Kevin Hall

They might be ultra-processed because they have some

additives and technology in them that allow you to kind of make these things heat up properly in a microwave.

But they, from the FDA definition of healthy, might meet all of those requirements.

Yeah, I mean, I think that part of the potential problem here is that, in my experience, the folks in the political leadership of the Maha movement, not the grassroots folks, but the political leadership, were not interested in hearing what the science had to say.

In other words, they thought that they already knew the answers to what they wanted to do.

They thought they had the policies that they wanted to implement, and they had certainly the rhetoric around, for example, ultra-processed foods are as addictive as crack cocaine, for example, is one of the quotes that I remember hearing about.

But when we were doing science to actually see, well, do ultra-processed foods high in fat and sugar actually generate the same neurobiological processes as consuming cocaine?

The answer was no.

There was active suppression of that process.

bit of data from the science to regular everyday folks.

And my concern was that, you know, they're really not interested in funding the science to actually support the best policies.

And what I've observed is that, you know, while there's a lot of rhetoric, and the rhetoric I agree with, and as you pointed out, sounds a lot like what I'm saying,

There's not a lot of action that's going along with that rhetoric that's supportive, right?

You can't have this rhetoric and at the same time say, oh, we're going to eliminate the USDA programs that provide farm fresh fruits and vegetables to school programs and food banks.

You can't kind of eliminate SNAP dollars and SNAP-Ed when you're saying that you've got to actually improve the quality of the diet of the nation.

These things don't actually track.

You can't say that you're concerned about the way our foods are produced and the kinds of inputs that are used in our agricultural system and eliminate, you know, the parts of the EPA that are involved in monitoring the pesticide use and the runoff into our waterways and whatnot.

So I think the rhetoric sounds right.

I have not been convinced that any of the actions that have been taken are promoted by good science or are really interested in hearing about the good science and investing in the sciences that are actually going to make meaningful policy changes in the future that have the potential to benefit public health.

I wish I could explain it.