Why the ‘big food’ industry is killing us – and how to fight back | Prof. Brian Elbel and Prof. Tim Spector

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Why the ‘Big Food’ Industry Is Killing Us – and How to Fight Back" | Prof. Brian Elbel and Prof. Tim Spector

Released on May 8, 2025, on the "ZOE Science & Nutrition" podcast hosted by Jonathan Wolf, this episode delves into the detrimental impact of the Big Food industry on public health. Featuring insights from Dr. Brian Elbel, Professor of Population Health and Health Policy at New York University, and Professor Tim Spector, a leading epidemiologist at King's College London and co-founder of Zoe, the discussion unpacks the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and strategizes ways to combat their pervasive influence.

---

1. Introduction: The Hidden Dangers of Ultra-Processed Foods

Jonathan Wolf sets the stage by highlighting how UPFs dominate over half of the average diet, engineered for longevity and mass appeal at significant health costs. The conversation aims to uncover why such foods are ubiquitous and explore strategies to mitigate their negative effects.

2. Understanding Population Health

Prof. Brian Elbel explains population health as the study of health outcomes within large groups, emphasizing the importance of aggregate data over individual studies. He contrasts this with the granular approach of laboratory research, illustrating how even minor changes can have substantial impacts on public health at the population level.

“[Population health] looks at solutions that could be meaningful on a big scale, even if they seem minor individually.”
— Tim Spector [03:19]

3. The Rise and Impact of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs)

Prof. Tim Spector identifies UPFs as the primary threat to dietary health, linking their consumption to obesity, diabetes, metabolic diseases, and mental health issues. He emphasizes that these foods are meticulously engineered to be hyper-palatable, leading to overeating and addiction.

“Ultra processed foods are the number one enemy for healthy eating.”
— Tim Spector [04:47]

4. Evolution of the Food Landscape

The discussion traces the transformation of the food supply over the past 50 years, noting the shift from minimally processed items to a plethora of factory-made products. Tim Spector highlights how advancements in food science have enabled companies to create foods that are not only cheaper but also more addictive.

“Foods like Pringles are designed to look like real potatoes but are made from cheaper, extracted ingredients to maximize profit and shelf life.”
— Tim Spector [21:32]

5. The Role of Big Food Corporations

Tim Spector underscores the immense control exerted by major food corporations, which dominate approximately 80% of the global food supply. These companies prioritize profits over health, employing sophisticated marketing strategies and lobbying efforts to maintain their market dominance.

“These corporations employ the best food scientists to make products that are irresistible and addictive, all while knowing the health risks they pose.”
— Tim Spector [23:42]

6. Government Policies and Their Shortcomings

The conversation critiques the inadequacy of current government policies in addressing the UPF crisis. Brian Elbel and Tim Spector discuss potential policy interventions such as taxation, stricter labeling, and marketing restrictions, especially aimed at protecting children.

“Governments need to make healthier choices easier by implementing taxes, changing labeling systems, and restricting marketing of UPFs to children.”
— Brian Elbel [30:18]

7. Comparative Analysis: Food vs. Tobacco

Drawing parallels with the tobacco industry, the experts highlight how Big Food's strategies mirror those of tobacco companies in obfuscating the health risks of their products. Unlike cigarettes, food is a fundamental human need, making regulatory efforts more complex and politically challenging.

“Unlike cigarettes, food is culturally ingrained and necessary, making it harder to regulate and demonize despite the clear health risks.”
— Tim Spector [54:21]

8. Actionable Strategies for Individuals

The episode provides practical advice for listeners to reduce UPF consumption. Tim Spector introduces the Zoe app's processed food risk scale, which categorizes foods based on their health risks, helping consumers make informed choices.

“Use tools like the Zoe app to scan and assess the health risks of your foods, enabling you to avoid the most harmful UPFs.”
— Tim Spector [42:40]

Prof. Brian Elbel emphasizes mindful eating, encouraging individuals to understand their eating habits and make conscious decisions to prioritize healthier options.

“Pay attention to what drives your food choices and strive to make healthier choices the easier ones.”
— Tim Spector [55:11]

9. The Path Forward: Policy and Individual Responsibility

Concluding the discussion, the experts advocate for a dual approach: robust government policies to regulate UPFs and empowered individual choices facilitated by tools like the Zoe app. They express optimism that increasing awareness and technological support can drive significant change.

“We’ve reached a turning point where everyone is talking about UPFs. With the right tools and policies, we can make healthier choices more accessible and reduce the burden on our health systems.”
— Tim Spector [60:39]

---

Key Takeaways

• Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs): Engineered for taste and shelf-life, UPFs contribute significantly to rising global health issues like obesity and diabetes.
• Big Food's Influence: Dominated by a few large corporations, the food industry prioritizes profits through addictive product formulations and strategic lobbying.
• Policy Gaps: Current government measures are insufficient in combating the UPF epidemic, necessitating comprehensive strategies including taxation, labeling reforms, and advertising restrictions.
• Individual Empowerment: Tools like the Zoe app and mindful eating practices are essential for consumers to navigate the challenging food environment effectively.
• Comparative Challenges: Regulating UPFs is more complex than tobacco due to the integral role of food in daily life and cultural significance.

Notable Quotes

• “Ultra processed foods are the number one enemy for healthy eating.”
  — Tim Spector [04:47]

• “These corporations employ the best food scientists to make products that are irresistible and addictive, all while knowing the health risks they pose.”
  — Tim Spector [23:42]

• “Use tools like the Zoe app to scan and assess the health risks of your foods, enabling you to avoid the most harmful UPFs.”
  — Tim Spector [42:40]

• “We’ve reached a turning point where everyone is talking about UPFs. With the right tools and policies, we can make healthier choices more accessible and reduce the burden on our health systems.”
  — Tim Spector [60:39]

Conclusion

This episode of "ZOE Science & Nutrition" casts a critical eye on the pervasive influence of the Big Food industry and the widespread consumption of ultra-processed foods. Through expert analysis and practical solutions, listeners are equipped with the knowledge to understand the systemic challenges and take actionable steps towards healthier eating habits. The discussion underscores the urgent need for both policy reforms and individual empowerment to address the silent epidemic of diet-related health issues.

Transcript

[Jonathan Wolf]

Welcome to Zoe Science and Nutrition, where world leading scientists explain how their research can improve your health. We like to believe that we choose what to eat, but in reality, hidden forces push us towards cheap, unhealthy food. From supermarket shelves to the meals we grab on the go. Our food system is built for profit, not health, and it's making us sick through tactics that we barely notice. Ultra processed foods or UPFs, now make up well over half of the average diet. Designed for long shelf life and mass production. Corporations Engineer the worst UPFs to be irresistible at a high cost. New research links harmful UPFs to obesity, metabolic disease, even early death. So what's the reason they're everywhere? And what would it take for us to break free? Today, Dr. Brian Elbl, a professor of population health and health policy at New York University, uncovers the hidden forces shaping what's in our food. He's joined by Professor Tim Spector to reveal how UPFs have quietly taken over our food system and why they're making us sick. Tim is one of the world's top 100 most cited scientists, a professor of epidemiology at King's College London, and my scientific co founder at Zoe. By the end of this episode, you'll have a clearer view of your food and the system shaping it so you can push back and make smarter choices.

[Brian Elbl]

Brian, thank you for joining me today.

[Tim Spector]

Glad to be here.

[Brian Elbl]

And Tim, thank you as always.

[Tim Spector]

My pleasure.

[Jonathan Wolf]

So Brian, we have a tradition here.

[Brian Elbl]

At Zoe where we always start with a quick fire round of questions. They come from our listeners and we have very strict rules on purpose to be difficult for professors and scientists.

[Jonathan Wolf]

And the, the rules are you can.

[Brian Elbl]

Give us a yes or a no or if you absolutely have to a one sentence answer. You willing to give it a go?

[Tim Spector]

Let's give it a go.

[Brian Elbl]

All right. Are we getting sicker from the food we eat?

[Tim Spector]

Yes.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Do government policies do enough to protect our health?

[Tim Spector]

No.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Tim, do a few giant corporations control.

[Brian Elbl]

What'S on our supermarket shelves?

[Tim Spector]

Yes. Around 10 of them.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Do food companies fund nutrition research for their own gain?

[Tim Spector]

Yes. It's not all bad, but mostly yes.

[Brian Elbl]

And Brian, you can have a whole sentence here.

[Jonathan Wolf]

What's the biggest misconception when it comes.

[Brian Elbl]

To unhealthy food choices?

[Tim Spector]

I think the biggest misconception is that they cannot be part of a healthy diet. And I think they can on occasion.

[Brian Elbl]

Well, look, we often on this podcast talk to scientists who study like tiny cells in their labs or one or two people in great depth. But Brian, you're someone who Studies the health of entire population. So you sort of focus on the very end of the scale. And Tim and I actually co founded Zoe eight years ago because of Tim's.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Realization that the food that we eat.

[Brian Elbl]

Is the most important thing that affects our health and yet we have a crisis in our food system. But this is the first time we sat down with a leading scientist to really understand what's going on at this sort of big picture way. So maybe just start off by explaining like what is population health and how does it impact the individual?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. So it is quite a contrast to what Tim was studying there. So I think population health is a couple things. I think it is really looking at the health of populations. By that we mean we're averaging over a bunch of different people. Right. So, you know, while you may be looking at one or two people in certain smaller studies, we're averaging over a whole big group of people. So that means a couple different things. It means when we're looking at solutions, we may be looking for a 3 to 5% sort of change that could be quite meaningful at a population level. That maybe wouldn't be what you're looking for if you're looking at sort of individual studies. So I think that's one big kind of a key distinction and difference. I think another is the type of data that we're using. Right. To look at population health stuff, we need a lot of data on a lot of people. And that's something that's quite different from smaller studies where you're down there collecting in the weeds individual data. For my studies, I'm using big data that are collected for generally other reasons. Right. They are data that are collected for big national health surveys that are looking at bunches of different things or they're data maybe from food companies themselves and directly and looking at some of those studies as well without taking their money to do it.

[Brian Elbl]

And Tim, from your perspective, what's the biggest threat to our dietary health today?

[Tim Spector]

It's the fact that we don't know that we're eating very unhealthy foods that are impacting our gut health and making us overeat them, that we just don't know the real properties of the food we're eating and people are being misled into making wrongful food choices.

[Brian Elbl]

And is there one particular class of food that you're worrying about?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah, generally called ultra processed foods, I think are the number one enemy for healthy eating.

[Brian Elbl]

And Brian, in your research, how are you seeing that food in general and I guess ultra processed food in particular is shaping our long term health. What do you see?

[Tim Spector]

So I would agree that ultra processed foods are a huge problem in the food supply across the world right now. I think they're actually a particularly tricky one to look at at a population level. They're this huge class of foods that have come on very quickly and really taken over the food supply. So it's really hard to sort of tease out at a population level what the relative contribution these foods have had. Although I think in many of the smaller scale studies we know they're quite problematic, but it's actually quite hard to tease out the overall contribution they have, except to say it's probably quite meaningful.

[Brian Elbl]

And so if you were going to look at that question. So I think Tim's answer when he looks at this is that it's sort of these ultra processed foods are the biggest issue. Would you have had the same answer or would you have said something different?

[Tim Spector]

I think I would have had the same answer and I think the next level to that question would be why are they there? What's driving folks to eat them? I think those are some of the next level of questions that are really important to understand why they're problematic. But I think I would agree with that.

[Brian Elbl]

And Tim Bryan was just saying it's hard to recognize what a UPF is. How would I recognize a upfront?

[Tim Spector]

Well, the ones that we're seeing at the moment are different to the ones when they started 50 years ago. And I think that's what Brahm's talking about, that a lot of these nutrition studies, epidemiological ones, that look over time and so it's completely changed in that time. So you can't just go back say, okay, what was. Were people eating this 50 years ago or 30 years ago, even 20 years ago. It's completely different. So we're now up to over 50 to 60% of of all our food is this general group of ultra processed foods in the western world. And that is the major problem. So what are these foods? You know, some people call them fake foods. They're created in huge factories from extracts of whole foods. So they don't use whole foods. Typically they would use a product of whole foods. So they'd never use milk. They'd use some sort of dried form of it. You know, they wouldn't use corn, they'd use some extracted bit of the starch of the corn and they put it back together to resemble food. So there isn't a unifying definition of ultra processed food other than it's things that you really couldn't make yourself in your own kitchen. That includes ingredients you wouldn't find in a common kitchen and that they are also industrially made to make you overeat them. And this is something that is fairly new concept, this hyper palatability of them so that their structure and everything about them is made so that it's the least effort to eat them in as fast as possible a time. And they want you to eat more and more. They want to eat multiple bags or amounts of them, which is never the case with real natural food. It's more to it than just saying, oh, it's got red dye 3 in it. These 10 companies that control 80% of the supply of these foods employ the very best food scientists working round the clock for decades to come up with ways of putting these chemicals together that make us overeat them, that make us love them and make a percentage of us addicted to it. And so it's necessarily complicated because they've used every trick in the book to do that.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Here at Zoe, we're on a mission to improve the health of millions. And the words you're listening to right now are part of that mission. But there's only so much we can do with a weekly podcast. Which brings me to today's very exciting announcement. About this time last year, my co founder, Professor Tim Spector, approached me with a crazy idea for an app that would make our world leading science and our expert nutrition advice free for everyone. And he convinced me it was a good idea. Well, that app is finally out in the world and ready for you to try for free. The new Zoe app lets you snap a meal and know if it's healthy instantly. And that's down to our new processed food risk scale. It's based on our last eight years of research and $100 million that we spent running the world's largest nutrition science study. With our risk scale on your side, you can cut through Big Food's misleading marketing and see how healthy your food really is. The app also helps you to build a healthy eating habit you can stick to. So after just a few weeks, you should start to feel better. Because as you know, as a listener of this podcast, what you eat can impact your energy, your mood, and your gut health. For the first time in Zoe's history, we're making a world leading science app that's available to all. No gatekeeping, no discount codes, no need to enter your credit card details. Will you give it a try? Just search for Zoe Health in your app store or click the Link in this episode's description to download a nutrition app that tells you what the food labels won't search for Z O E in your app store today. All right, back to the show.

[Tim Spector]

And I think we don't quite yet understand, to Tim's point, what components of them are most problematic, right? Is it the overeating? Is it particular components of them? Is it the combination of those things? But the component of the definition you gave, which I think is one of the most compelling I've heard as well, is it's really things you wouldn't cook with, things you don't recognize in your life. Kitchen. Right. I think those are the kind of the best example of some of these ultra processed foods. And it's most of the stuff you pick up at the grocery store and turn around and look at the label for.

[Brian Elbl]

I think it's interesting that you both said this idea that it's very different from 50 years ago, because I think most people listening will say, well, I'm surprised by that. I feel like the food that I'm eating now doesn't seem very different from the food that I might have had as a kid or that I see that my parents eat. So why are you suggesting that this is different food than we had back then?

[Tim Spector]

On average, we know that the food supply and the diet in most countries is quite different than it was 50 years ago. Right. So that's sort of statistically true. I think the other thing is that most of the foods that are ultra processed and that do make a majority of most diets right now, you know, we didn't really have the processing capability 50 years ago to do it. The technology wasn't there. The science behind it wasn't there. So there's actually quite a different set of tech that goes into them and science that goes into them. Not the kind of science that we might be propagating on this end of the table, but things that really are quite complex that just wasn't there 50 years ago.

[Brian Elbl]

Brian, could you describe a bit what has changed? I mean, 50 years ago everyone was buying food from a big supermarket already. It's not like everybody was going to their local farmer to collect milk straight out of the cow. So again, I think people, I think, will be quite surprised to hear you say that it has changed so much.

[Tim Spector]

So if you think of sort of the things that are generally at the kind of outskirts of the supermarket, I'm hoping that's a universally true statement. But the produce, the meats and cheeses and milks and those Sorts of things. I think a lot of those are the same, although some differences, but I think a lot of those things are the same. It's really the things sort of in the middle of the supermarket that is much different and much processed. And I think what we've seen is people kind of shift from the outskirts to the middle and they're buying a lot more ready to eat foods, food that have a lot more processing before they get to them and maybe put them on their plate or as part of their cooking process. So I think that's a big part of the difference there.

Yeah, 50 years ago, I think people would be looking at the breakfast cereals as the very first sort of examples of this genre. Then a whole range of these other ones started to come and people realized that there was huge markups to be made, cost very little. You could charge what you like for it, you could spend huge amounts on advertising. And it had a shelf life that was like years. And so that itself became people thinking, what else can we do in that line? So that, you know, you get biscuits and cookies, you get all the cakes you got, then it spread to ready meals. And that's a relatively new idea that you just buy these pre processed, you know, lasagnas and chilies and frozen pizzas and all these meals that are now you can buy in bulk in these supermarkets.

[Brian Elbl]

Is it just the level of processing sort of once food hits these sort of big food manufacturers, has changed or has anything else changed in the food landscape?

[Tim Spector]

So I think what's changing the food landscape, and another word often used for that is the food environment is much more than just processing. Right. So I think that there's a lot more availability of food. Right. So it used to be that food was largely available from supermarkets. Now if we all left our midtown New York and walked just a few feet, we'd probably find five different places that were selling chips and soda. So I think that sort of availability is a big part, I think partly because of the processing more and more broadly. Pricing is a big part of it as well. Right. You know, we know that the price of foods have generally gone down. Particularly unhealthy foods have gone down more than healthy foods. So there's sort of a bigger gap between the prices of healthy and unhealthy foods. So I think that's another big one. I think another really big one is the marketing of these foods. Right. It's really, really quite prominent where you go and you see marketing for foods in a way that you didn't before. It's targeted at children. Oftentimes, we think this marketing really works quite well to drive particular food consumption behaviors. So I think it's kind of a combination of those things in the food environment and food landscape that are really all coming together here.

Yeah, I think in the UK, only 2% of advertising is for real food, 98% is for ultra processed food. So the landscape is just so twisted that it's not surprising that they're going in these divergent directions.

[Brian Elbl]

Brian, right back to the quick fire questions. You said we're getting sicker from the food suite and you're now looking again at this population level. What are you seeing?

[Tim Spector]

So if you just look at broad population level data, you see that the percentage of ultra processed foods in the diet is going up and you see that in general, folks are getting more unhealthy. So there's sort of that kind of base level correlation here. I think that's sort of not enough to sort of directly say that there's a cause and effect there, but I think there's lots of other kind of evidence as well. Well, particularly from these smaller scale studies.

[Brian Elbl]

And Brian, in what way are populations getting more unhealthy?

[Tim Spector]

So I think populations are getting more unhealthy in a couple different ways. Right, so we've seen very much rising rates of obesity, most Western countries. And you're going to sort of see that quite dramatic rise in obesity rates in all populations, not just particular populations.

Yeah. There's that Lancet report showing by 20, 50, 50% of the world's population is going to be overweight or obese. I mean, quite frightening. And that mainly the food environment that's.

Doing that is absolutely right. And then I think the other big one that comes along with that, but is also independently a problem are things like diabetes. Right. And other sort of metabolic diseases like that that are really quite problematic and we know are a huge drain on individual's health and a huge drain on the health system as well. So those are sort of two quite prominent examples. But there's more, Right. There's fatty liver disease. There's all kinds of things that kind of come along with this sort of unhealthy eating.

And you know, some people say mental health issues, particularly the epidemic in the young, is at least partly caused by the unhealthy eating.

[Brian Elbl]

So obviously for any individual who, you know, ends up being sick as a result, it's terrible for them. Are there any like, broader sort of, I guess, society wide consequences of this sort of sicker and heavier population So.

[Tim Spector]

I think there's multiple things that go along with that. Right. I think we can't minimize the individual cost. So I think that's there. I think that there's also broader societal costs in terms of changes in productivity and changes in contributions to society. I think that's another kind of really big one as well that has quite big financial implications. I think the other one that has really big financial implications is just the cost for treating these individuals is very much high and going up and governments are shouldering a big chunk of those dollars. And so I think that has real implications for the broader society, not just those that are impacted by potentially the poor nutrition themselves.

[Brian Elbl]

And is that a big part of the costs of health systems around the world today related to the food we're eating?

[Tim Spector]

It is a big part of it. It's a growing part of. Used to be that in most Western countries it was sort of smoking that was the number one killer and the number one kind of contribution to health care costs at certain periods of time. Now it's really shifted to being sort of diet and nutrition and metabolic diseases like that. And so I think that that a big and growing problem.

I mean, as a proportion of the cost of the UK, we know that the food companies are making about £30 billion, $40 billion worth of profit in the UK and it's probably costing between 90 and £140 billion in health care costs directly, which is getting close to the total NHS budget. So these are massive, massive numbers that, you know, potentially preventable.

[Brian Elbl]

And do you see that also, Brian, in your research? I ask because people talk about this, but this is what you really study. I mean, do you really see food as such a big driver of the health costs globally now?

[Tim Spector]

I think that's true. I mean, I think the stats you're giving from Tim are broadly true across the world. And there are things that we have seen progressively get worse, not better. So I think these are very real costs and I think those are true statements.

[Brian Elbl]

This is pretty shocking, isn't it? Like, I think we all grew up with the idea, okay, smoking is really bad and it causes cancer, and these tobacco companies were sort of hiding this, but now we figured it out and it sounds like we're sort of sleepwalking through a situation where now a huge part of our health costs are coming from food, and yet we don't seem to be doing much about it.

[Tim Spector]

So one of the things about smoking is that it kills you quickly and pretty dramatically when you die of lung cancer. At least previously, it was sort of a quick thing and you came and you were done and you didn't sort of. I think for something like nutrition, a lot of these things are slowly building over time. Right. You know, weight slowly building over time, diabetes slowly building over time. And once you're at these points and have these health conditions, you know, treating them with some recent exception is actually quite difficult. And so I think part of the reason you're saying that is because it is something that, you know, presented very differently than smoking did historically. And it's something that has been a little bit sort of slow growing right now.

Yeah. And I think smoking, interestingly about the us but in the uk, the tax paid on cigarettes more than compensates for the extra health care that is needed for smokers. I'm not saying the government gains from people dying of lung cancer, but that's sort of the way it's going. And it's the total opposite for food.

In addition to the taxes for smoking. Really keeping a lot of people from.

Smoking as well, correct? Yeah. It's preventive.

[Brian Elbl]

So if I understand this rightly, we're eating more and more of these ultra processed foods and this shift in diet is like now making a lot of us sicker. I'd love to understand why they're in everything. Right. Like what's going on behind that? And Tim, I'd like to pick up on some of what you said earlier about sort of these giant corporations. What's going on there?

[Tim Spector]

The giant corporations are these 10 major companies, massive companies like Nestle or General mills that control 80% of the food around the world. And that's basically in our supermarkets. Whichever country you go to, they own all these subsidiaries. So they have enormous power and their budgets are the size of medium sized countries. So you've got to start thinking them as these, you know, as if countries like Kenya or Tanzania were lobbying to buy Kenyan coffee. It's the same idea of all their resources going into Washington or London and influencing what happens to the politics of food. So they've kept this off the agenda successfully so that no one until now has really been asking these questions to say why aren't these companies paying for all the health care misery they're causing instead of just making massive profits that they're keeping and giving back to their shareholders. So they've got no moral rationale when they were set up, they were set up as companies to make money and they will do that if nobody stops them.

[Brian Elbl]

And Tim, can you paint me a picture maybe of an ultra processed food just for People trying to get their head around this, like why this ends up being much more profitable for them than what a company might have sold before. That was in the food business.

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. The example I like to give is potato chip type food like Pringles. It looks like a potato. It's sort of molded. It was like identical potatoes. You've never seen a potato like that in real life. But it's sort of got that potato shape, and yet its main ingredient is not a potato. It's actually cheaper to use rice or tapioca or some bit of corn extract. A little bit of potato tagged in as the third or fourth ingredient, stuck together, molded like a big bit of dough. Then it's pressured with pressure heaters to make it into these shapes, which are then baked at super high temperature under pressure. And then they add these chemical seasonings to it, about 30 of them, to make it a tasty snack that looks like bit like a potato. And it's done at perhaps a quarter the price of actually just slicing up a potato and putting it in some vegetable oil and adding salt, which is how it should have been done. They've worked out. This is brilliant. And actually people overeat it. And that's what most of these potato snacks are like. They're made with whatever the cheapest, most usable ingredient is. They don't really care about the quality of it. And it's all about providing something that looks visually good, has a nice snap to it, and it has all these chemicals to make your tongue go delirious with the effects, as if it's doing something to your brain.

And the Pringles could all be made in a factory under controlled conditions, versus the potato chips that you really need to make real time in front of people or right before they have them with labor there and spaces there. And so all of those things really contribute to the overall cost.

[Brian Elbl]

If you're the company running it, it's just like much more efficient. You can keep prices down. It can last on your shelves for years. And then you spend all of the money you make on marketing to tell everybody how great this product is and that you should buy it.

[Tim Spector]

And developing other science and technology that's going to develop even more tastier, more products that people can't resist, more addictive ones.

Yes, that's exactly what they do. And they're very, very good at it.

[Brian Elbl]

I'd like to ask a controversial question now. Do they know that this food that they're making is less healthy than the food that it replaces?

[Tim Spector]

Absolutely.

I would Agree. It's hard to imagine that anyone engaged in this process wouldn't know that.

It's a bit like the cigarette industry. They knew it was harmful, but they said, well, people love smoking. They'll say people love these snacks, they love their potato chips or whatever it is they do, let's give them pleasure. So they're justifying working in that field by saying, well, I'm surrounded by the best food scientists in the world, I'm well paid and people, we're not forcing anyone to buy these snacks, they love them, but they're creating something that it's about. I don't know. I've read estimates about 1 in 10 people are actually addicted to, to these types of ultra processed snacks and foods. So they really feel a compulsion to keep eating them.

[Brian Elbl]

We mentioned right at the beginning this question about funding research. And I think it was Tim said, well, actually these food companies are funding research sort of for their own gain. And Brian, you were just mentioning like they know that this food isn't healthy. What is going on? What do we know is actually happening?

[Tim Spector]

So the industry does fund food research and if you sort of step back and look at the kind of research that they're funding or rather the outcomes of the research, it's generally not things that are showing these products are unhealthy. It's very specific questions that tend to kind of look at ancillary things or cherry pick particular sorts of outcomes that might look better. The food industry is not funding studies that are taking a global look at whether or not these are healthy foods or not. Right. That's not the kinds of questions that they're most interested in.

[Brian Elbl]

And so why do they fund these studies at all so they can talk.

[Tim Spector]

About how great their foods are.

[Brian Elbl]

So they're like carefully picking studies actually to allow them to say, hey, this thing is good. Even though they know that if they were to step back and do a fairly designed study, it would say this food is really bad.

[Tim Spector]

I think that's right.

Examples are. So the diet cola industry would set up a study to show that these are great compared to other sodas for helping children not have dental caries so the teeth don't rot. Very specific on that. They wouldn't look at anything else and they'd be very. And in a way it's distraction technique is what they use a lot. They have these umbrella organizations that they used to give out the grants like ilse, which has largely gone underground, but it was funded by Coca Cola and they gave out lots of grants to People to say that if children run around and have playgrounds and exercise time, they can lose weight. Which sort of meant that it was fine to have your Coke or your Pepsi. As long as you did a bit of running in the playground, it didn't matter.

[Brian Elbl]

And Tim, is that not true?

[Tim Spector]

No, it's absolutely not true. You have to look around and see how many obese children there are. Even if they do run around, if you over consume all these snacks and drinks, you're gonna get obese. So this distraction technique, as well as this make them look good technique is basically what they're doing, diverting attention. So for 10 years, you know, it was all about you can run. You know, the only reason the, you know, us has an obesity crisis is they're not running enough. The kids are not getting playgrounds.

And to be fair, physical activity is really important. It's just probably not gonna help with your obesity very much.

Right, Absolutely.

And so I think that that was a big part of it for a while. It was activ around moving and things like that, when obviously that was not the overall problem here.

[Brian Elbl]

This sounds like this is a really conscious policy, Brian, that they are pursuing. This isn't just sort of accidental.

[Tim Spector]

They're not opening their books to us necessarily to sort of see what they're doing. But there have definitely been evidence of concerted efforts through some of the groups that Tim's mentioning, some of these trade organizations to focus on things like movement or very particular sorts of questions versus the broader fundamental question of whether or not their products are helpful or not.

[Brian Elbl]

Could you tell me a bit more about that?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. So there's been a couple sports organizations that have been funded by the food industry to sort of talk about movement and physical activity. Even if you look back at sort of during the Obama administration, which I thought was actually quite a good program, the First Lady's let's move initiative, it was great. It was really important and a lot of it was still about moving and physical activity versus just kind of looking at the kind of foods that were there as well. So I think even in sort of quite well meaning ones, if you wanted to bring the food industry along with you, you really did have to focus on some of these physical activity things versus focusing just on the food.

But it's a distraction, it's a brilliant distraction to get everyone thinking about exercise is the cure for everything. Then they won't think about all these soda machines in schools and the food environment and the snacks and those other stuff, just not getting enough exercise and that was really brilliant the way they did it. And I think they delayed any legislation by at least a decade by doing that.

[Brian Elbl]

It sounds incredibly cynical. I just want to check. Brian, I think you're quite a careful academic and I think I'm just struck that, you know, this is quite strong really to talk about what they're doing. This does not seem like it's within the reasonable behavior of what we would expect from companies who are providing the food that we live on.

[Tim Spector]

Yeah, I think it's quite reasonable behavior if you look at it from the perspective of what these companies jobs are. Their job is to return profits to their shareholders. And I think the best way they can do that is to really focus on some of the foods that are not particularly healthy for us or not healthy for us at all in many cases. I think that that's pretty true. I think it probably shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement. What I see the kind of biggest problem here is a failure from the government to step in and say this is something that's really not helpful for our citizens and we want to tackle it a little bit. Industry's doing what they do. Yes. I wish they were different. Yes. I wish that they took more of a we're going to sacrifice some of our profit in a more dramatic way to help the health of the society. But I think the bigger downfall really comes to some of the government for not stepping in in a bigger sort of way.

[Brian Elbl]

So could you tell us what role government policy should have around this whole new ultra processed food that has been clearly filling up the middles of our supermarkets?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. So I think there's a couple problems that have made tackling ultra processed foods even trickier than tackling other foods. I think some of it, as you heard from Tim, is the definition of these things are not super clear. Right. If you're going to actually go after something in a regulatory environment or actually come up with policy against it, you need to have clear definitions of what it is that you're going after. So I think that's one of the reasons that. But it's tricky for government to do something. That said a couple of things that government can do. I think one of the things we can do which you've seen in certain scenarios is change the prices of these foods via taxes. Right. I think that that's one of them. You've seen the most work on this in sugary beverage taxes. I think it's the class of ultra processed foods that we can actually clearly identify and target. It's some sort of liquid with some sugar in it. Right. So I think it's a little easier to kind of go after that. It's also a class of products that arguably doesn't have any real nutritional value otherwise. And so it's an easier one to kind of really make the poster child, if you will, of something that we can kind of go after with policy or taxes. So I think that's another kind of big one. You've seen some governments try to start labeling these foods in a different sort of way, particularly on the front of the package. And that's something that some countries have had more success than others. That's something we're lagging a little farther behind with in the US the third thing that you can do, which again, some countries have had more success than others, is think about some restrictions on marketing these foods, particularly marketing to kids. And I think that's another real one where some governments, Chile being a prominent one that stands out, have actually had some success in trying to change the marketing of these foods, particularly to children, in a way that other countries, particularly in the US we haven't been able to for a number of reasons.

[Jonathan Wolf]

The show you're listening to right now that's providing you the latest evidence based health and nutrition information from the world's top scientists. Well, making it takes a lot of time. We think it's well worth it, all in the name of improving your health.

[Brian Elbl]

All we ask in return is this.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Send a link to this podcast to.

[Brian Elbl]

Someone you think would benefit and if you haven't already, click Follow this podcast.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Wherever you're listening right now. Okay, let's get back to the show.

[Brian Elbl]

And when you look at the science across those changes, do any of those things work?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. So let's sort of take them one by one. There's been most evidence from taxes in things like supermarkets. Right. Does it sort of change what people purchase in supermarkets? And I think the answer to that is a pretty clear yes. People are purchasing fewer of these beverages. Once you start implementing these taxes, you have to do the studies in a nuanced way. For example, if you have a tax in one city and not the other, people will cross the border and buy more sodas there. But even if you kind of take that into account, these are things that are definitely decreasing people's purchase of these beverages. So I think there's some pretty good evidence on taxes and Brian, on that one.

[Brian Elbl]

Is the hope that you just sort of like make more money out of people who are buying these products or is the hope that the food Manufacturers therefore sort of change the products that they're making in response to these taxes so that they stop saying, well, our only job is to worry about how much profit we make. We don't care that this is killing you. It's sort of like trying to say, oh, actually I am caring now about whether I'm killing you with this. I'm going to use all my great food scientists to make this product that is still tasty but isn't going to be bad for you.

[Tim Spector]

Yeah. So let's break down each of those. I think those are each different mechanisms by which this policy could be helpful. So one thing that taxes do is just make people purchase less of those products. And if we think they're unhelpful products, then that's a good thing.

That's what happened in the uk by the way, the sugar levy, they didn't make any money on it because nearly everybody, apart from selling classic Coke and Pepsi, switched their formulations. And so they just added the artificial sweeteners and drove down the sugar. So it didn't generate any money, but it did switch behavior.

And that's the second reason, by sort of what we call reformulation. So changing your product where it doesn't necessarily qualify for the tax and hopefully is more healthy. So I think that's another kind of big thing that people can do. And then a third example is it didn't work necessarily this way exactly. In the uk, but if there is money that comes from these policies, then you can hopefully redirect that back into things that will actually help decrease demand for these products even more or help deal with the consequences of the negative health impacts that they have.

[Brian Elbl]

I think we're then going to move on to this question about labeling.

[Tim Spector]

Yeah, so there's a couple different ways you can think about labeling. One is what we have in the States is something called menu labeling or calorie labeling in fast food restaurants or other chain restaurants. So you walk up into a fast food place, you're gonna order something, you see not only the product and how much it costs, but actually the number of calories that are in it. So this is something that's rolled out over the US over the last sort of 10 or 15 years. We've done some of these studies and found that on average, these don't have a whopping effect, but they probably have a smallish effect on the number of calories people are purchasing at these restaurants. So that's sort of one way you can kind of go about labeling.

It wears off though, doesn't it? The New York studies show that after a while people revert, it helps for a little bit and then it.

So we have since done better studies than that that use sort of more detailed, bigger data and found that the drop off is not quite as much as we thought it was initially. So yes, it does wear off a little bit. And I also don't want to oversell the impact of these. Right, so for an average of 1,000 calorie meal, we're talking 20 to 30 calories, right?

[Brian Elbl]

Oh wow. Let me just show you. So instead of eating a thousand calorie meal, you eat a 980 calorie meal. This is seems like a very small return for making every poor company and.

[Tim Spector]

It'S still rubbish food.

So you're absolutely right. This alone is not gonna do anything to change population level obesity.

Glad we clarified that.

But I also wanna say that now, but remember, we're talking about things at a population level here. So you're not gonna find any of these policies that are gonna be 350, 400 calorie sorts of interventions. You're gonna have to find things that are 20, 20, 20, 2020 across a whole bunch of realms if you're gonna try to think about a broader policy level solution to some of these problems.

[Brian Elbl]

Well, Brian, I was just thinking as you talk about labeling and I think both of you have been talking about sort of this analogy with tobacco in the past. We've sort of been on this long journey, if I think back to when I was a kid and they were advertising tobacco everywhere with sort of manly cowboys smoking their Marlboros. This is all, you know, I mean, you're smiling because that seems crazy. I was describing this to my son last week and firstly he couldn't imagine really that tobacco could be associated with a brand in that way.

[Tim Spector]

They'd be advertised like that a lot, even before advertising.

[Brian Elbl]

But he just couldn't even imagine somehow it could have that one to one relationship because for him it's so sort of impossible. And so I'm just thinking, you know, when you're talking about labeling, you're talking about like the amount of calories, but is it conceivable that you could end up having the sort of, you know, huge warning labels on ultra processed food and indeed, you know, sort of the restrictions and would that really start to make a difference?

[Tim Spector]

Yes. So I think you're absolutely pointing towards a different sort of labeling here that could be much more effective. And you've seen these play out in a couple different Countries. Right. Some of the evidence, I think, for other countries, particularly Chile, is a little. A little bit more encouraging.

It's a big black hexagon that goes on. It's very visible. Yeah.

And it is more along the lines of what you're describing there, where it's not just sort of like, you know, a small little nuanced thing. It's a much more prominent one. And, you know, there's been talk about, is that even enough? Right. Do you need something skull and crossbones like. Right. Do you need like various X's? If it's high in fat or sugar or things like that?

[Brian Elbl]

Does it work?

[Tim Spector]

So there is some evidence that it's effective in changing children's or oftentimes parents food choices for children in places like Chile. Again, this is not by itself going to be enough to change things overall.

But just taking the cartoons off was one thing.

That was another thing that they did.

Make a big difference, didn't it?

And that kind of gets to the third thing we talked about, which is marketing. Right. And that was a big change, I think, that they did in marketing in a place like Chile is that they actually changed and said, if you want to sell bad cereal, sugary cereal to children, you can't put a cartoon character on the front. It has to be completely unbranded package. Again, the industry is very smart about getting around these rules, and they had to really kind of go after them in multiple different ways. But I think that's another potential solution here as well.

[Brian Elbl]

Does that make a difference?

[Tim Spector]

Yeah, I think there's some evidence that makes a difference as well. Lots of evidence that that makes a difference in experimental studies. Right. You know, you show kids in a lab, one versus the other, they're definitely going to eat more of the. Of the branded character foods, regardless of what kind of foods there are. Right. So it's a bunch of evidence from.

[Brian Elbl]

That that's really interesting. I never really thought about it. So the fact they have these characters on the front of Happy Tigers or.

[Tim Spector]

Other sort of Batman or, you know.

[Brian Elbl]

Whatever it is, that's not just somehow like a general trying to. To differentiate my products. Like, it literally, it's gonna make kids in particular sort of want this product.

[Tim Spector]

So in these lab studies, you sort of randomize the product with and without the kind of character. And when you have the character, they're gonna choose them more often and eat more of them. Right. And it's true, sort of regardless of the type of product it is.

[Brian Elbl]

So you mean if the character had been on the apple. I could have got the kids to eat more apples. It's like literally.

[Tim Spector]

Yeah.

[Brian Elbl]

And this is a big. Gets back to the conversation we had before that there's not a lot of money in selling apples. So nobody is doing the sort of the marketing investment to make the apple seem more appealing because it's not this clever thing you've built in the lab yourself.

[Tim Spector]

Apple man is.

[Brian Elbl]

No tiger on my apple package.

[Tim Spector]

You occasionally see that and you occasionally see these sort of efforts that prop up that are like, we are gonna use the same marketing that goes towards the unhealthy foods and put them towards healthy foods and produce. They never really have traction. They never really take hold. You know, it's hard to do and it's hard to maintain and it's quite expensive.

[Jonathan Wolf]

You know, it's really interesting.

[Brian Elbl]

I have a 5 year old as well as a 17 year old and I'm often frustrated about the yogurt. You say yogurt that she chooses and that she wants. And it had never occurred to me until now that actually she really likes the ones that are sort of for kids. And now that I think about it like the packaging is very different from the sort of adult healthier ones that I want her to eat. And that it's also true that when it's all invisible, she doesn't care as much. And I always thought it was just because they had more sugar put in them. And I'm sure that's part of it.

[Tim Spector]

That's definitely part of it.

[Brian Elbl]

But it sounds like you're saying that isn't the whole story. She's only five, but you're saying she's already susceptible to this sort of branded marketing.

[Tim Spector]

Oh, that's right. And until kids are about that age, five, six, they actually can't necessarily tell the difference between what's an advertisement and what's just a regular program that they're watching or something like that as well. Right. So that sort of makes. Makes it sort of doubly bad in that regard. But yeah, I think it's definitely the sugar as well. But the branded products absolutely make it trickier for you as a parent.

[Brian Elbl]

And presumably somewhere like the states, it's particularly hard to restrict things like advertising because of maybe questions around free speech that might be less of an issue in many of the other countries where people might be listening.

[Tim Spector]

That's exactly right. So in the states, our Supreme Court thus far has ruled that marketing is really thought of as corporate speech and is given some of the same First Amendment protections. And so it's quite hard for even a state government if they wanted to regulate marketing in that way. So it's something that we have made much less progress on. There's been a whole bunch of voluntary sorts of things that haven't gone particularly well, but it's something quite hard to do in the States relative to some other places.

[Brian Elbl]

Listening to all of this, it's just like one more step in my radicalization. I think over the last, really only, I would say two years. When I think back to before that. Tim Right. We hardly ever talked about ultra processed food. So I think the shift in this focus on this part of what was going on is amazing. And every time I hear more about it, it sort of makes me a bit angrier.

[Tim Spector]

Brian well, I can tell you as a parent of a 13 year old, it's hard to really get too radical about this. So in your home environment, right, you can maybe control what's there. You can control even the media they consume. Once your kid starts getting older, maybe you see this with your older kid going out into the world, it's really hard. They're passing these stores all the time themselves. They're seeing things, they're making purchases on their own. So I think that it becomes even trickier to control.

[Brian Elbl]

Now I would love to switch though from just sort of being frustrated to talk about actionable advice and obviously in general, I think we're going to have to talk about what individuals can do. But I am interested in what they might also be able to lobby for. But maybe if I start at the individual level. Tim what's the one thing that you would say to listeners they could do tomorrow in order to eat fewer harmful UPFs?

[Tim Spector]

Well, a few months ago I would have said look at the back of the pack, number of ingredients and that's biggest red flag that this is gonna make you overeat and it's gonna be ultra processed food and bad for your gut. But now there's a more sophisticated solution which is in the Zoe app. So for the last two years, the science team at Zoe have been working on a new way of classifying these ultra processed foods into not just yes and no, which I think we've agreed was a bit too crude because you include some stuff that's really quite healthy and you're labeling, lumping them all together into five categories, including three ultra processed food categories. One that's pre neutral or only potentially low risk, another one is moderate risk and the other is extreme risk. And we're taking into account not just additives, not Just those chemicals, emulsifiers, sweeteners, but also looking at the structure of the food, how quickly it is to eat it, how it disperses, how fast you can consume calories in per second, whether it needs chewing and whether it has those ingredients that the chemists put in to make it hyper palatable. Which means you overeat. And that means, as studies have shown, you're going to be overeat by about 500 calories a day, about 25% of your intake. So it's all those things together that actually make up ultra processed food. And we should think ultra processed food really is a risk of ill health rather than the processing itself. I think it's a bit of a shift. So I think people can now use this in the app. They can scan things in the store or on their plate and start to learn more and realize there's a gradation of these problems. Because the worst ones have all of these things. They're the perfect atomic bombs that have nuclear war in your gut and your brain. So that's really what people can do now because it is really difficult otherwise. Otherwise you've only got the back of the label and we don't know enough about all of the ingredients to make a call just on those basis. But if you start to think how the food companies are thinking, then this is an insight and this is using AI and our fantastic database to do it. So I think this is showing much better than the current. Yes, no idea. That has come out of academia, which is probably good for population level studies, but really doesn't help the consumer first.

[Brian Elbl]

I think quite a lot of people will be excited. I'm very excited about it and starting to use it all the time now.

[Tim Spector]

It's a huge plus because people have been asking me all the time, why don't you have something in the Zoe app that tells us how ultra processed it is? And we sort of thought about that, but now we've got one that's not only ultra processed, but how does it link to your health risk? And that's the key thing here because some of these additives might be quite trivial. They're just, you know, in there, there might be a natural plants in some way like soy lecithin or something that if that's the only ingredient is say in a. Some dark chocolate and the dark chocolate is good quality, that's the only thing there. I'm not gonna say that's terrible food. I'm never gonna eat it because it's gonna be better than many other things. That I'm gonna be eating. Bread's a good example. You go into any store with a range of breads and you look at the back of the pack and you don't understand exactly what's going on. Some have 20, 30 ingredients, others will have four. But within them, some of those are going to be good and bad. And some of those breads are going to be designed to be hyper palatable because they've added sugar, they've added salt of other stuff in there that's going to make you overeat it. So you will eat much more of that bread than you would one down at the other end of the range that either may have no ingredients or anything that we call it. So it might have a score of 0 or 1, or it might just have, you know, one emulsifier or something to make the bread stick together. But otherwise it's a healthy product. And so it allows you to look at the range of foods, discard the ones right at the end. The same is for breakfast cereals, some cookies and things like this. There's always a range. And that's what we're trying to do, is to say, well, we're not trying to stop people eating all these foods, demonize all breads. We just want people to start picking the ones at the good end of the spectrum and trying to avoid the ones at the other end, which are definitely harmful.

[Brian Elbl]

You're quite serious about your diet, we know that. Would you try and avoid all UPFs? So would you use this to avoid all of them, including those that are sort of at the 1 out of 3 risk level that you're talking about?

[Tim Spector]

No, I'm interested in avoiding definitely the number fives. Well, I sort of know what they are myself anyway now because I've been doing research in it. I would use it for the number fours, the sort of moderate risk, if I can, because some of those are disguised as healthy foods. So they're the ones I'm avoiding. I'm not too worried about threes because they're sort of neutral. You know, I want to know about it, but I'd still be happy to eat them because you can't suddenly be a puritan and eat nothing out there. I think some of these are interesting, fun treats. I still, you know, want to have the occasional cookie or biscuit with my tea one, you know, but it might rather. We're not going to have it whole packet every day, but, you know, occasionally I think they're fine. Chocolate's a great example. Some things, you know, have that dark chocolate and the polyphenol I'm always going on about, Am I going to not eat it because it's got, you know, one emulsifier to stick it together? No, I'd rather pick something that isn't. But I wouldn't not eat it. That's my view. I don't know. Do you have a feeling on is there a minimum amount of ultra processing you would eat?

I do think that there is a huge range of healthfulness in ultra processed foods. Right. And I think that absolutely true that some of them are worse than others. And I think the bread example is one that I always use as well. Right. Even if you compare local bread from your bakery fresh baked with completely white flour versus something from the supermarket that is ultra processed but has 100% whole wheat flour like that second one's probably gonna be more helpful for you. Right. And so I do think that there's a huge range there. And I think the science is still emerging. And even more so, how we transmit that information to consumers is also quite tricky as well.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Do you know someone who wants to make smarter food choices but may not.

[Brian Elbl]

Know what's really behind the label?

[Jonathan Wolf]

If so, why not share this episode with them? Right now we've got two policy experts who can help them make smarter food choices. I'm sure they'll thank you.

[Brian Elbl]

So, Brian, I'd love to talk about what our listeners could be pushing governments about in terms of policy change. If you could wave your magic wand, what would you be pushing for it?

[Tim Spector]

So I think it's a lot of the things we've talked about before, it would definitely be more serious about taxes. Right. And moving on from taxes just to sugar, from sugary beverages to other classes of products that we think are problematic. I would definitely want to look at sort of the availability of foods. You know, I don't think we're going to do much in the States on making food less available, but we can at least make sure that there are healthful foods available in all communities. I think I would really want to think about doing something on marketing. Right. I think this is actually a really, really big one that is going to be quite tricky to think about making solutions for, particularly in a place like the States. But I think it could have really big implications, really for kids, but also more for the broader role that these foods play in our culture is quite prominent. Right. You don't see apples that are the host of a major sporting event. You see Oreo cookies. Yeah. Or sports drinks or things like that. And so I think that those are all things that we could do to try to think about it. And I do think that many of these solutions brought together could be influential. I also don't want to give the impression that there are going to be solutions by themselves. I think we're gonna have to think about a lot of these together. We're gonna have to think about, like, much more prominent solutions that are not even on our radar yet. This is like such a big problem. It's so ubiquitous. These foods are everywhere in the food supply. They're part of most people's diets. It's really hard to avoid them. We're gonna need some sort of more dramatic solutions that maybe aren't even on the table yet.

What about schools? I was in California recently and they are talking about having some restrictions on what is served in schools, areas where there is some state or federal control. And this is also true in the uk, where they could really change the school environment, because I do feel we ought to be protecting kids more. And maybe these category four or five, particularly the five ones, could just be banned outright, and that would be fairly straightforward to do once it's an accepted system. Do you think that would work?

So I definitely think schools are a really important area to look at for all the reasons you describe. I think we have made good progress in the states and some other places as well on trying to increase the healthfulness of foods offered in schools by traditional measures, by things like how much whole grain is in there, how much sugar is in there, how much protein is in there. I think we have not moved to the next level you're describing, which is like, what's really happening with ultra processed foods. So I do think that's an area that we could be focused on for sure. We already know that the average school lunch provided by the school is gonna be healthier than the average lunch brought by a kid at home. So that's already there.

That's true in the UK as well. The snack box is the worst thing. That's the easiest thing to ban, as they do in jap. Would that make a big impact here?

But I do think we could do a lot more in schools, including things like that. And some schools do it right. In some private schools, for example, non publicly funded schools, they just don't require you to bring a lunch and they provide it to you. And so that is something that happens in some places.

[Brian Elbl]

And if we go back to maybe the earlier part of the podcast where I think you were describing quite a close analogy with cigarettes in terms of the impact on health and sort of misalignment really between companies just trying to make money and the impact on people's health. It feels like the responses are all quite cautious. It seems like if you look at the tobacco example. And is that because the reality is it's really just nothing like as bad as tobacco. And after all, who wants to be in a world where you can never have cake or a cookie? And so does that mean that it's just not analogous or is it that this is all new and like everything new, it's gonna take us another five or 10 years to just realize how serious this is. So we'll be sitting here in 10 years time saying, well, we were mad to think that we wouldn't need to like take much stricter rules on this because basically it's like putting, I don't know, something poisonous in the water. You change the regulations so you can still have food after all. Nobody's saying you can't have cake, but we just can't have any more of this ultra processed cake.

[Tim Spector]

So I think it's a combination of both of those things. People love food. I love food, right? I mean, this is something that is pretty ubiquitous. It's very culturally driven. It's a huge part of life. We all love food and we all need to eat. Right? And so it is a harder class of products to go after than something like cigarettes. Right? You could demonize cigarettes, you could demonize cigarette companies in a way that is much, much, much harder to do with food. So I think that's a big part of it. So I think partly because of that, I think it is harder to sort of shoulder or gather the political will to do a lot of these population level solutions. I mean, even things like taxes, we don't even have them everywhere in the states. It's only a handful of cities and counties. Right. That have done these things in some states.

But isn't that the lobbying of the big food companies stopping the politicians acting like they did for decades in cigarettes? They delayed legislation and they've got huge budgets to impact what goes on in D.C. and London?

I think that's absolutely a huge part of it. And there being a different sort of popular uprising for some of these policies in a way that maybe is quite different than for cigarettes. Right. I think that there was kind of a clearer understanding that cigarettes were bad and there was a problem, there was a clear villain and someone to go after. I think when you combine some of that lobbying with this general sort of like, but I like those foods. It even becomes trickier to make broader policy level change there.

[Brian Elbl]

So, Brian, to sort of come to the conclusion, what would your advice be to individuals who are navigating this food system that's clearly stacked against them?

[Tim Spector]

I would say pay attention to what's driving you to eat particular things. Right. And if it's driving you to eat things that you don't like, try to think about why. Right. What is it there? And how would you like to make the healthier choice, the easier choice? And what are some policies that you can maybe do to do that? I think that should be a real goal of policy, is to make the healthier choice the easier choice. And that's something that I think we can make some movement on and we're just not quite there yet.

[Brian Elbl]

I think that's really interesting. We talk a lot about mindful eating at Zoe, and it's this sort of realization that a lot of what we're doing with food is we're not even aware sometimes that we're even eating. You're snacky, don't even realize. You're definitely often not aware of what you're eating. And you're almost certainly not aware truly of what you're eating, like what is actually inside it and therefore what is its health impact on you. And what we've seen is that when people start this mindful eating and they start to get into this habit, like those three things together can have quite a profound impact. Because I think just anyone listening to this, I doubt that anyone is more keen to eat Pringles. I'm definitely totally shocked that it's not even a potato. And so it obviously affects you. And it doesn't mean that you're not necessarily going to snack anything. But you might be like, well, I could quite happily switch to a whole bunch of other things I suddenly realize are much healthier. And so I love this idea of being mindful. Helping you to understand is suddenly empowering you to make more of a decision.

[Tim Spector]

So I think being mindful is absolutely part of it and part of the solutions. I would also like it to make slightly easier for you to grab something that's not a Pringle.

[Brian Elbl]

Brian, Tim, thank you so much for taking the time. I'd like to try and do a quick summary. And we covered a lot of different things, I think, I guess really on my mind is this analogy with smoking. And I think, Brian, you said at the beginning, like, smoking used to be the number one killer and now actually it's diet and Nutrition, but it's sort of been slow growing and it's not as obvious that it's the food that's killed you as it was with smoking. Because you don't just have this one disease that is linked to sort of ultra processed food in the way that we had lung cancer linked to cigarettes. And so this has sort of been happening secretly around us. And it matters not just because it might affect you or your loved ones, but also it's this enormous burden on the health system which means they can't be treating all of these other things. So it's affecting everybody who's listening. And what's really shocking is it might be a surprise to me, but I think you're both telling me it's not at all a surprise to these massive of big food corporations. Like they know about the health impact, but they are chasing their profit motive. And as a result they're like, well, it's not our problem. It's not banned by the government. So we're going to keep doing this like genius food science to make it so tasty. But also, I think some people here will be shocked. That's very underhand behavior. It sounds like in terms of intentionally funding science that confuses the the issue and says, well, you know, oh, but it's really good against dental decay. So don't worry about the fact that it's going to give you diabetes or like funding all sorts of sports movements so that you've like focus on exercise. You don't think about this. My other big takeaway is I'm totally shocked what's actually in a Pringle because it is designed to look like a potato chip.

[Tim Spector]

There's many other examples about, you know, let's not pour old Pringles, you know, get the violins out for them now. But every country in the world, I think you can see them these days.

[Brian Elbl]

But it's a brilliant example, I guess, as you described it, of just like the complexity of how it's put together. And it's rather extraordinary as I listen to it, that this is cheaper than just taking a potato. So again, explaining how somehow this ultra processing is actually more efficient. As you were saying, Brian, the other thing I'm really struck by is how much marketing is going to kids and that there is all this science that says it's really effective. And so you said, you know, stick a character on the food and the kids will eat it more. And so all of these foods with these cartoon characters, again, they know that this is targeted to children and it's going to have an impact on sales. But on the other hand, I don't want to leave with no positive news. I think the positive news is this idea, Brian, as you're saying, like, pay attention to what's driving you to eat something.

[Jonathan Wolf]

You might not even like it that.

[Brian Elbl]

Much as you start to think about it because of the ways that Tim was describing it, making you want to eat more. And that there are things that governments could do around taxes, about restricting marketing, about food labels, and there's evidence from certain countries starting to do that that this can have impact. And so if anyone's listening to this and wants to do more, then the question is, well, how could you lobby at your local level to start to make those changes? And I guess you didn't say this, but I think my take on this is the idea that we would ever restrict smoking sort of 40 years ago seemed mad. I think this was. Of course, that's how it all has to be. And I think now we think it would be mad to allow cigarette companies to be advertising to our children and mad to allow you to smoke indoors. And all these things that have shifted. And so I guess I'm quite optimistic that as we start to understand what's going on here, we will look at it in the same way that we think about lead in the water, and we still have water and we still have all this food. But if we start to understand this better, which is also why I'm very excited by all of Tim and the other Zoe scientists about upf, understanding this better could allow us to reduce the UPF and still be able to eat snacks and treats we like. Am I way too optimistic or is this possible?

[Tim Spector]

No, I think we've definitely reached a turning point. Everyone's talking about UPF now. They weren't talking about it before. We're starting to understand what's gone into the food, and now we've got, you know, starting to get tools like the Zoe app that can empower the individual to make the right choices or steer them towards the right choices without having to give up everything. And I think that's really important.

[Brian Elbl]

Brian, Tim, thank you so much for coming and joining us today.

[Tim Spector]

Thank you for having me.

Thank you.

[Jonathan Wolf]

Now, if you listen to the show regularly, you already believe that changing how you eat can transform your health. But you can only do so much with general advice from a weekly podcast. If you want to feel much better now and be on the path to live many more healthy years, you need something more. And that's why more than 100,000 members trust Zoe each day to help them make the smartest food choices. Combining our world leading science with your Zoe test results, Zoe is your daily companion to better health for life. So how does it work? Zoe membership starts with at home testing to understand your unique body. Then Zoe's app is your health coach, using weekly check ins and daily guidance to help you shift your food choices to steadily improve your health. I rely on Zoe's advice every day and truly it has transformed how I feel. Will you give Zoe a try? The first step is easy. Take our free quiz to find out what Zoe membership could do for you. Simply go to Zoe.com podcast where as a podcast listener you'll get 10% off. As always, I'm your host Jonathan Wolf. Zoe Science and Nutrition is produced by Julie Pinero, Sam Durham and Richard Willin. The Zoe Science and Nutrition Podcast is not medical advice and if you have any medical concerns, please consult your doctor. See you next time.

[Tim Spector]

Sam.