\n<\/p>\n
His focus has been so intense that the leading researcher, Kevin Hall, at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was responsible for establishing some of the strongest evidence of ultra-processed foods\u2019 health harms, left the agency<\/a> because he felt like Kennedy\u2019s HHS wouldn\u2019t allow him to communicate unbiased study results unless they continued to back that conclusion up, regardless of what the research found. (HHS spokespeople have disputed his assertion.)<\/p>\n According to the law, changes to the dietary guidelines must be based on what is called a \u201cpreponderance of evidence.\u201d The committee conducted a systematic review of research on the relationship between eating ultra-processed foods and risk of weight gain and obesity. The researchers did conclude that diets high in ultra-processed foods were associated with more body fat, higher body mass indexes, and a higher risk of obesity in adults, with a similar finding for children.<\/p>\n But it rated the evidence as \u201climited.\u201d Since that didn\u2019t meet the standard of a \u201cpreponderance of evidence,\u201d the committee declined to recommend limits on ultra-processed foods in the guidelines.<\/p>\n Fung said that makes sense, since the definition of ultra-processed foods<\/a> was only developed in 2009. In her mind, it still needs work. And these changes take time: It took ages for nutrition science to evolve to recognize healthy fats instead of cautioning against all fat in the diet, for example.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is a hot-button topic, and people want answers,\u201d CSPI\u2019s Chamberlin said. \u201cWe want to know what\u2019s going on and what\u2019s making us sick. But honestly, the advisory committee not being able to put forth a strong recommendation is a testament to how scientifically rigorous their process is. Their guidance can only be as strong as the underlying science.\u201d<\/p>\n Not everyone agrees with that. Nestle, for one, who is also a stickler about the science, thinks<\/a> it\u2019s high time to tell Americans to eat fewer ultra-processed foods.<\/p>\n Either way, members of the Trump administration have mischaracterized how the advisory committee evaluated ultra-professed foods\u2014and how the current guidelines currently handle them. In the Megyn Kelly interview, for example, Makary said, \u201cNo longer are we going to say, \u2018You have these calories, it doesn\u2019t matter how you get them, it doesn\u2019t matter if it\u2019s all ultra-processed foods.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not need the term ultra-processed to help us differentiate between healthy versus unhealthy foods.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In fact, the 2020 guidelines recommended \u201cnutrient-dense\u201d foods, which means it\u2019s not just calories that matter.<\/p>\n In the end, Fung said the best dietary advice hasn\u2019t changed much over time. Based on the review, she\u2019d give this advice: \u201cEat more fruits and vegetables, whole grains. Eat a wide variety of foods. Mostly plant-based, especially the proteins, and choose whole foods and minimally processed [foods].\u201d<\/p>\n She\u2014and pretty much any nutrition expert\u2014will recommend sticking most to whole and minimally processed foods. \u201cWe do not need the term ultra-processed to help us differentiate between healthy versus unhealthy foods,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n Kennedy and those around him see it differently. They want to emphasize the ultra-processed nature of the foods. \u201cUltra-processed food is comprised of three ingredients primarily that did not exist 120 years ago,\u201d said Kennedy advisor Calley Means at the MAHA Institute launch, citing refined grains, added sugar, and seed oils.<\/p>\n Some experts, including Nestle, disagree with many of the nitty-gritty details but understand where the arguments and frustration are coming from: She\u2019s been pointing to corporate influence on dietary advice for decades, while others have documented how a food system driven by corporate profit<\/a> transformed the way Americans eat<\/a> in less than a century<\/a>, while chronic disease rates ticked up.<\/p>\n It can start to feel like splitting hairs, but the tension between what conclusions can be drawn from the observable reality at hand, the scientific evidence available, and the desire to make change right away has existed for as long as nutrition has been studied. It\u2019s hard to do controlled trials that isolate what humans eat. It\u2019s hard to boil down complicated studies into simple advice on which foods to eat for optimal health. Kennedy doesn\u2019t seem to agree.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are going to have four-page dietary guidelines that tell people, essentially, \u2018Eat whole food,\u2019 \u201d he told members of Congress in May. \u201c \u2018Eat the food that\u2019s good for you.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n