Book Review: Food Intelligence

While traveling to North Carolina and away from the daily grind of work, I was finally able to read a book—a miracle in itself! I chose Food Intelligence, co-authored by Kevin Hall and Julia Belluz. The fact that the book is written equally by both takes a bit of getting used to, especially since they use the third person when referring to themselves. I am not sure it totally works, but I am also not sure how else one would co-author such a book.

The book is incredibly informative, particularly regarding Dr. Kevin Hall’s research. Hall is a biophysicist and was a senior investigator at the NIH until 2025. He is renowned for his highly rigorous "metabolic ward" studies, which often house participants in clinical settings where every calorie, movement, and biological secretion is precisely measured.

Kevin spent years at the NIH conducting clinical trials to study metabolism, weight loss, and the impact of specific foods (particularly ultra-processed foods) on body weight. In one of his most famous studies, he found that when people ate ultra-processed foods, they spontaneously consumed about 500 extra calories per day and gained weight. Conversely, when on an unprocessed diet, they lost weight. He argues that the energy density and hyper-palatability of these foods—driven by the processing itself—trigger weight gain, rather than just "too many carbs" or "too many fats."

In fact, he has conducted trials comparing low-carb and low-fat diets, finding that a low-fat diet actually resulted in slightly more body fat loss than an equal-calorie ketogenic diet. In essence, "a calorie is a calorie" is a fairly accurate rule. However, he notes that the old "3,500-calorie deficit equals one pound of weight loss" rule is not linear. He also studied contestants from The Biggest Loser and showed that, even years after the show, their metabolisms had slowed significantly more than expected for their new body size. This "metabolic adaptation" (or "starvation response") persisted even when they regained the weight.

His departure from the NIH (which clearly happened after the book was published) was highly publicized and controversial, as he cited a breakdown in scientific integrity and political interference as his primary reasons for leaving. It sounded like he was in the middle of several trials at the time, which is a real shame for the field.

While the book is an excellent primer on metabolism, I wish it had tackled GLP-1 drugs head-on. These medications are the "missing link" for much of Hall’s research. By mimicking natural hormones, drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro do three things:

  • Mute "Food Noise": They signal the hypothalamus to dampen the brain's reward centers.

  • Slow Digestion: They delay gastric emptying, so you feel full longer.

  • Stabilize Blood Sugar: They manage insulin and glucagon to prevent the spikes that drive hunger.

This leads to a natural calorie deficit and—most importantly—a shift away from the ultra-processed foods Hall spent his career studying.

The authors lean heavily into the "toxic food environment" theory—the idea that our system, not our willpower, is the problem. I agree 100%. But it leaves me wondering: if we "solve" the hunger signal with a pill, will we still have the political will to fix the food system? Or will fixing the environment become a non-issue once the price of these drugs drops? We are in the middle of a massive "live experiment."

In the final chapters, they pivot to the wider food system. I was interested to see how a biophysicist and a journalist would frame the food system’s contribution to nutrition and metabolism. While they got the big picture right, the analysis felt a bit shallow. It didn't feel like it added much to the book's core value, and they seemed to throw softballs at potential solutions to the issues Kevin witnessed and analyzed during his trials.

Overall, Food Intelligence is a truly interesting read about the state of weight-loss research.

Archive Appetizer: Is Peru consuming a healthy and sustainable diet?

We conducted this study, led by Katherine Curi-Quinto, to assess how closely the diets of Peruvian adults align with the global EAT-Lancet Healthy Reference Diet (EAT-HRD) and to identify the sociodemographic factors associated with adherence to it. This research is important because current food systems are primary drivers of environmental degradation—accounting for approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use—while failing to provide healthy, affordable diets for a large portion of the population. In Peru, where agriculture accounts for 80% of freshwater use and dietary patterns are linked to a double burden of nutritional deficiencies and obesity, understanding these disparities is essential for developing sustainable, locally adapted food policies.

To carry out this assessment, we performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2017-2018 National Survey of Food and Nutrition Surveillance by Life Stages (VIANEV). Our study involved a sample of 875 adults aged 18 to 59 years from the Coast, Highlands, and Jungle regions, using 24-hour dietary recall data to analyze their food and beverage intake. We used the Planetary Health Diet Index (PHDI) to quantify adherence; it evaluates 15 dietary components on a scale of 0 to 140 to determine how closely an individual's diet aligns with healthy and sustainable standards.

Our results showed that the mean PHDI score for Peruvian adults was 68.8 out of 140, reflecting generally low adherence to sustainable dietary guidelines. We found a significant imbalance in food consumption: while fruit intake was high, consumption of other plant-based foods, such as nuts and whole grains, was extremely low, and animal-source foods, such as poultry and eggs, reached 250% of recommended levels. Furthermore, our analysis identified that female sex and living in poverty were significantly associated with higher PHDI scores. Finally, we observed marked regional disparities, including excessive tuber consumption in the Highlands (780% of the recommendation) and high meat intake on the Coast.

The Processing Gap: Why Ultra-Processed Foods Are the Real Driver of the US-Italy Obesity Divide

We have been living in Bologna for four months now, though Italy is certainly not new to my better half and me. We lived in Rome for three years back in 2010, returned for another year in 2018, and had several six-month stints in both Rome and Bologna in between. All in all, we have spent about five years living in this stunning country.

While we always ended up returning to the U.S. for work, I think this move to Italy will finally stick. I’m becoming more and more convinced of this because I’ve had to return to the States twice since arriving in January—once for work in Baltimore and once for my mother’s memorial in Asheville, NC. More on that later…

I mention all of this to bring you to the heart of this blog: food. Specifically, the regional specificity that makes Italy so interesting. Lately, I’ve been reflecting on America’s obesity epidemic. While GLP-1 drugs may change the landscape, I find myself wondering—particularly here in Bologna where the food is quite pesante (heavy)—why is there so much less obesity in Italy as compared to say, the United States? It is a perplexing question, and while I’m convinced that Italy remains a far healthier population, the reasons behind that are complex and changing.

Italy is not immune to the global obesity crisis. Adult prevalence of overweight and obesity stands at 49% and 17% respectively—notably lower than the United States (72% and 42%), though higher than France (34% and 10%). While Italy occupies a middle ground within the OECD, regional health outcomes vary significantly. A recent Lancet publication indicates that although diet-related non-communicable diseases affect the entire country, Northern regions enjoy higher life expectancy and better health outcomes than the South and the islands. This disparity, often termed the "mezzogiorno effect," suggests that the chronic economic underdevelopment and lower GDP of Southern Italy directly translate into poorer access to healthcare and greater challenges in managing complex chronic health conditions.

Italy sits at 46% overweight. This is quite low compared to the other OECD23 countries (with Japan and Korea being much lower)

Historically, the culinary landscape of Italy was divided by a sharp geographical line. The Southern regions (the Mezzogiorno) became the global blueprint for the Mediterranean Diet—a pattern popularized by American physiologist Ancel Keys after his landmark "Seven Countries Study" in the 1950s. This diet is characterized by a high intake of fresh vegetables, legumes, fruits, and whole grains, with olive oil serving as the primary fat source. It emphasizes seasonal ingredients, moderate fish consumption, and "slow" social dining, while keeping red meat and dairy to a minimum. In contrast, Northern Italy traditionally features a "heavier" continental diet. Influenced by its cooler climate and proximity to Central Europe, Northern cuisine relies more heavily on animal fats like butter and lard, and proteins such as pork and beef. Instead of the South’s dried durum wheat pasta, Northern staples often include rice (risotto), corn (polenta), and egg-based pastas—the latter once serving as a historical signifier of regional wealth and agricultural abundance.

The irony of modern Italy is that while the South "invented" the Mediterranean Diet, it is currently struggling the most to follow it.  Fries on pizza are not within the realms of a Mediterranean diet… The decline of the Mediterranean Diet in the South is not a matter of forgotten culture, but of socioeconomic reality. Fresh produce and high-quality olive oil are increasingly expensive, leading lower-income families in the South to rely on cheaper, calorie-dense processed foods. This reinforces the "Mezzogiorno effect" discussed previously: the economic gap between the North and South doesn't just impact GDP—it dictates the very contents of the dinner plate and, consequently, the long-term health of the population.

Daily caloric supply per capita over time comparing the US, Italy and France

Given this context, why has Italy somewhat avoided the obesity surge seen in the United States? I believe a few distinct patterns could be considered. First is quantity. While the gap in daily intake—3,700 calories per capita in Italy versus 4,000 in America—might seem modest, the difference lies in portion sizes and snacking habits. As Tamar Haspel of the Washington Post argues, Italians generally eat smaller portions and snack far less frequently.

The second factor is quality. This is where the most striking differences emerge. Italians consume significantly fewer ultra-processed foods (UPFs) than Americans. According to 2025–2026 data, UPFs account for 20% to 23% of the Italian diet—a figure that has nearly doubled since 2005 but still pales in comparison to the 58% seen in the U.S. While junk food exists—like my personal favorite, cheesy Fonzies—it hasn't replaced the traditional, simple ingredients and dishes that Italians savor. Even after COVID, diet quality improved in Italy compared to the U.S. My experience in North Carolina (NC) recently was a stark contrast: portions were massive, and UPFs were available everywhere, at all hours. While BBQ may be the regional dish in NC, the state doesn’t really have a “cuisine.” The restaurant food felt heavy, laden with sugar, salt, and additives. It was simply too much.

A third factor is standards. In Italy, the "daily shop" is still very normal because fresh produce spoils quickly, suggesting a lack of the heavy preservatives found in American staples. Italy, governed by European Union law, follows the "precautionary principle," which restricts or bans hundreds of additives, synthetic dyes, and pesticides—such as potassium bromate and certain growth hormones—that are commonly used in the US food supply. While the US food system is heavily reliant on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) designed for long shelf-lives, Italian food culture is legally and culturally anchored in DOP (Protected Designation of Origin) standards that prioritize regional, minimally processed ingredients. This results in a stark contrast in ingredient labels; for example, traditional Italian bread typically consists of just four ingredients (flour, water, yeast, salt), while standard US supermarket bread often contains upwards of twenty, including emulsifiers and added sugars.

Kiosks to buy sandwiches in Bologna

Fourth is the ubiquity of food. In the U.S., food is sold everywhere—from hardware stores to bookstores. It is impossible to escape the constant temptation of mindless eating. In contrast, Italy maintains "proper" food environments. I could talk about the idea of slow eating — meals are often seen as a relaxed social experience — but I am not sure the evidence on how that relates to obesity. However, fast-food restaurants are hard to find in most cities, and major global chains (like Pret A Manger, Shake Shack, Chipotle, etc.) have a much smaller footprint, if any. After all, here is where Slow Food was invented. You won’t find a Starbucks on every block selling oversized, sugary caffeinated drinks. Don’t get me wrong, Italians put sugar in their coffee, but it is minuscule in comparison. When "grab-and-go" options do exist, they usually take the form of small, local sandwich shops; in Bologna, for instance, you’ll find piadinerie serving traditional flatbreads.

Fifth is the food environment itself. Italians have the luxury of choice: they can visit a supermarket, but they often prefer the plethora of local farmers' markets, which are frequently as affordable as the big stores. Many still visit the local butcher, cheesemonger, or bakery daily. This reflects a deep cultural respect for the origin of food and a devotion to regional cuisine. When I was in Baltimore recently, I noticed the stark difference: you can’t really find the same connection to fresh, specialized markets, with some neighborhoods suffering from food apartheid.

Sixth, we have to talk about pasta. While it’s often lumped into the "unhealthy refined carb" category alongside white bread and sugary snacks, a recent paper in The Journal of Nutrition argues that pasta is actually the victim of a major nutritional misunderstanding. The researchers highlight that the unique protein-starch matrix of durum wheat semolina—especially when cooked al dente—slows down digestion, giving pasta a surprisingly low Glycemic Index compared to other processed grains. Extensive clinical and population-based evidence shows that pasta consumption isn’t linked to weight gain or heart disease; in fact, when paired with the vegetables and healthy fats of a Mediterranean-style diet, it’s a powerhouse for long-term health. Italians would be pleased because they do eat a lot of pasta!

And last, there is the culture of walking. Italians have a deep-seated love for traversing their cities and towns on foot. Interestingly, while Italians may not engage in as much formal "exercise" as their northern European neighbors, they maintain a consistent level of activity through la passeggiata. This cherished, centuries-old tradition of the nightly post-dinner stroll is more of a vital social ritual than a workout. It allows families and friends to connect, enjoy the fresh air, and socialize with neighbors in the heart of the town center.

In summary, while lifestyle factors like "walking more" are often cited, the data suggest that the single most significant factor in Italy’s lower obesity rates compared to the U.S. is the dramatic difference in ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption. While the average American derives over 50% of their daily calories from industrially manufactured UPFs, Italians average closer to 10–18%, relying instead on the minimally processed staples of a traditional Italian (not Mediterranean) diet. This disparity suggests that the U.S. obesity epidemic is more about a food environment saturated with hyperpalatable, nutritionally void products that systematically override satiety signals—a metabolic hurdle that Italian food culture largely avoids by prioritizing whole ingredients.

Food Bytes: May 2026 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” Serving up the science, policy, and cultural facets across CLIMATE change, FOOD systems, & NUTRITION.

It’s been a while since I wrote a Food Bytes post. They take a lot out of me because so much comes across our desks via social media, traditional media, scientific papers, and reports. Sometimes, it is just too much to take in. Sifting through what may be worth highlighting can be a pretty random process, and developing a flow from one thing to another can often be challenging. Anyways, here it goes!

The most obvious place to start is with the war in Iran. What a costly and tragic mess the U.S. administration has made. Now, as many experts have described, the world may be facing a deepening food crisis due to fertilizer, feed, and food not moving through the Middle East, and lots of market speculation on fuel and food prices. If this conflict continues, the effects will be devastating for farmers around the world and the most food-insecure. Some peer-reviewed articles are already getting published that analyze and discuss the impacts on food security, such as here and here. Major media outlets are reporting on it too; here are two interesting reads from The Economist and The Financial Times. Bloomberg News is discussing how crude oil prices are affecting other oil products, particularly biofuels.

Extreme heat impacts on agriculture, FAO and WMO report (2026)

This also comes at a time when there is (again) much discussion about how food is being used as a weapon of war. I was particularly intrigued by this article from the Council on Foreign Relations, which includes embedded videos from experts around the globe. Speaking of geopolitical impacts on food security, Marc Bellemare, Bernhard Dalheimer, and Weston Loughmiller have an informative working paper out on this timely topic. In the Eat This Podcast with Jeremy Cherfas, they argue that agricultural economists have not paid enough attention to what they call “neglecting security externalities.” I am sure this will kick up some conversations. To make matters worse, the just-released 2026 Global Report on Food Crises reports that 266 million people experienced high levels of acute food insecurity in 2025 and Famine (IPC Phase 5) was confirmed in two countries/territories the same year – in parts of the Gaza Strip (Palestine) and the Sudan –a first since IPC reporting began. Now the world is closely watching South Sudan as well.

Things may not bode well for the many farmers who toil day in and day out to bring us the diverse foods traded around the world. The new FAO and WMO joint report, Extreme Heat and Agriculture, argues that extreme heat is driving massive losses in agricultural productivity. Already, maize and wheat yields have declined 7.5% and 6%, respectively, with 1 °C warming. They provide a clear framework of how this is happening across both direct and indirect pathways (see the figure to the right). And now, meteorologists are predicting a potentially strong El Niño (or as this author calls it, the fourth horseman of this foodpocalypse), which could leave some parts of the world hotter and drier.

On climate + food, some other reports and papers that may be worth a read:

  • A paper in Nature Food shows that in order to sustain yields of wheat, maize, rice, and barley production under 1.5 °C (current and unattainable climate target) and 3 °C warming (business as usual) scenarios, the world will need 13% (25 Mha) and 47% (94 Mha) global irrigation expansion, respectively. Yowza. Yes, we should be worried, but the question is, why aren’t we?

  • A review paper in Nature Reviews: Earth and Environment on the “Broad bidirectional effects of global food production on the environment” got some airtime. It is a nice summary, but nothing really new that the EAT-Lancet Commission and others have not extensively written about. And while they list a series of solutions, I always find them a bit vague…who, how, when, why, and for whom seem to be missing in these laundry lists of actions. Maybe I am just getting grumpy in my old age…

  • This paper in PLOS Climate claims meat and dairy companies spend a lotta time greenwashing. Gee, what a shocker! In all seriousness, this stuff is just infuriating, and papers calling out this behavior are super important. Keep it up guys!

  • On a more uplifting note, the World Resources Institute, in collaboration with the University of Maryland, reports that tropical primary forest loss decreased by 36% from 2024 to 2025, following a record-breaking year of extreme fires. Yay! Something positive in the world! Check out the tracking on the right, which shows we are back to where we were in 2023.

On diets + food security, we have some goodies that have been published in mainstream media and peer-reviewed. Here is a recap:

  • I am a big fan of Kibrom Sibhatu. He and others just published a paper examining the impacts of development projects on dietary diversity and food security in 24 low and middle-income countries. What did they find? Not much changed for dietary diversity, but food security improved (almost 8%). Unfortunate, as all eyes are on the future of, and the impact of, the decades of investment in international development…

  • The great Carlo Cafiero has spent decades at FAO, spearheading food security metrics such as the POU and the FIES. He is retiring soon (will the organization cease to exist thereafter?), and here are his insights, lessons, and reflections after many years spent toiling to measure food security. Worth a read.

  • Several of us published a review paper in Science describing how global food systems, along with rising incomes, urbanization, and the growth of ultra-processed foods, have driven dietary shifts that harm human health, the environment, and equity. We synthesize evidence across seven intervention domains to steer dietary transitions toward outcomes that are healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable. Key levers are highlighted, including R&D and product innovation to make plant-forward, sustainable foods tastier and cheaper; affordability and access measures, such as redesigned food assistance and supply-chain policies that internalize health and environmental costs; and food-as-medicine programs that embed nutrition into healthcare. There are also regulatory approaches — including reformulation targets, labeling, marketing restrictions, and public procurement standards — that are essential complements to voluntary actions, because nudges aimed only at individuals or producers are often overwhelmed by institutional food-environment influences.

  • The Atlantic put out a piece on how the “whole grain trend went wrong.” Did it ever go right?

  • Speaking of stellar food, the NYT published an article on how omakase sushi has become so popular in cities like New York, to its detriment. I particularly liked this passage: “In classic omakase, a chef has leeway to improvise in the moment, modulate, maybe even figure out what kind of person you are. These days in New York, the experience is more often one-size-fits-all: a fixed series of courses — essentially, a tasting menu — ranging from a dozen to 20 or more, with accommodations only for allergies or a particularly querulous diner, and often not even then. At the highest-end spots, everyone sits down at the same time and is fed in the same order, as if at the most elegant of mess halls.” And this: “With each bite, I had the nagging sense I was being spoon-fed, like a finicky child who couldn’t possibly know what’s really good or keep an open mind. There was nothing funky or chewy that might demand a pause to wonder: What am I eating?” Every time I go to omakase, I feel like an overstuffed cow eating at a trough waiting for my owner to shovel out a few measly morsels.

  • And just to rub some USDA-approved, low-sodium salt substitute into the festering wounds left behind by the latest release of the U.S. dietary guidelines (aka RFK Jr’s personal diet), welcome to the “crunchy” teens who serve as wellness influencers. Someone, please, just shoot me. Maybe you don’t even need to read the damn article. Just look at the photos/videos of these teens wolfing down red meat. I leave you with this quote, which just about says it all: “Ava Noe, a teenager based in the Boston area, has amassed more than 25,000 Instagram followers while criticizing ultra-processed foods and promoting colostrum supplements, mouth tape (WTF is this?), and beef tallow.” Yes, all you nutrition scientists out there, you are once again, totally irrelevant.

  • But maybe we don’t need to worry about beef-eating teens or IV-drip-fed sushi. Or, better yet, maybe we don’t even need to eat food at all anymore, because everyone seems to be getting their hands on GLP-1 inhibitors and self-experimenting with doses, how long they stay on them, and which symptoms and ailments they target. Has food and the food system become, shall I say, immaterial? As Tears for Fears sang, it’s a mad world. God damn right.

AI is not going anywhere soon. Some are for, some are against. In this paper in Nature Food, the authors argue that its impacts “depend on how institutions choose to design the infrastructures, competences and incentives that surround it.” Not really sure what that means to be honest… IPES published a report entitled "Head in the Cloud" that raises concerns (naturally!) about AI technology and other high-tech innovations to digitize farming, which they argue are largely controlled by a handful of major tech and agribusiness firms, creating farmer dependency and high production costs. It is an interesting read on the perils of technology that need to be governed and balanced with people-centered policies.

Speaking of technology, this group argues that ultra-processed foods are driving the plethora of plastic in our global food systems. Can’t wait to see some data around this claim, but I am sure Joe Yates and others are building a strong case! I guess the next thing we need to wonder is, how the hell are we going to extract ourselves from all this plastic? Good thing Dustin Hoffman’s character in The Graduate, Benjamin Braddock, shrugged at the prospects of working in “PLASTICS.” There is hope!

Well, that’s it for this month, folks. I will leave you with this little ditty by one of my favs, Jessica Pratt, called Mountain’r Lower. Seems like a song that is giving the spring season a chance. See you in June!

Archive Appetizer: Achieving healthy, sustainable, and equitable diets

Several of us published a review paper in Science describing how global food systems, along with rising incomes, urbanization, and the growth of ultra-processed foods, have driven dietary shifts that harm human health, the environment, and equity. There is a common dietary pattern across rich and poor countries: inadequate consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, and nuts, alongside excessive intake of animal-sourced foods, sugars, refined starches, sodium, and unhealthy fats. These shifts contribute to noncommunicable diseases, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and unequal access to nutritious diets. Dietary behavior is shaped by a complex web of direct influences (taste, price, convenience, culture) and powerful, often hidden, midstream forces and actors — manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants — that determine what foods are available, affordable, and appealing.

The many midstream actors that shape consumer food choices and producer choices within food systems and key levers to facilitate transitions toward healthier and more sustainable and equitable diets (Yang et al 2026, Science)

Building on that diagnosis, we synthesize evidence across seven intervention domains to steer dietary transitions toward outcomes that are healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable. Key levers are highlighted, including R&D and product innovation to make plant-forward, sustainable foods tastier and cheaper; affordability and access measures, such as redesigned food assistance and supply-chain policies that internalize health and environmental costs; and food-as-medicine programs that embed nutrition into healthcare. There are also regulatory approaches — including reformulation targets, labeling, marketing restrictions, and public procurement standards — that are essential complements to voluntary actions, because nudges aimed only at individuals or producers are often overwhelmed by institutional food-environment influences.

Most importantly, we argue that lasting change requires coordinated, systemic strategies that align incentives across consumers, producers, and especially midstream actors. There is a need for better metrics and data systems to track progress and hold actors accountable, such as the Food Systems Countdown Initiative, as well as efforts to shift social norms and improve food literacy. Overall, combining multiple interventions across R&D, policy, procurement, assistance, regulation, and education to create food environments in which healthy, sustainable, and affordable choices are the easy, appealing default.

Sustainability impacts arise primarily from agricultural production in, for example, farms and ranches (orange), whereas health impacts result primarily from consumers’ dietary choices (red) but are also affected by agricultural production and food processing methods. Equity impacts (blue) occur throughout the food value chain. The midstream actors in the food value chain, indicated with dark blue icons, exert great influence on the decisions of the world’s primary producers (fisheries and farms) and consumers despite being one to two orders of magnitude smaller in number

Food Bytes: September 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Food Bytes is back after taking August off (already practicing my ferragosta!). I think I say this every month, but it is hard to keep up with all the fantastic science and reports coming out. So let’s get to it.

The “Feeding Profit” report, published by UNICEF, argues that today’s food environments are systematically failing children by flooding markets and everyday spaces with cheap, ultra-processed foods that are aggressively marketed, thereby limiting access to nutritious choices. The data support this. Globally, 5% of children under the age of 5 and 20% of children and adolescents aged 5–19 live with overweight, and for the first time in 2025, obesity among 5–19-year-olds (9.4%) has overtaken underweight (9.2%). In many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of overweight individuals has more than doubled since 2000, and these countries now account for 81% of the global overweight burden (compared to 66% in 2000). The report finds that children’s diets are increasingly dominated by ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, displacing more nutritious options, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pulses, and animal-source foods (see the figure on the right). It highlights that for infants and children aged 6–23 months, only a minority meet minimum acceptable diet standards — e.g., globally, ~61% meet the minimum meal frequency standard, but only ~32% achieve the minimum dietary diversity (i.e., ≥ 5 food groups). It emphasizes that food environments—encompassing pricing, availability, marketing, and convenience—strongly shape diet quality, and that poor diets are not merely individual choices but are structurally driven by unhealthy food systems that food and beverage companies often interfere with and manipulate. Finally, it advocates for reforms such as reallocating agricultural and trade subsidies toward nutritious foods, regulating marketing and labeling, and enhancing social protection to make healthy diets more accessible and affordable.

Speaking of unhealthy foods, the Nature article, “Are ultra-processed foods really so unhealthy? What the science says,” scrutinizes whether the broadly used category of ultra-processed foods is scientifically justified, arguing that the classification may be overly heterogeneous to guide nutrition policy. While numerous observational studies link the consumption of ultra-processed foods to obesity, metabolic disease, and mortality, critics counter that many of these associations stem from confounding factors (e.g., overall diet quality, energy intake) rather than the definition of ultra-processed foods itself. The piece calls for improved definitions, mechanistic studies, and nuance in policy action, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all ban or tax on these foods may misfire without a clearer scientific basis. I think many working in this space disagree….

The study “Benchmarking progress in non-communicable diseases” analyzes changes in cause-specific mortality across 185 countries from 2010 to 2019, utilizing age-specific death rates and life-table methods to estimate the probability of dying from non-communicable diseases before the age of 80. During that period, non-communicable disease mortality declined in 82% of countries for females and 79% for males; however, the pace of decline slowed compared to 2001–2010, and in a minority of countries, the probability increased. Circulatory diseases contributed most to mortality reductions, while neuropsychiatric disorders, pancreatic and liver cancers, and diabetes offset gains in many settings.

Moving on to the area of sustainable diets, an interesting report , Meat vs EAT, was released last week, revealing a coordinated online backlash against the EAT Lancet Commission report. The backlash was driven by a network of 100 mis-influencers responsible for nearly 50% of posts and over 90% of engagement during the initial backlash. ​ Key hashtags, such as #Yes2Meat, reached 26 million people, surpassing the 25 million reached by pro-EAT-Lancet posts, with critical messages being shared six times more frequently than supportive ones (see Figure to the left). ​ Industry ties were evident, while mis-influencers monetized their advocacy through books, subscriptions, and events. None of this is shocking. With the second Commission report coming out this week, and the current global political turmoil, it will be interesting to see how they address the Commission's findings and its scientists. Their playbook? Attack the scientists, not the science. Boooo!

Let’s stay on this broad topic. A new study highlights the significant health impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including deaths, illnesses, and disabilities, with a focus on heat-related mortality, extreme weather events, and diseases like malaria and dengue. While most research has concentrated on high-income countries and temperature-related risks, recent studies have expanded to include air pollution, child health, and displacement, revealing substantial economic losses valued in billions annually. ​ The authors emphasize the need for more geographically diverse and equitable research, particularly in the global south, to better understand and address the health consequences of climate change.

Speaking of climate change, this study uses US household food purchase data (2004–2019) linked with meteorological records to quantify the effect of temperature on added sugar consumption. Results show that intake rises sharply between 12 °C and 30 °C (~0.7 g °C⁻¹), driven primarily by sugar-sweetened beverages and frozen desserts, with disproportionately larger effects among lower-income and less-educated groups. Projections under a 5 °C warming scenario suggest average daily added sugar intake will rise by ~3 g per person by 2095, exacerbating nutrition-related health risks and inequalities. Interesting study? Yes, we need to understand how climate extreme events impact dietary quality and nutrition outcomes. But are the findings significant? Probably not…3 grams of sugar ain’t much…

And to pivot a bit, the Lancet published "Getting back on track to meet global anaemia reduction targets: a Lancet Haematology Commission." The Commission assesses why the world is far off track to meet global anaemia reduction targets and provides a roadmap to get efforts back on course. As it stands, anaemia affects nearly 2 billion people worldwide, and most countries are far off track to meet reduction targets. Five takeaways:

  1. Anaemia has multiple drivers, from poverty, food insecurity, and poor WASH to infections, chronic diseases, and inherited blood disorders. Recognising this complexity is key to designing context-specific solutions.

  2. Reliable surveillance is patchy. Nearly half of the countries lack recent national anaemia data for women or children, and almost none collect comprehensive cause-specific information. Better integrated data platforms are urgently needed.

  3. Iron deficiency remains the leading cause, but infections, inflammation, micronutrient deficiencies, blood loss, and environmental stressors (like air pollution and climate change) all play major roles. Interventions must address this whole spectrum.

  4. Reducing anaemia requires strong governance across health, nutrition, and social sectors. Equity and human rights should be central, ensuring programmes reach the most vulnerable while being tailored to local contexts.

  5. The current WHO target of a 50% reduction by 2030 is unattainable with existing tools. A new evidence-based framework suggests a more realistic 12–22% global reduction, with country-specific goals that balance ambition and feasibility.

A companion article, “Anaemia in a time of climate crisis” published by your Food Archiver surveys how climate change — through effects like extreme heat, altered rainfall, and reduced agricultural yields — threatens to exacerbate global anaemia. It argues that vulnerable populations (especially women and children) in already high-burden settings will face worsening micronutrient deficits unless interventions integrate climate resilience into nutrition and health systems.

Gotta love Molly, oh how I miss the 80s!

A few interesting media pieces for your reading pleasure:

  • Sushi has become the grab-and-go, convenient food. Interesting how something raw has become so mainstream. (love the shoutout to Molly Ringwald in Breakfast Club)

  • An article on the beauty and craft of pizza.

  • I recently traveled to Mexico City and had a hard time finding good Mexican food. Why? Damn gringos are all moving there demanding, you guessed it, sushi and pizza.

  • Fantastic piece by Illana Schwartz, a Columbia University climate student, on the climate vulnerability of NY’s food supply, particularly the Hunts Point Cooperative Market, the point of distribution for 35 percent of the meat that enters the five boroughs. That’s more than 1 billion pounds of meat annually.

  • A Guardian article on why meat’s contribution to climate is often ignored by the media.

  • Breaking the trend of consolidation, Kraft Heinz, the makers of Kraft Mac and Cheese, Lunchables, and, you guessed it, Heinz ketchup, is breaking up:

  • Last, an important article on what happens to children when they become increasingly acutely malnourished. Recall that FEWS Net and others have declared that many parts of Gaza are now experiencing famine. Incredibly tragic.

And some final random thoughts. The great Italian actress Claudia Cardinale passed away this week. We were inspired to watch her in Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. Such an insane movie. Even better is to watch the making of it in the documentary, “Burden of Dreams.” Herzog is at his finest when he discusses nature and the jungle…His words resonate on the fragility of our world and humans in it.

Global Hunger Is Falling Slightly—But Food Remains Too Expensive for Billions

Every July, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report drops — and for anyone tracking global hunger, diet affordability, or food policy, it’s essential reading. Produced by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and its partners, SOFI offers the most authoritative annual snapshot of where we stand on food security and nutrition.

This year’s report shows cautious progress: global hunger is down slightly, but the cost of a healthy diet remains out of reach for billions. Inflation, inequality, and fragility are reshaping who eats well — and who doesn’t.

HUNGER: Some Progress, But Too Many Still Go Hungry

Hunger, as measured by the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), dropped from 8.7% in 2022 to 8.2% in 2024 — a reduction of 15 million people since last year and 22 million since 2022. That means an estimated 673 million people still go to bed hungry. It’s progress, and progress is worth celebrating, especially after several years of worsening trends.

There have been gains in food security in Asia and Latin America, but hunger has worsened in Africa. In 2024, over 20% of Africa’s population — 307 million people — are estimated to be hungry.

Women and rural communities continue to be disproportionately affected by food insecurity.

If this trajectory continues, 511 million people are projected to be hungry by 2030 — 60% of them in Africa. Meanwhile, the global prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity — which captures people's experiences of constrained access to adequate food — dipped slightly from 28.4% in 2023 to 28.0% in 2024, affecting 2.3 billion people.

Prevalence of undernourishment from 2015 to 2024 across world, regions and sub-regions (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD AFFORDABILITY: Still Out of Reach for Billions

A healthy diet remains unaffordable for 2.6 billion people — though that’s down from 2.9 billion in 2020. Fruits, vegetables, and animal source foods (ASF) consistently cost the most per calorie, while ultra-processed foods are often the cheapest (a data point not in the report, but worth noting — nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of highly processed foods).

Affordability challenges are rising in many places, particularly in low-income countries. The inability to afford a healthy diet disproportionately affects the poor and is a major driver of food insecurity and malnutrition.

The millions who cannot afford a healthy diet from 2017 to 2024: low to high income countries (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD INFLATION: A Major Driver of Unaffordability

Global food prices surged in 2023 and 2024, pushing the average cost of a healthy diet to $4.46 PPP per person per day — up from $4.30 in 2023 and $4.01 in 2022. Food price inflation jumped from 2.3% in 2020 to 13.6% in 2023, far outpacing headline inflation (8.5%).

Unlike commodity price indices that track items like soybeans or sugar, this metric reflects the cost of what people actually eat. And those costs are going up — fast.

WHY FOOD INFLATION? It's Not Just the War and COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine triggered dramatic spikes in global food commodity prices in 2021 and 2022, amplified further by rising energy costs. In the U.S. and the euro area, these shocks explained 47% and 35% of peak food inflation, respectively. The rest came from other factors: higher labor costs, exchange rate shifts, increased profit margins along supply chains, and extreme weather events that hit major breadbasket regions.

Meanwhile, governments injected $17 trillion in fiscal support during the pandemic, while consumption rebounded sharply in 2022. The U.S. dollar appreciated by over 20% compared to low- and middle-income country currencies by 2022, and the U.S. Federal Reserve expanded the monetary supply by $2.2 trillion over four years. The result? Domestic food inflation has remained stubbornly high.

WHO IS MOST IMPACTED? The Poor, Women, and Rural Communities

Food inflation hits low-income households the hardest, since they spend a larger share of their income on food. In many countries, wages haven’t kept pace. Purchasing power for food continues to vary widely, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings like Syria.

A 10% increase in food prices is associated with a 3.5% rise in food insecurity, a 5.5% rise in child wasting, and a 3.5% rise in stunting.

Food price inflation as compared to headline inflation and food the consumer price index (FAO SOFI 2025)

NUTRITION: Mixed News

There’s been slow but real progress on reducing childhood stunting — down from 26.4% in 2012 to 23.2% in 2024. Given how hard it is to shift chronic undernutrition, this is meaningful progress but still way too slow. Wasting is flatlined and anemia among women has worsened. But obesity is rising across all age groups. And globally, we’re not on track to meet any of the major nutrition targets.

What can be done?

There’s no silver bullet — but there are well-known, proven policy actions:

  • Subsidize healthy foods for low-income families

  • Expand climate insurance and risk protection for farmers

  • Reduce trade restrictions that limit food exports

  • Scale social protection programs to shield vulnerable households

  • Ensure transparent monetary policy to tame inflation

  • Invest in agri-food R&D, transport and storage infrastructure, and real-time market information systems to build long-term resilience and reduce volatility.

I spoke to CBS Evening News last night, summarizing the latest. Check out the video below.



Food Bytes: July 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

So much for the summer slowdown. This past month has seen a deluge of new reports, papers, and commentary on food systems, climate change, and health. It’s hard to keep up — maybe even overwhelming. As Dennis Hopper famously said in Apocalypse Now, “Zap ’em with your sirens!” We seem to be doing just that. Maybe we have to. With policymakers tuning out, turning inward, or dropping out (apologies to Timothy Leary), the push to break through the noise is relentless—and admirable. People are working tirelessly to get the message across.

But is it working? There’s so much noise now that it’s hard to know where the signal is.

Still, in the middle of the flurry, don’t forget to pause. Listen to some good music (here’s a summertime playlist I made a few years ago). Step into the sun. Enjoy every sandwich. We lost some legends this month—David Nabarro and Gretel Pelto in the food world, and Ozzy Osbourne, Chuck Mangione, and Sly Stone in the music world. A reminder: every day is something to behold, and none of us knows how long we’ve got. TOMORROW IS NOT GUARANTEED.

Now, on to Food Bytes. It’s the dog days of summer, and we’ve got a lot to cover—some good, some bad, and some downright ugly. Let’s get into it.

——-———————————————————————

Yes, experts are still debating how to feed the world, and Mike Grunwald’s recently published book, We Are Eating the Earth, has sparked some of the discourse. Hannah Ritchie, from Our World In Data, also with an amazing Substack, lays out some of the disagreements here. According to Climate Works, some actors perpetuate false narratives that distort the public's understanding of food systems, and the global community must actively dismantle these narratives to enable a shift toward truly sustainable, healthy, and equitable food systems. One solution that keeps coming up is “regenerative ag.” Speaking of powerful actors, the WBSCD argues that one way to feed the world is through regenerative agriculture. They seem to have the answers with their new global framework.

A slew of papers have been published in the last month on feeding the world under a changing climate. Here are a few highlights. This new paper in ERL shows that in 2024—the first year globally to exceed 1.5 °C warming—extreme heat directly triggered food price spikes for specific commodities, creating broader risks such as worsening economic inequality, societal instability, and pressure on health and monetary systems as climate extremes intensify. The figure to the right shows the climatological context of recent climate-induced food price spikes. Yikes. In this Nature paper, even when accounting for real‑world farmer adaptations across six major staple crops in 12,658 subnational regions, global warming of each additional 1 °C is estimated to reduce crop production by ≈120 kcal/person/day or 4.4% of recommended intake. Adaptation strategies and income growth only mitigate ~12% of those losses by century’s end under a moderate‑emissions scenario—leaving substantial residual yield declines across all staples except rice. Oh me, Oh my. What about key regions? This paper, published in PNAS, analyzed ten sub-Saharan African countries and found that cereal self-sufficiency increased from 84% to 92% between 2010 and 2020. This increase was attributed to yield improvements (44%), cropland expansion (34%), and a crop shift toward maize (22%). To sustain self-sufficiency by 2050 without further land expansion requires boosting annual yield growth rates from ~20 to 58 kg/hectare/year—implying a threefold increase in fertilizer use and substantial investments in agronomic, socioeconomic, and policy areas.

The United States seems to be in a mood of dismantling. Is that an understatement? 😳 Congress passed a bill to undo climate progress — a self-inflicted tragedy of planetary proportions. The “big, beautiful bill” will continue to roll out subsidies for big agriculture and reduce social protection policies to help feed the hungry. This new kind of American exceptionalism will trigger all kinds of problems, and Tracy Kidder chronicles the hunger one. Meanwhile, on the frontlines, immigrants are the backbone (visualized by the Guardian) of our food system — despite policies aimed at changing that. In the fields of California, as shown in this gripping documentary, toil and hope live side by side. The Food Security Leadership Council, launched with Carey Fowler at the helm, will explore how the US can re-engage in ensuring global food security. God speed Carey… god speed….

One of the most egregious parts of the so-called ‘big beautiful bullshit bill’ is how it undermines renewables to prop up coal and fossil fuels. Removing fossil fuels from the food system will necessitate a completely new vision for how food systems are operated and managed. Following the success of its fantastic limited series podcast, IPES has released a report that argues for breaking our addiction. The report reveals that global food systems are profoundly dependent on fossil fuels—accounting for roughly 15% of all fossil fuel use and 40% of petrochemicals—mainly through synthetic fertilizers, ultra‑processed foods, and plastic packaging, creating a critical yet overlooked climate blind spot. More on these foods and plastics in a bit.

Speaking of accelerating climate change, extreme events keep comin’ and are having deadly consequences. Droughts are hitting where you’d least expect — and your grocery bill knows it. The Mekong and Mexico are two such places. Speaking of droughts, this new report maps the drought hotspots around the world—the global south and Mediterranean face massive constraints. And with all these extreme events, it is critical to follow where the money is flowin’ and goin’. The new Climate Finance Vulnerability Index shows who’s left out of climate finance — and who isn’t and where vulnerabilities lie.

FAO 2025

A slew of reports have been published in the past few weeks on food systems - yo! they’re all the rage kiddos. First up is the door-stopper Global Food Policy Report by IFPRI. You will want to take your time getting through this one — all 584 pages. Next up? FAO published a report on what it means to take a food systems approach, led by the innovative Corinna Hawkes. The visual on the right illustrates the benefits of adopting a more systematic approach. GAIN also provided us with lessons and moments of change across food systems. And IFPRI’s new book wonders, what do we know about the future of food systems? Less than we should, but this IFPRI book is chock full of ideas about what the future might look like. In a new publication by the UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, they highlight successful strategies from over 20 countries—including Cameroon, Fiji, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Zambia—for turning national food systems transformation plans into actionable reforms, offering practical guidance for peer learning, and informed by national reports, dialogues, and contributions from major UN task forces and coalitions.

As people gather this week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the UN Food Systems Summit Stocktake, governance and action will be at the forefront. In this paper, authors examined 124 UNFSS‑inspired national food system transformation plans. They found that the focus overwhelmingly remains on ramping up food production, while critical dimensions like distribution, processing, consumption, environmental sustainability, labor rights, and animal welfare receive minimal attention, indicating these pathways largely reinforce existing food system norms rather than enacting deeper systemic reform. Another paper shows that effective transformation of food systems hinges on whole‑of‑system governance informed by systems thinking—addressing competing interests, policy incoherence, and entrenched power imbalances by redefining who governs and how decisions are made. They also published a nice policy brief. Lastly, GAIN published a new toolkit to help diagnose food system policy coherence, accompanied by eight country case studies. Well done GAIN and the great Stella Nordhagen! Speaking of diagnosing, the Food Systems Dashboard got some botox injections - check out her new shiny self!

At this point, food systems are such a tangled mess that they read like dystopian satire. Ultra-processed foods appear to be on trial, with charges ranging from obesity to ecosystem collapse. Did you know you can get your morning sweet-ass coffee in a bucket? Civilization: peaking or declining? Talk about plastic use. Want to avoid microplastics in your diet? Maybe you should because plastics are highly complex…This author recommends starting with minimizing ultra-processed foods. Speaking of ultra-processed foods, the Maintenance Phase crew puts them through their ever-scrutinizing ringer. But some fast food companies don’t seem to give a shit. Here is a list of the most unhealthy fast food spots and their offerings in the U.S. Wendy’s “Triple Baconator” (W.T.F.) takes first prize. Speaking of burgers, I guess they are back. But they won’t be cheap this barbecue season. Back to junk food. This paper in PNAS shows that, despite overall higher daily energy expenditure in wealthier populations, size-adjusted basal and total energy expenditure decline modestly with economic development—and account for only ~10% of obesity increases—while elevated caloric intake, especially from ultraprocessed foods, is the dominant driver of rising obesity globally. Who peddles these delicious bombs of unhealthiness? In my opinion, Trader Joe’s is guilty as charged. However, they have quite a cult following. Are they worthy of the hype? This 3-part investigation by Fast Company doesn’t think so and argues that getting you food from the “hippie” leaning joint is detrimental for all kinds of wicked reasons.

One Health Lancet Commission (2025)

And it’s not just our waistlines or grocery carts that are at risk—our food choices are entangled with planetary health, antimicrobial resistance, and zoonotic spillovers, as the latest One Health Lancet Commission makes painfully clear. The Lancet One Health Commission identifies interconnected global threats—including emerging zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, non-communicable diseases, food insecurity, and climate change—that can no longer be managed in policy or research siloes, arguing these challenges require integrated approaches across human, animal, and environmental health sectors. Drawing on evidence synthesis and case studies across health systems, surveillance, food security, and ecosystem resilience, it proposes concrete strategies for operationalizing One Health—such as embedding intersectoral governance in national laws, establishing integrated early warning systems, and reorienting economic paradigms toward sustainability and equity, The overarching vision is a global One Health governance framework—akin to climate accords or food system transformation plans—anchored in principles of holism, epistemological pluralism, and shared stewardship, designed to foster equitable, sustainable socioecological systems and ensure health security for all.

In the monthly Food Bytes, I aim to highlight the science, evidence, and data—along with the remarkable scientists who generate it all. However, the scientific endeavor, along with the people behind it, is increasingly under threat. Funding is drying up or becoming politicized. Researchers face harassment, censorship, and disinformation campaigns. Public trust is eroding, often fueled by ideological attacks and misinformation ecosystems. And in many parts of the world, speaking evidence-based truth to power now comes with real professional or personal risk. The scientific publishing endeavor doesn’t help. Some argue it is broken, and it is time for urgent reform or a better backup plan. Maybe we need to de-Americanize global science. Speaking of critical data to inform decision-making, the future of Demographic Health Surveys (also known as DHS) is at risk — and with it, the data backbone of global health and food security. The Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates, published by UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank Group, rely on DHS data, along with other data sources. They were able to put out this year’s data last week, but who knows what will happen in the future? What is the latest on malnutrition trends? Progress is mixed at best, but with the dismantling of USAID, as shown in this and this recent Lancet article and the tragic situation in Gaza (and Sudan), the trends don’t look good to say the least. Jose Andres pleads the case for why we cannot just stand by and watch the starvation unfolding. Devastating.

See ya’ll in Agosto.

Food Bytes: June 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

I just returned from an unforgettable trip to Lao PDR, with two stopovers in Bangkok, Thailand. Laos is a country of striking contrasts—on one hand, it moves with an unhurried, almost meditative rhythm; on the other, it carries the weight of a complicated past, still navigating the long shadows cast by war, particularly the enduring legacy of unexploded ordnance.

By Jess Fanzo, Luang Prabang

As many of you are aware, I’m currently working on a book that explores how the counterculture movements of the long 1960s have shaped today’s food systems. Inevitably, that journey includes grappling with the legacy of the Vietnam War, and as an American, traveling through this region stirs deep reflection. It's impossible not to think about the imprint left behind by U.S. military action and the resilience of communities who’ve had to rebuild in its aftermath.

Yet what struck me most was how far this part of the world has come. There’s a quiet strength in Laos, a gentle pride in its culture, and a determination to move forward without forgetting the past. It’s a powerful reminder of the world’s ebbs and flows, and how, even in the face of immense hardship, there’s the possibility of healing. “This too shall pass” kept echoing in my mind—not as a dismissal of pain, but as a recognition of time’s capacity to soften and transform.

Onward to this month’s Food Bytes.

IFPRI put out a bible in this year’s Food Policy Report. Where the rubber meets the road is Section 5, on effective change and the factors that determine how policy change occurs. One of our new papers led by Stephanie Walton (who is doing amazing work at Oxford) suggests that addressing asset stranding proactively, rather than trying to prevent it, could be a powerful lever for change.

Some great data exercises are out that provide useful nuance in how our food systems are performing. First up is the Systems Change Lab, which assessed progress for 32 outcome indicators in the food system. To help spur transformational change, we also highlight 58 critical enablers and barriers. Results of their analysis? NOT GOOD. The second is by the Better Planet Laboratory, which identifies food flows through nearly every major port, road, rail, and shipping lane worldwide and traces goods to where they are ultimately consumed. It’s called the Food Twin Map.

There are also some great people producing worthy pieces to read and follow. First, the great Bill McKibben has a Substack. I encourage you to read one of his latest entries, “So many moving pieces.” Nicholas Kristof is fighting the good fight and producing many excellent pieces on how the US government’s actions are harming global health and nutrition. Check out this, this, and this. Other institutions are getting in on the action. Bloomberg News has launched a new food column, titled "The Business of Food." The UNDP appears to be making a play in the food systems sector, including the launch of a new Conscious Food Systems Alliance. Fascinating!

Some highlights from journalists writing about food:

  • An interesting take on RFK Jr’s Make America Great Again policy: Grocery Update Volume 2, #4: MAHA Or Misdirection. Grocery Nerd argues that the “MAHA” framework may serve more as political window dressing than actual change.

  • DeSmog reported that food giants Nestlé, JBS, PepsiCo, Mars, and Danone are overstating their climate commitments—leaning heavily on unproven carbon removal schemes, neglecting methane reductions, and relying on weak, loophole‑filled deforestation pledges—according to a new report from the NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch. Gee, what a shocker…

  • In this article by Grist, the blending of at least 30% vegetables or plant proteins into meat products—known as “balanced proteins”—can deliver taste and price similar to conventional meat, while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  • This fascinating article in The New Yorker, entitled “Schmear campaign: How a Hazelnut Spread Became a Sticking Point in Franco-Algerian Relations,” is about how the European Union has banned Nutella competitor El Mordjene, a move some see as politically and racially motivated.

  • In the New York Times, they have a new series, “What is History.” They kicked off the series with two articles on food: One by Jacques Pepin on culinary pursuits and the other by Carey Fowler on the biodiversity of our food supply.

  • I fully admit to being a fan of Elizabeth Kolbert, and she delivers with her latest article: "Do We Need Another Green Revolution?" Worth your time to read along with all of her work.

  • Michael Grumwald has a new book out, and he wrote a piece, A Food Reckoning Is Coming, as part of his book tour. Another worthwhile and perhaps divisive read.

Some highlights from the science literature

  • This study validates the Healthy Diet Basket—a least-cost dietary model based on food-based dietary guidelines—as a globally consistent benchmark, finding that it delivers adequate macronutrients and micronutrients at about US $3.68/day.

  • Whereas this study argues that dietary species richness (DSR)—a measure of the number of different edible species in a diet—is the most effective global marker for capturing food biodiversity. They also show it correlates strongly with lower mortality in Europe compared to other diversity indices, and tracks micronutrient adequacy in low- and middle-income countries.

  • Speaking of diets, this study uses a linear programming model of over 2,500 U.S. foods to show that individually tailored vegan, vegetarian, and flexitarian diets (with ≤255 g of pork and poultry per week) can meet nutritional needs, align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 °C climate target, yield up to ~700 healthy-life minutes per week, and reduce climate impacts sevenfold.

  • Fortification remains essential and is considered a cost-effective way to fill nutrient gaps. Check out this modeling paper.

  • On processing…This NEJM perspective argues that mounting evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to increased calorie intake, obesity, and chronic disease necessitates regulatory policies—such as front‑of‑package labeling, marketing restrictions, and excise taxes—to curb their public health impact. Not sure there’s anything new here.

  • Numerous modeling papers are being published on the impacts of climate change on food production. This paper models six usual suspect staple crops — maize, soy, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum — and finds that for every 1 °C increase in temperature, food production will decline from current levels by 120 calories per person per day, but that income growth and adaptation strategies could alleviate 23% of global losses by 2050 and 34% by 2100. Gulp.

  • Should we consider alternatives like insects? According to this article, that may not be the case. The title alone is click-worthy: Beyond the buzz: insect-based foods are unlikely to significantly reduce meat consumption.

  • Maybe it’s time to start building climate-resilient systems - not just food, but across all systems. Check out our new policy paper, which argues in this manner.

For those interested in broader development issues, the Sustainable Development Report 2025 is now available. Another report that feels more like a book on how the world is progressing on those pesky goals that would make the world a better place and leave no one behind. Related to that, we have a new paper on how pastoralists are coping with resource constraints, conflict, and climate extremes. We initiated this work a decade ago in Isiolo County, Kenya, utilizing photo elicitation and semi-structured interviews with Borana and Turkana pastoralists to gain a deeper understanding of the constraints hindering their ability to practice pastoralism and to identify opportunities for better supporting pastoralist communities with climate-resilient strategies. And last but not least, a conversation about The Myth of the Poverty Trap.

And do check out our new Food for Humanity podcast! This limited series is all about alt-proteins.

That’s all, folks. Have a wonderful, safe, and delicious summer!

Food Bytes: April 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

It’s getting harder these days to cut through the noise we see every day in the news — and even harder to stay positive. I feel it too, my friends. I hear you.

But despite how surreal the world feels, it keeps turning — and so must science.

This past weekend, I had the honor of being inducted into the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at their annual meeting. As I watched 120 brilliant scientists receive this honor, I was struck by something simple but powerful: there are still so many good people out there, working tirelessly to make the world a better place.

Even as we face growing threats against scientific endeavors, moments like this remind me how lucky I am to do the work I do. And more than that, they strengthen my resolve: I will fight for the ability to do science — not just for myself, but for future generations who will carry this work forward.

In this month’s Food Bytes, I’ll be sharing a roundup of some of the media I've been reading. There’s a lot to filter through these days. Next month, I’ll be shifting my focus entirely to peer-reviewed articles, because some truly outstanding science is being produced, even in these turbulent times. Stay tuned.

Speaking of the shenanigans happening in the U.S., some colleagues who work on international nutrition discuss the impact of cutting international food aid. Devastating. Love this piece by Jody Harris on how the stop to U.S. food security funding is an assault on justice. Tom Philpott also writes about how this notion of “Make America Healthy Again” is poisoning the food movement. Feeling paranoid? Maybe start thinking about your apocalyptic emergency food kit. According to Food & Wine, the new U.S. dietary guidelines have you covered. Yah, right. Oh, and restaurants that the middle class can afford? Gone. As I said, get that food kit ready.

The climate is always front and center. The state of the climate report is out. Pretty dismal read. The COP30 will be in Brazil this year. This BBC article claims that some of the Amazon forest was cut down to build the highway to where the COP meeting will take place. Yikes. Speaking of COP30, it seems food is less on the agenda. What a shame. And more and more, we are seeing calls to better integrate nutrition and climate. Couldn’t agree more, but we need more and better evidence. Check out our new paper on the links between climate and nutrition.

Effects of climate change and extreme weather events on various systems that influence nutrition outcomes (Fanzo et al 2025)

According to this article, America can’t quit soda. Yet this Vox one claims we are dairy milk guzzlers. Whichever it is, it seems Americans loooove red meat and the current politics are making that all the easier. Even though some argue that eating less meat is one of the most important things individuals can do to impact the planet, and tech is doing its best to make plant-based foods, including eggs. But tech won’t save us. We need to understand better how we value food systems.

And as Wendell Berry said, eating is an agricultural act. How we manage agriculture and who manages it will dictate our future, but there is still much disagreement on how to manage it. The great Kenn Giller discusses how fractious and contentious future agriculture conversations can be on the Table Debates podcast. The CGIAR, a large conglomerate of research centers dedicated to improving agriculture worldwide, has launched a new research portfolio.  Speaking of agriculture, some other enjoyable listens, views, and reads:

  • The rise and fall of Quinoa on Jeremy Cherfa’s Eat This Podcast.

  • The role of Phosphorus in agriculture. One word: Essential!

  • Rice is making a comeback with black farmers.

  • Goats, the heroes in every story, are empowering women around the world. Of course they are!

  • Philanthropists are not helping African farmers, according to The Guardian.

  • The mafia is goin’ down at least when it comes to food fraud. Bada bing!

Things I look forward to:

That’s it for April folks. See you in May!