since I started working at Zoe eight years ago, which is like turn it over and look at the ingredients on the back. And I think most of our listeners would think, well, there's like flour, I guess there's yeast, there's water, there's probably salt, and that sort of makes sense. A little sugar to get the yeast going. Okay, maybe a bit of sugar. I'm going to look at the ingredients. The first thing is there is a very long list of ingredients and they're in very small types. I'm actually going to take my glasses off just to read them. I'm going to jump. I'm not going to read them all because it's pretty amazing, but it has dough conditioners containing one or more

of the following. Sodium sterilellacillacillate, calcium sterile lacerate, monoglycerides, calcium peroxide, calcium iodite, enzymes, whatever they are, monocalcium phosphate. I could go on. There's probably only about 50 ingredients in total. I have no idea what they are. Like, I understand that these are what additives are. They're these things that you're with sort of strange chemical names at the end of the list of ingredients in a food. I don't understand what purpose they serve, how they affect my health.

Luckily, I have one of the world's top experts on this subject with me today. Could you just start at the beginning? Like, what are additives? Well, they told you what they are. Those are dough conditioners. You haven't mentioned the most attractive or unattractive feature of Wonder Bread, depending on how you look at it, was how soft it is. It's soft and squeezable, and it'll stay that way for a very, very long time. So one of the attributes of Wonder Bread is that it's soft, it's extremely, you don't have to chew it.

You could practically just swallow it without mushing it around a bit. and it'll last on the shelf for a very, very long time. And that's commercial bread. So commercial bread is full of additives that make it much, much soft. You don't have to chew it. Chewing apparently is a big issue when it comes to bread. A lot of people would rather just have this really soft stuff. And that's what they're for.

These various chemical additives keep the bread fresh. They keep molds and bacteria from eating it. And people like that. That company's been around for about 100 years. And so these additives aren't new, is what you're saying? Not at all. They've been around forever. How are they discovered and produced, and how does that work?

Well, companies discovered that if they put these additives in, then the bread would stay soft and last on the shelf. And the Food and Drug Administration in the United States didn't really get involved in that until the late 1930s. And all these things were in the food supply. People weren't dying on the spot. So by the late 1950s, they determined that the additives that had been around for a long time were generally recognized as safe or grass, G-R-A-S, grass. And they were out in the food supply, and the idea was, if anybody could find anything wrong with them, they would take them out.

otherwise they were in. And that's pretty much been the attitude. There are probably 10,000 food additives in the food supply. At least I've seen that number. I certainly don't see 10,000 on food labels. But they have not been studied. Very, very few have undergone any kind of rigorous evaluation. And then since 1958, any new additives,

that came in, the companies that were using them were responsible for determining their safety and would appoint a committee. A committee would say, oh, we reviewed the research on this, these things are fine, and send a letter to the FDA saying these things are fine. But those letters were voluntary. And the FDA has other things to do besides worrying about food additives. It's concerned about, you know, general food safety, microbial food safety. And additives have never been a priority. So if I'm a company in the States and I want to add a new additive into my food. You appoint your own committee. So basically it's like when my daughter marks her own homework and says she's done an excellent job, even though she clearly hasn't done an

excellent job. And in this case, I just select my own group of people to agree that this new additive is fine. And I send a letter to the FDA saying, oh, I've done an internal inspection and decided this thing is fine. And you list all the references and send it. And occasionally the FDA has sent back letters saying, we don't think so. But there haven't been very many of those. but they do exist. But it's not something that is looked at with the kind of rigor that our new head of Health and Human Services,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., thinks is adequate. I'm going to come to that maybe just in a bit and just understand more, I think, the situation here and then look a bit at the picture, I guess, across the world as well. So, firstly, the fact you're saying this with, I would say, some sense of humor suggests that you, you think that these additives shouldn't just be viewed as clearly all safe and you should not worry about adding them to your foods? Well, I'll say again, people don't die on the

spot from eating these things. And it's very difficult to determine how would you do the studies if you think about it. If you wanted to rigorously evaluate every single ingredient on the Wonderbread list of ingredients, that would be enormously. difficult, you would need thousands of study subjects. These are really expensive, difficult studies to run. People eat lots of different kinds of foods with lots of different kinds of additives in them. These are very complicated scientific problems to address. They're really hard. I think everybody underestimates how difficult nutrition research is, because humans are not experiment animals. You can't lock people up. Do rigorously tested experiments.

in which you know exactly what people are eating and wait for 30 years to find out whether the effect show. And additives are a minor consideration. I mean, really microbial food safety is a much bigger one in the FDA's list of things that it has to worry about. And so it's been kind of ignored.

And this is, as I understand it, unlike the European precautionary principle in which the attitude is, if you don't know it's safe, you don't use it. We have the attitude that we'll use it, and if it causes problems, we'll get rid of it. Could you talk for a minute about the contrast, for example, in Europe, about these attitude to additives? Well, I suppose the color additives, since they're so politically important right now, would be the best example. That is the red 40, blue one and two, green, whatever, and yellow five and six that are in lots and lots of candies, frostings, and kids, cereals that are marketed to children. In Europe, these are not banned, as I understand it, but they are required to have a warning label.

If you use them, you've got to say that there's some evidence that they might cause problems in some children. And in the United States, we just use them until now when our new Secretary of Health and Human Services has made it his first priority to get rid of the color additives. And again, I'm laughing because why color additives? I can think of lots of other things that will make America's children healthy again. Tell me for a minute more about this generally recognized as safe that you mentioned because it feels like that's part of this contrast around different approaches around the world towards new additives, towards this idea that actually you need to justify in some way that this additive is safe before you're added into food versus I think you were describing something where you sort of assume it's safe until it's proven otherwise.

Could you help me to understand that? What the FDA is able to do is to revoke the grass status. And it did that for trans fats, that is partially hydrogenated salad oils that have fatty acids in a specific configuration that's different from the natural one. And they revoked. When enough evidence had come in that trans fats were unsafe and raised the risk for heart disease, the FDA revoked grass status on that. And once you do that, then companies really can't use it without being liable to, you know, legal interventions. And that took care of it. So when you look across this picture, it sounds like there's lots of reasons why food manufacturers would want to use these additives.

You describe the Wonder Bread example. It makes the bread really soft. It lasts a really long time. All of these other things that are very attractive, both for the person buying the food, but also for the manufacturer for it to last a long time and be cheaper. and I assume that cost is one of the elements as you talk about using these like red 40 and other things that are not used in Europe, I think I've heard that part of this is to do

with the relative cost maybe of using that versus more natural colors. I actually don't think cost is the main consideration, although it is a consideration. The main consideration is that the colors last much longer and are much brighter. They're much more vivid. And there's tons of research that shows,

that people think that brightly colored foods taste better. So basically they can get a color that you just can't get from like us. Because I think a lot of the colorants in Europe come from. Vegetables or spices. Yeah, that's right. So if in Europe they're using plants and fruits in the U.S. with these examples like your red number 40, what does that come from? Red 40?

It's a petroleum dye, coltar dye. These are coltar dyes that were, you know, I've been, in use for decades and decades and produce very, very vivid colors. And, Marion, when you say it's a coal tar dye, sorry, just help me to and say, what's it? It comes from petroleum. It's oil. It comes from oil. It's a petroleum product. You say that as though it's obvious. So they're basically putting bits of oil in the candy for my kids. No, they're putting chemicals that are extracted from oil. Is that better? I have no idea. I have no idea. I never eat this stuff.

I mean, for me, these are, you know, they're not something that are in my dietary plan at all. If I see these colors on a package, I don't eat them. Well, I don't eat anything that's not natural. That's one of my food rules. So help me to understand a little bit whether anyone else should care. So we talked about these additives. You've already said there's a lot of them in lots of different places. They're not well studied because it's very hard to do this research.

Is there any potential risks or downsides from this? Or is this like, oh, that's sort of interesting. Don't worry about it. Carry on with your day. Well, the FDA has said that color additives are safe at the levels at which they're commonly consumed. Other people disagree. And there have been a number of clinical trials dating back to the early 1980s when a physician named Benjamin Feingold developed the Feingold diet, which was aimed at children with hyperactors.

activity or neurobehavioral problems. And his view was that if you took the color additives out of foods and didn't allow children to eat these diets, that their behavioral problems would resolve. And it's been very difficult to do the science. First of all, you're not allowed to do experiments on children, so that's one problem. But there are others as well. The study with which I'm most familiar because I know some of the people who were involved in doing that study was one done in the 1980s on six children who were given either a drink that had color additives in it or a drink that did not have color additives in it and somehow they matched the color of these two drinks so that you couldn't tell which was which and neither the parents nor the children knew which was which. And what they found out was that there was one child in that study who every single time that child drank the drink with the additives in it, that child went off the wall and developed behavioral problems. The parents could identify it every single time. But the other five children know.

They didn't show any effects. So when the talk is about some children are sensitive, that's what they mean. Well, one out of six is a lot, you know, or a little, depending on how you look at it. So the behavioral problems are there for some children, and there are animal studies that indicate that some of these additives are carcinogenic and animals are potentially carcinogenic. Well, from my standpoint, that's enough of a reason to get rid of them. These things have no purpose in the foods other than to make people want to eat them. They're cosmetics.

They don't have any safety function. They don't have a nutritional function. They are strictly cosmetic. And there are replacements. They're vegetable replacements. And they're not used in Europe. You know, so on and on and on. And there is no reason that they should have been gone a long time ago.

So I'm happy that they're going to be gone. A lot of companies have pledged now that they will get rid of the color additives by 2027. I feel like you've demolished these color additives. And on the other hand, we've gone from a general description of all of these additives that were in the back of that wonder pack to suddenly talking about the color additives. But you also said, actually, this is almost like a small part of the conversation. There were so many other additives that were in that bread and we're talking about. Why might we be concerned about all those other additives that have been putting our food?

Well, we don't know what they do. You know, we don't know whether they're harmful. They're certainly there in very, very small amounts. Do small amounts make any difference with the color additives? I think the reason why the color additives come up so much is because they affect children. And because children are not eating one at a time. They're eating combinations of them. of them. And the idea is that combinations might be worse than eating one at a time. But,

you know, the chemical additives, they're chemicals of one kind or another. What they do in the body, you know, the prediction is that they're not particularly harmful. The FDA says that they're safe at levels commonly consumed. And how much you want to worry about this depends on what you want to worry about. I worry about other things more. Got it. So what you're saying is there's a lot of different chemicals. I think you mentioned 10,000 different editors. That's what they say. That's probably each individual one, you are not saying that is really dangerous as an individual additive for me. But overall, do I want to be putting all of these different chemicals into my body that I don't understand what they do? I'd probably prefer not to. Is that? Yeah. I mean, that would be my view.

and I don't usually buy foods that have lots and lots of additives in them. I'd love to explore a little bit more than some of these particular rules, I guess, about what we do and don't put inside our food. The first one is cheese from raw milk. Ah, that's not banned in the U.S. Only in interstate commerce. Help me to understand that. It's not bad.

You can buy raw milk cheeses in the U.S. In fact, you can buy European raw milk cheeses in the U.S. It's very good ones, actually, as long as they're aged for a certain amount of time. You can buy all the exactly the same. Well, I'm not sure they're exactly the same, but we certainly have European raw milk cheeses available at cheese stores in the United States. There's a very good one, very near where I live. I'd understood that if they hadn't been aged for a certain period of time... Oh, they have to be aged.

Okay, which is different. So there's a difference there in assumption about what is safe. So there's a lot of cheeses I understand that I could buy here or when I'm in Paris that I couldn't buy in the U.S. just as an example. And I'm curious, is this showing you that the complexity of deciding what is safe? Is this to do, like, how do you understand that again back to this like different? Well, safety is relative. What do you mean by safe? And the problem with raw milk is that some raw milk is contaminated, not all.

some raw milk is contaminated with extremely lethal bacteria that can make you sick or kill you. And the pasteurization takes care of that. And a lot of people feel very passionately that raw milk cheeses and raw milk products taste better and are better for you than pasteurized. Fine, they're taking a risk. How big a risk? Very hard to say. You've described a situation where you can add all of these additives in the States and the company decides itself and as a consumer, I'm left to navigate that, whereas this situation with the raw milk isn't permitted and you see a situation maybe in another country, let's take France, for example, where this is sort of backwards, the other way around.

How much has all of this been driven by, I guess, medical evidence? and trying to do the best thing for us as consumers, and to what extent has it been affected by lobbyists and manufacturers and things like this? Well, all of that is involved, but if you're a food manufacturer, you don't want to kill your customers, I would think. That's not good for business. You know, I mean, I once visited a raw milk factory, if that's what it is, in Italy. And, you know, they were making a soft white cheese.

we could see the people up to their elbows dealing with this milk that was in the process of being curdled, and it didn't look very sanitary and everything was open. And afterwards, I asked as politely as I could, do you test for E. coli or Listeria? And they gave me a list that was pages long of everything they tested for. They were so scrupulous about what they were doing and what they were producing and so careful about making sure that their cheeses didn't have these lethal bacteria that I thought, oh, I'd eat that one. But you have to know the producer. You have to know the producer in that situation. And if you don't know the producer, you have to rely on government to have rules so that you're not going to be eating something that's going to make you really.

really, really sick or kill you? I love this example because I think that, you know, I have quite a few French friends. I once worked in a French company. And for them, the idea that these sorts of cheeses that they've grown up with and that I think they would say have been like part of their culture for thousands of years or in any way like not safe, sort of seems mad.

So is this partly to do with what we're used to and the extent to which perhaps, and I think particularly about maybe the US and the UK, where we've been very separated from our food culture for a very long time and tend not to have the same strength of a food culture as you often see in many other parts of the world, right, not just in Europe, but the same in Asia, and that somehow the very industrialization makes us feel safe, right?

So you've said, you talked about the bacteria, like, there's definitely no bacteria, and also you stick in all of these additives in order to make sure that it sort of stays safe, but we've then ended up with these foods, which are incredibly unnatural and potentially causing like a lot more harm than the thing we were trying to avoid in the first place?

Oh, that's possible. The whole question of food safety is one of risk. Risk is a very complicated concept. It's very difficult for people to understand because you're dealing with probabilities. You're not dealing with certainty. So the probability of becoming ill from eating a raw milk product, usually,

I mean, if the cheeses are aged, than the probability goes way down. But the probability is greater of becoming ill from consuming raw milk than pasteurized milk. How much greater? Difficult to answer. And the science in all of this is very complicated,

in part because people eat such complicated diets. And they're not the same every day for most people. If I now flip the other way around, we've talked about the sort of food colorings already. You've rather shocked me with the fact they're literally made out of byproducts of petrol. It doesn't sound very attractive, does it? Yes, and if you look at the chemical structure of the molecules,

they don't look very attractive either. But I understand this is not the only additives that are still allowed in the US that are not allowed in a lot of other. We talk about Europe a lot, but I think it's going to be similar elsewhere. I understand there are a number of other additives where there's a very different view about that risk and reward. Are there any that you'd be able to talk to them? Oh, I don't think I know any offhand, but if you have some, you can tell me what they are.

Well, one that was mentioned here is like brominated vegetable oil. Oh, yeah. I think that's on the list of things that people want to get rid of. The state of Texas has passed a law that forbids 44 separate additives in the food supply from being allowed in Texas. foods. And that will have a big effect because companies can't formulate different products for different states. And so Texas has sort of taken the lead on that. And I believe that's one of the things that was in there. I'm not sure that's true. I'm vaguely remember. It was a long list. And yet what's interesting, I think you said, is there's a long list of like, did you say 46,

but you're also saying there's sort of 10,000 of these ingredients that are out there. I can't imagine where the figure 10,000 comes from because you certainly don't. see 10,000 additives listed on food labels. So that would be a significant reduction in the number of additives that are... The Texas 44? Oh, that would knock everything. That's practically most of the ultra-processed foods out of the food would be knocked out of the food supply.

So that would be quite a profound shift to what you're allowed to eat. How do you feel about that? I think it's fun to watch. I find all of this extremely entertaining. because food advocates, like the advocacy group, Center for Science and the Public Interest, has been trying to get color additives out of foods for decades and have made no headway whatsoever. They're considered kind of a left-wing organization. Now it's Republican right-wing states that are taking lead on doing this.

And so that's kind of head-turning. And, you know, I don't know what to make of it. it's just astonishing to me. And so part of what astonishes you is the shift in terms of who's pushing to remove these advocates. Yeah, it's astonishing. It's hardly know what to make of it. But let's get rid of them.

You know, we've been trying to get rid of them for decades. It's time. Why has it been hard to do this sooner? Oh, because the food companies say they can't exist without them. Even so, the candy companies are just stunned. They have tried. It's not for lack of it. trying. Mars at one point said it was going to get rid of all of its petroleum color

additives. And it didn't. It couldn't do it. It couldn't find replacements that had the bright, shiny colors that people expect in M&Ms. And General Mills, a serial company in the United States, tried to take the color additives out of tricks, cereal, which is a serial design specifically for children, and the colors were kind of brown and tan and fall colors. I thought rather attractive fall colors, but I'm not four years old. Nobody bought the cereal. They stopped buying it. They said it didn't taste as good. This is color psychology and food. And this really makes a difference to children buying these candies? Everybody thinks the brightly colored foods taste better. What you want is you want a level playing field, as there is

in Europe. There's a level playing field on color additives. Everybody's got to do the same thing. So then the companies can continue to compete. But in the United States, so far, all of this is voluntary. It's voluntary for the end of 2027. So it's not exactly going to happen tomorrow. But a lot of companies have said they will voluntarily remove them. And do you feel that the sort of this new political pressure coming from like this new American administration is really going to shift the fields on all of these additives? Or is this very much around the colorant additives specifically? Well, they started with color additives. I think there are others.

I think it's too soon to tell. We've talked a lot about additives that are sort of put in for the end consumer experience. So the colors we've talked a lot about. You've also talked about sort of the shelf life and the softness. But one of the things that the team also shared with me is that there's a lot of additives that are used in the farming processes in the states that might not be allowed elsewhere. So I'm thinking about what is it that you are allowed to feed your animals for you. example, that then sort of goes upstream into what we might end up eating. Should we worry about the stuff that wouldn't appear on my food label, right? Because it'll just say beef or pork,

but are effectively all the things that have been fed to these animals to affect their growth? Well, the big question in animal feed is antibiotics, which have an enormous impact on the health not only of animals, but also of people. And there have been pressures for, again, decades to try to stop industrial animal producers from using antibiotics as growth promoters because they work as growth promoters. I mean, everybody is fine about giving antibiotics to animals if they're sick and need them. But the idea that you would just routinely across the board put antibiotics in the feed of animals in order to get them to grow better and not get sick because they're so closely raised together, you know, hundreds and thousands of animals

are raised together. That's been a huge issue and it's been impossible to deal with because the meat industry says we need this. Marron, could you tell us a little bit more about why are they using antibiotics for something other than just stopping them getting sick? If you want to be efficient about meat production. You have large numbers of animals raised together in very closely confined animal feeding operations. They're called CAFOs. The animals are messy. They don't use toilets. And so you have a lot of mess. And if one animal is sick and has some bacterial disease, it can easily be transmitted to all the others that are mucking through, whatever they're mucking through. And so if you put antibiotics into the feed, it does two things. It not only prevents

the animals from transmitting bacterial diseases from one to another, but it also, for reasons that are quite poorly understood, nobody really knows why, it encourages the animals to grow more rapidly. And if you can raise animals to grow more rapidly, you don't have to feed them as much. And that saves cost. And the object is to produce meat at as low cost as possible so that you don't have to charge too much for it. So everybody will buy it. So you pump them full of antibiotics, which I think we know from many other podcasts we've had here, obviously deeply disrupts your gut microbiome, and then these animals end up just putting on a lot more weight faster than they would without these antibiotics.

And so is that a standard part of farming practice now? Yes. And so you brought this up. Why as a consumer might I care about this? Well, if these antibiotics are antibiotics that are used for human diseases, they're not going to work because they will have selected for, bacteria in them, either the animal's microbiome or yours, that will resist these antibiotics and the antibiotics won't work. And, you know, lots of antibiotics are confronted with resistant

bacteria now. And this has made the antibiotics much less useful for treating human disease. And can these antibiotics make their way into the food that we eat? that's hard to know I mean yes they would be incorporated but they would probably be destroyed or you would think that it wouldn't make any difference but apparently it does and partly because the animals and humans

share the same bacteria in some ways and so the workers on the industrial farms where the industrial kaphos carry the bacteria from the animals home, those bacteria infect humans, and they get transmitted that way. So it's not that it's in the meat. It's in the bacteria. Got it. One of the things that people living outside the USF and talk about is sort of the higher level of industrialization of these sorts of things. So antibiotics in the feed is one. Chlorinated chicken is something that comes up all the time in the United Kingdom.

I'm not sure if anyone in the U.S. even hears about the concept of a chlorinated chicken. I think we chlorinate all of our chickens. So I think you chlorinate all of your chickens, exactly. And these chlorinated chickens are banned in the UK and the EU. Well, we have to talk about salmonella. I mean, here's another one. An enormous percentage of supermarket chickens in the United States are found to be contaminated with salmonella, often toxic salmonella, which, if ingested,

by humans would make people sick. The Department of Agriculture has argued forever that salmonella is normal in chickens and therefore doesn't need to be labeled and you don't need warning labels. We have warning labels now. But it's been extraordinarily difficult to get those warning labels onto the chickens, to make people understand that if you've got a chicken in your house, you've got to deal with it as if it were you were running a contamination laboratory. Wow.

You know, you really need to wear gloves and you shouldn't handle these and you certainly don't want to wash them in your sink because the bacteria from the chicken are going to get on your dishes and everything else. And for decades, I mean, always these are old issues. Food safety advocates have argued that salmonella should be considered an adulterant on chickens. And if it's an adulterant, you can't sell it. But the poultry industry has successfully managed to keep that one off.

It's amazing, right? This tension you keep coming back to between what might be optimal for the manufacturers making this is not always what's optimal for us as consumers. Oh, it's an enormous problem. Apparently, the team said that on chlorinated chicken, the European Commission has said that the reason why they're concerned about it is that chlorine rinses are a way to sidestep animal welfare standards earlier in the process. So they say it's a way to clean this away and therefore you sort of hide, I guess, not looking after this as much earlier. Right. And is this, again, a sign that I think we know that lobbying by sort of big food companies is an issue around the world, that it's sort of.

somehow even stronger and more perfected in the states than in a number of other places? Yeah, the lobbyists are really good at what they do. They're paid to make sure that no federal agency passes regulations that are going to raise their costs or make their lives more difficult. They're paid to do that, and they're very good at what they do. Consumer advocates have a much greater difficulty because they're very few. consumer organizations that pay lobbyists to try to counter some of this. And right now we hit, well, right now it's hard to talk about, but there's always been this

tension between the health of consumers and the economic health of the corporations that are producing the food. And there are real tensions about this. From the corporation's standpoint, keeping the cost of food low is something that's very important. It means everybody can afford it. It means they can hire people. They've got jobs. They've got places where they're supporting entire communities because everybody in the community works for one of these places. These are very important considerations in the States. And I think anyone listening who is outside the States is not going to say this is totally different where they live. It's just like a matter of degree. It seems to me. I think the thing that I think of is

you describe like the cheap food and the availability, which I think has always been a very powerful argument is listening to this now in 2025, it's now clear how huge the unexpected health costs have been for all of us of eating these like very highly processed foods with all of these different things in them so far away from the sorts of foods we used to eat. And so when you think about those lost years, right, of healthy life, the diabetes and the heart disease and the raised cancerous, all the rest of it, like when you put that in alongside the fact that your bread is, you know, 20 cents or 20 p or 20 euro cents cheaper, it's not cheaper at all, is it? It's actually more expensive than it.

Well, those are the externalized costs. Help me to understand. It's an economics term, but I love it. It's the externalized cost of producing food in the health consequences and in the cost to the environment, which, you know, is a whole separate issue. that the companies don't pay for the health care that people have to have later on, and they don't pay for the environmental cleanup. I mean, the obvious example there is that the big agricultural production in the United States is in the Midwest, and the chemicals that are used to grow corn and soybeans are used in great excess.

they get into the water supply, they flow down the Mississippi River, and they end up in the Gulf of Mexico, killing all the fish in the Gulf of Mexico, or stimulating the growth of plants and algae so that the fish don't have enough oxygen. That's an externalized cost of agricultural production, and probably the most obvious example. How should this affect what I think about what I eat? Well, I think diets are simple. What I have, healthy diet is so simple that the journalist Michael Pollan can do it in seven words. Eat food not too much, mostly plants. And that takes care of it. And within that structure, once you define food as something that's minimally processed, that's all you have to do. But what that does is to

exclude the most profitable processed foods that are on the market. And those are cheaper because if you make a bread that lasts on the shelf for a long time, you can sell it at a lower cost. You're not constantly having to replace. You're not wasting a lot. And these foods are designed to be really tasty. People love them. You know, everybody has their favorite breakfast cereal, candy, cookie, biscuit, whatever, or bread, for that matter. And these are deliberately formulated to be irresistibly delicious. Some people are talking about addiction to specific food products, that they stimulate the same kind of dopamine responses that addictive drugs do,

whether that's true or not remains to be determined. But a lot of people feel that they're addicted to certain kinds of foods. And a lot of addictive scientists say that they meet the criteria for addiction. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of talk about that these days. Saying like avoid all processed food or only minimally processed food is really hard. Oh, I would never say that. I would say minimise. I think it's hard for yourself. It's even harder when you have a family and you think about, you know, your children and the sets of choices. Well, remember that those food manufacturers are deliberately marketing their products to your children.

Tell me a little bit more about that. Well, the objective is to get children to like certain foods because they're going to eat them through their entire life. Marketing is aimed at children. And even though children don't have money of their own usually, they certainly have the ability to, actually it's called the pester factor. They have the ability to nag their parents to buy certain foods for them and companies deliberately advertised to this,

and they do this on social media that the parents never see. So it's invisible to most parental authority. I mean, I don't have young children anymore, but I have friends who do, and they say, we've never taken our child to McDonald's. We don't have McDonald's food in the house. When we drive down the street

and my child sees a McDonald's outlet, my child says, I want to go there, take me there. And when I say, why, the child doesn't really know, but the child wants to go. That's brilliant marketing. That's interesting. It's fabulous. And you feel that they are intentionally focused? This isn't like a five product.

There's research that shows that they're intentionally doing it. There's real research that says they're intentional. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Because they're trying to sell products. Food companies are not social service agencies. They're not public health agencies. They're businesses.

They have stockholders to please. That's their job. They could be selling widgets. Their job is to sell more to as many people as possible. The consequences are irrelevant. I think we need regulation. That's what government is supposed to do. The executives and food companies have told me

we would like to do the right thing. But if we do the right thing, our competitors are going to get ahead of us. We need a level playing field. The only way they're going to get a level playing field is if the government issues regulations. That's why I'm in favor of government regulations. I think it's better for consumers,

but it's also better for the companies because they're not going to be competing with each other in ways where they shouldn't be competing with each other. And, you know, unfortunately, there are many examples of companies that have not behaved with much integrity when it comes to food safety. There are plenty of places that do, but there are plenty of places that don't. And for that, we need government regulation.

I mean, maybe this is the case in the states more than in other countries, but certainly in the states. It's a huge issue, and not to have government regulation means that companies are given permission to behave badly. I actually think the rest of the world might be getting a slightly light ride, out of this conversation, Marion, I do think that things are worse in the states than in many other places, but we have the same explosion of obesity and diabetes, all these other impact on mood, all these other sort of things that are going on, and the same explosion of very highly processed

high-risk foods. So although I think there are more controls in a number of other developed countries, the same underlying pressure, the same pushback, I think, that we see from big food companies about any restrictions on the advertising they do or the way in which they process their food. Like, there's a global tension here, it seems to be, and visiting lots of different countries and seeing this. Well, we have, you know, corporate capture of government these days pretty worldwide. You know, and I don't think that that's necessarily for the public good. Someone you know might be unknowingly consuming additives that are posing long-term health risks. Why not share this episode with them right now?

It could give them the information that they need to have to make more informed food choices. And I'm sure they'll thank you for it. So if I could give your magic wand now and you could suddenly reset the regulations around the world, what would be the top things that you would want to change? Well, it depends on what country we're talking about. You can make it apply everywhere. Everywhere, everywhere. Get money out of politics would be my first one.

But I would say put regulations on marketing to children. I think it's morally wrong. Because children really are not in a position to exercise judgment over this. There's plenty of research that shows that kids can't tell the difference between advertising and content. and require media literacy in schools so that children learn how to distinguish advertising from content. So I would start there. I would, you know, in the states, I would deal with school meals

in a much more direct way. They need much more money for the meals. They need much better food. But, you know, maybe the states have particular issues. And Marion, on school food, what would be the top thing you'd want to change? Oh, I would rather have kids eat real food than packaged food, real food, the way the French did or do or still do. You know, real meals were cooked with the expectation that children will eat the food,

taste the food, and get involved with the food. I think school food is enormously important because, again, in the States, there's evidence that shows that kids eat most of their calories, in schools and their healthiest galleries in schools, though. So it's important that schools do it right. And when you think about any regulations that might affect the food that we eat as adults? Well, I'd like to see restrictions on ultra-processed foods, portion-sized considerations, and people have to find ways to eat healthfully and pleasurably without taking in too many calories.

for their activity and metabolic levels. Very difficult to do for most people, obviously, which is why so many people are overweight. And kids are overweight now in a way that they never used to be. And part of this is dealing with the social media problem, which is an enormous one. I'm so glad I don't have small children now. I think it would be so hard.

You know, I raised my children before, social media. You know, life, it's really tough for parents now. I have enormous sympathy. I think that's really nice. I do think there's a whole set of, I have a 17-year-old and a six-year-old, and there are a whole set of pressures that you worry about, I think, as a parent, of things that like the access to these digital devices and what's really going on in their lives that, you know, my parents never had to worry about because it didn't exist. Yeah, and you don't want to argue with your kids about food. Well, you have so many other things to argue with your kids about.

Correct. I'm guessing. I think, well, in my household they're stuck with it, we talk about food a lot. And the thing that's been transformational in my house is this shift of thinking about eating this food, not just generically because it's healthy, but thinking about you've got all of these trillions of good bugs in your gut. And if you're eating the right things for that, you're feeding them. And I have found that that is a real unlock in terms, because it's about adding things.

It's not about making some particular food being demonized. But still, as you described, like as soon as you go out into the world and you can just walk into a store and they can be like literally nothing in there that you really feel you want to feed your bacteria. Exactly. And so that is definitely a problem. Well, the wonderful thing about it is they eat food, not too much mostly plants. It applies not only to feeding your microbiome,

But it also applies to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancers, you know, all of the... I mean, it's so simple, and it's one diet. And there are also an infinite ways of putting foods together to eat that way. So it's not as if it's boring or restrictive. It's... I think of it as opening lots of ways of thinking about this that are extremely pleasurable. I worry a lot about losing the pleasure of food. We have, you know, GLP1 drugs, for example.

People report that they just, they're not interested in food anymore. That breaks my heart. I love that. And maybe actually we could wrap up. So let's say, I take your magic wand away. I'm sorry, Marion, but, you know, you had it for five minutes, but now I've taken their magic wand away. Shucks.

And all you can do now is actually just give individuals advice. And you've given this sort of very high-level. like try and eat minimally processed food, you know, not too much. But people say, like, okay, help me to understand a bit more about how I might think about applying that to my life in quite a practical way without losing the joy. What would a great, you know, luncheon breakfast be for you? First of all, I'm not a breakfast eater. So I don't get hungry until later in the day.

But I'm perfectly happy to have something made with vegetables or fruits or grains. I'm perfectly happy. I'm not a vegetarian. I'm not a vegan. I eat everything. I try to follow my own advice. And I don't have to work very hard doing that. It comes quite easily.

You know, for people who are raised unprocessed foods, getting them to eat other kinds of things is very, very difficult. And I would never tell anybody, do this, do this. I would try to find out what they're willing to try and what baby steps they're willing to take and then work with them. But that's an enormously difficult job. People who are used to eating one way don't want to change usually, unless they have to, or a doctor tells them too. Well, Marian, I hope I'm not going about to get an enormous amount of trouble from you, but I'm going to say that you are into your 80s and you are well into my 80s. Well into your 80s. And for anyone who's not on video, like you're an incredible shape, but you're also like razor sharp and you've kept me on my toes a lot through this conversation a lot more than normal.

a lot of listeners are thinking about what they eat bluntly to be in the shape that you're in right now when they're 89, what do you put that down to? Good nutrition. I don't know. I can't say good genes because my father died of a heart attack at the age of 47. So, you know, maybe it's genes, maybe it's luck, maybe it's eating healthfully, which, as I said, that's how I like to eat.

And this isn't just a recent discovery. This has been like thinking about... No, it's how I've always liked to eat. Since I was a child at summer camp and discovered a camp that I went to had a vegetable garden for dinner. And we were sent out to pick the vegetables that were cooked for dinner.

And I realized how absolutely delicious fresh vegetables are. It's what I've liked ever since. and I don't like a lot of junk food, and I do read food labels on packages, and if it's got all that stuff in it, I leave it on the shelf. Marian, I'd like to stop there because I don't think there's anything better that I could ask. I'd like to do a quick summary if that's all right, and correct me if I've got anything wrong. So the first thing that, honestly, this jumps into my mind is that these U.S. food colorants come from oil.

And, you know, petrol or gas, depending on the country government. So this is totally mad. It's really shocking that the big food companies in America have said for decades that they can't exist without these additives because if one company takes it away, then all the other companies keep it. And so they will lose out their market share. So there's a terrible pressure to keep putting these bad things in. We're finally starting to see some real pressure to remove those particular additives. But the general environment in the States continues where any company can just add a new additive, declare that it's safe and just put it into the food. And there are potentially thousands of these.

We don't understand what they do because doing the studies on these individual editors is so hard. So this just feels sort of backward. You know, anyone can put this in. And if they put it in, then all the other companies feel they should put it in. So this is a really profound problem. it is better in Europe in regard of like having to sort of prove a lot more that something is safe. But still, we have this incredibly highly processed food and all of these different additives that we don't understand. We talked a little bit about what's going on also in the animals that we end up eating

because you don't necessarily see this directly in your food labels. And for you, the top thing was the antibiotics. That amazingly, they're giving these animals all of these antibiotics. and it's making them really fat, which I think begs the question of, you know, the fact that so many of us end up having 20 causes of antibiotics before we're grown up and how that might be affecting our health. But that's probably a whole other podcast I'd love to talk about and that this ends up, you know, then flowing through to what we eat. And that for you, there's two parts of this. One is, we need more regulations and that the lobbying of these big food companies around the world is incredibly powerful. Interestingly, for you, the first thing you went to is about marketing aimed at children.

They are intentionally understanding how to make their products as attractive as possible to kids. And you gave this brilliant example of like a child knowing about McDonald's, even though their parents are never taking them to McDonald's. Think about school meals as something which is like, could you? get children to eat real food and how important that could be for their health and really restricting this, you know, ultra-processed food, what we tend to call sort of high-risk processed food because the nutritional scientist that Zoe tell me off for the vagueness of ultra-processed food. And then you talked about what could individuals do? And you said, like, if you're going to boil it down to like a really simple sentence, I got sort of eat minimally

processed food, not too much, mostly plants. Read the food labels. So turn it over. and like understand what's what's in there and a lot of listeners are so members and they know that's one of the things that you know the app enables you to do is to sort of like short circuit that if you end up like Marion on the back of eating all of this food in your late 80s you know I think you're doing something pretty amazing so you're definitely like a walking advertisement for the power of what we eat in terms of giving us like really high quality life so thank you so much for coming in. I thought that was really powerful. Well, thank you very much. I'll end this episode with something I think you'll like, a free Zoe gut health guide. If you're a regular listener, you know just how important it is to take care of your gut. Your gut microbiome is the gateway to better health, better sleep, energy and mood. The list just goes on. But many of us aren't sure how to best support our gut. I wasn't sure before doing Zoe. is why we've developed an easy-to-follow gut health guide. It's completely free and offers five

simple steps to improve your gut health. You'll get tips from Professor Tim Specter, Zoe's scientific co-founder and one of the world's most cited scientists, plus recipes and shopping lists straight to your inbox. We'll also send you ongoing gut health and nutrition insights, including how Zoe can help. To get your free Zoe gut health guide, head on over to zoe.com slash gut guide. Thanks for tuning in and see you next time.