Flora & Fauna: Wildlife and people agree on best mating sounds; eat your oats; 5.6 million bees found underground

Male zebra finch calls attract mates. Female zebra finches and human study participants
agreed on which males had the best calls. (Photo by Raina Fan via The Conversation)

When researchers compared which animal sounds, such as bird calls, frog croaks or cricket chirps, wildlife seemed to like best alongside which ones people preferred, the "results were striking," writes animal behavior expert Logan S. James for The Conversation. "Across our dataset, including animals separated from human beings by hundreds of millions of years of evolution, people tended to agree with the animals about which sound was more pleasant. . . . People particularly agreed with animals when it came to what researchers call 'adornments': the extra trills, chucks, clicks and flourishes that animals can add to their calls. These sounds were more appealing to both animal and human listeners alike." 

When a snow avalanche pummels an outdoor recreationist's spot, there's little people can do to find those buried under heavy piles of snow. That's when avalanche dogs are called to the scene. "Dogs play an essential role when an avalanche strikes," reports Christine Chung of The New York Times. "Their powerful noses help guide rescuers to people buried in the snow, saving critical moments that can mean life or death." Potential avalanche dogs are chosen for a very specific set of interests, skills and breed stamina, and their training starts when they're just a few months old. For avalanche dog handlers, training takes years. Click here to read about "Baggs," a golden retriever puppy from Wyoming who was once the runt of her litter. She's now a rockstar avalanche-dog-in-training.

Beta-glucan is what makes oats especially 
healthy. (Photo by Roman Matveev, Unsplash)

Among all the whole grains commonly eaten, oats may offer the most benefits. "Many studies have found that oats lower LDL cholesterol, or the 'bad' cholesterol that increases your risk of heart attack and stroke," reports Simar Bajaj of The New York Times. "Much of this effect comes from beta-glucan, a type of fiber that thickens the contents inside the gut, trapping cholesterol-rich bile acids and carrying them out of the body." Oat fiber also helps people maintain normal blood sugar levels, which "can be particularly beneficial for people with Type 2 diabetes."

What's not to like about bitter greens? For many people, pretty much everything, because bitter and astringent foods taste gross. But humans didn't always avoid bitter fruits and vegetables; in fact, they were once a regular part of our ancestors' diet. "Much of the produce on grocery store shelves has grown mild or sweet in flavor, designed to appeal to a mass consumer palate," reports Joti Heir of Offrange. "That sits in high contrast to the complex tastes of wild, ancestral crops." Emerging food science reveals how bitter foods contain "compounds that provide a small challenge to the brain, and with that, activate neural pathways that result in enhanced cognition." There's even research "showing the potential of using bitter compounds to treat Alzheimer’s Disease."

Rebounding salmon populations along the Golden Coast are good news for commercial fishing operations and seafood lovers. "Federal fishery managers voted to open waters off the coast of California to commercial salmon fishing for the first time since 2022," reports Sophie Austine of The Associated Press. More recent drought-ending wet winters have helped salmon populations recover. "The federal council has said forecasts for Chinook and coho salmon off the West Coast look promising this year, though the season will open with some restrictions."

 

Miner bees are important pollinators that live in 
underground nests. (Photo by C. Lewallen via USFS)

Bees are commonly known for their constant busyness and for living in outdoor hives. But in fact, 70% of native bees don't live in outdoor hives; they live in underground nests. Researchers recently discovered 5.6 million burrowing bees "revealing just how abundant some understudied pollinators are," reports Margherita Bassi for Smithsonian magazine. "The team estimated that in 2023, between 3.1 million and 8 million of the bees emerged from the ground in the Ithaca cemetery, with the average estimate being 5.56 million. For comparison, Manhattan’s population is about 1.7 million people." 

Food manufacturers tell Trump and Republican lawmakers to choose sides

NAM's report works to explain the food industry's many moving
parts. (National Association of Manufacturers graphic)

After months of trying to avoid direct conflict with  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or drawing ire from President Donald Trump, the food industry decided it's done dodging the battle.

"America’s food-makers have a message for Trump and Republican lawmakers: You must choose between Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda and ours," reports Amanda Chu of Politico. At its core, Kennedy's "Make American Health Again" plan includes more regulation, and manufacturers say that will increase costs, potentially limit food supplies or consumer access to certain foods.

To drive their message home, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a video and report titled Manufacturers Feed America, which "warns the food industry is 'under increasing strain,'" Chu writes. The video explains that American consumers won't benefit from a state-by-state "patchwork" of rules that don't account for food production dynamics and challenges. The report points out that regulation will inevitably increase food prices.

NAM wants national uniform standards along with "a seat at the table on policies stemming from Kennedy’s MAHA agenda," Chu adds. NAM CEO Jay Timmons called Kennedy's policies and tactics "a business killer." Timmons maintains that Kennedy's attacks on U.S. manufacturers don't align with Trump's promise to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing. 

Meanwhile, Kennedy has given food-maker concerns "little deference," Chu adds. "He said he thinks the deference policymakers have shown them in the past was a byproduct of the Washington swamp."

The timing of NAM's publicly shared report and video reflects the industry's awareness of "Republican vulnerabilities on the economy in an effort to push their agenda ahead of the November midterm elections," Chu writes. Midterm outcomes will "shape Trump’s influence for the remainder of his term."

Whatever the agenda, American consumers are weary of increasing food costs. Chu reports, "November’s Politico Poll with Public First found Americans across demographics rank cost of living as the nation’s top problem, with 45% naming grocery prices as their 'most challenging' expense, surpassing housing and health care costs."

New USDA nutritional guidance changes 30-year-old food triangle and calls for far fewer ultra-processed foods

The inverted nutritional triangle recommends Americans 
eat more dairy than whole grains. (USDA graphic)

The Trump administration rolled out new U.S. dietary guidance this week that "inverts" the 30-year-old food triangle and advises Americans to "limit highly processed foods, such as those high in added sugars and sodium," reports Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. "The administration [used] a revised pyramid with images of steak, a block of cheese and a carton of whole milk at the top," and whole grains at the bottom.

The guidelines focus on strictly limiting ultra-processed foods, which currently make up more than 50% of the American diet. The overhaul reflects Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s opinion that processed foods are major contributors to chronic illnesses, particularly those in children, such as obesity and diabetes.

The recommendations emphasize "eating whole foods — such as fruits and vegetables in their original forms — and foods rich in protein and whole grains." Kennedy told reporters he wants Americans to “Eat real food.”

"Nutrition experts generally praised some of the main changes, such as the move away from processed foods, while a few raised concerns about promoting some fatty foods," Roubein writes. "The American Medical Association praised the dietary guidelines as offering 'clear direction.'"

U.S. nutritional guidance is developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture every five years. Its goal is to promote health, and the document is "considered a cornerstone of federal nutrition policy," Roubein explains. "The guidelines influence federal nutrition programs and the foods served in school lunches and to members of the military."

American agricultural industry successfully prevents MAHA strategy plan from bashing key pesticides

MAHA's initial report and strategy are found on
the White House website. 

The first report issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" commission alarmed America's "Big Ag" leaders; however, the agricultural industry's intensely focused response appears to have reduced some of the commission's concerns over pesticides, report Amudalat Ajasa and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Released in May, the first MAHA report was Kennedy's initial attempt to define the reasons for chronic illness in American children. It didn't completely bash all pesticide use in American farming, but instead it "raised questions about the health effects of two commonly used pesticides, glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report’s rhetoric frustrated powerful agriculture groups," such as CropLife America, a trade group for pesticide companies, and the American Soybean Association.

In an effort to influence the commission, the agricultural industry launched lobbying "blitzes" and "coordinated social media campaigns," Ajasa and Roubein explain. "Their efforts seemingly paid off. The Trump administration’s MAHA strategy document, released last month, did not call for restrictions on pesticides."

While big agriculture companies may be relieved at MAHA's softer stance on pesticides, some of Kennedy’s allies "believe it went too far in bowing to the agriculture industry," Ajasa and Roubein write. But supporters of the strategy claim that MAHA's focus on innovative solutions and technology can benefit American health and farmers.

Meanwhile, Kennedy is still tasked with rooting out the causes of chronic childhood diseases. MAHA's strategy report "notably avoids proposing restrictions on commonly used products such as glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report pledges that the EPA will work with the food and agriculture industries to ensure the public has 'awareness and confidence' in the agency’s 'robust review procedures.'"

Some MAHA activists remain frustrated by the report's failure to call out pesticide use and the Trump administration's appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Report: Farmers and agricultural leaders put the brakes on part of national 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda

In its initial report, the national "Make America Healthy Again" commission advocated for changes to U.S. food production and dietary guidance while criticizing "lobbying efforts by American corporations to shape policy," report Jesse Newman, Liz Essley Whyte and Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal. But the commission has since "held talks with scores of leaders from the food and agriculture industries."

Farm groups criticized MAHA's first report for not giving
them a voice. (Adobe Stock photo)

When the commission released its follow-up plan last week, it left "nutrition experts and consumer advocacy and watchdog groups, lamenting its lack of emphasis on regulatory action," the Journal reports. MAHA supporters worry that the commission's initial agenda, led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has curtailed its mission to appease corporate leadership.

By comparison, agricultural and industry groups were glad their input was included. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, told the Journal, "We appreciate the commission’s willingness to meet with farmers across the country, hear our concerns and develop smart solutions."

When the MAHA commission released its first report, "It questioned the health effects of glyphosate. . .a widely used farm pesticide," according to the Journal article. "It scrutinized ultraprocessed foods over some 15 pages."

The report then faced backlash from agricultural leaders and farmers who balked at the "report’s contents and a lack of engagement from the administration during its writing," the Journal reports. Before its follow-up strategy was released, the commission "sought input from farmers, food makers and retailers."

In an effort to juggle agricultural leadership and MAHA supporters, the commission said it aimed to give both sides a seat at the table. According to the article, "The White House used broad language in the latest MAHA report to leave the door open to take sharper or more lenient action in the future."

Some states look to restrict soda and candy from food stamp purchases. Arkansas and Indiana are 'first in line.'

SNAP changes restricting soda from purchases has
soda makers worried. (Adobe Stock photo)

Food stamp recipients in two states may no longer be able to purchase soda or candy with their monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP benefits. Soda makers have long fought against the restriction. "The Agriculture Department is fast-tracking state requests to yank soda and candy from food-stamp programs," report Laura Cooper, Kristina Peterson and Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal. "Arkansas and Indiana are among the first in line." The changes would impact many rural residents who are often more likely receive SNAP benefits than their metro or urban counterparts.

Indiana and Arkansas said "they were seeking clearance from the USDA to implement the changes, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her agency would move 'very, very quickly' to approve them," the Journal reports. Rollins told the Journal, "That’s exactly the vision of making America healthy again. I am 100% certain that these changes will be nothing but positive for those underserved communities that are food challenged.”

If multiple states choose to adopt the restrictions, soda maker sales would take a dip. "Soda companies have lobbied hard against such changes," the Journal reports. "The Republican governors of West Virginia and Utah have said they plan to pursue similar restrictions in their food-aid programs."

Historically, SNAP recipients spend a fair amount of their food purchasing dollars on highly processed foods including soda. "About 23% of food stamp dollars go toward foods like sweetened beverages, candy, desserts and salty snacks − for an annual total of about $25 billion," report Calley Means and Tarren Bragdon in their opinion for USA Today. "These foods are proven to contribute to obesity and a slew of related health problems in children and adults."

Soda makers have tried to convince President Trump that restricting SNAP food and beverage purposes would anger many of his supporters, and "Trump himself, who also drinks Diet Coke from a wine glass for toasts, has been skeptical of banning things his supporters like," reports The Wall Street Journal. "Republicans have long been divided on the issue, with some uncomfortable over the idea of policing people’s purchases."

Hot, kick-in, chewy, meaty -- Americans have fallen in love with the 'meat stick'

Roughly 41 million U.S. households buy meat sticks
each year. (Adobe Stock photo)

Lunch pails, glove compartments, purses and toolboxes are favorite places for Americans to stash their new favorite snack: The meat stick.

The tasty lengths of protein have "come a long way since the original Slim Jim," reports Jennifer Williams of The Wall Street Journal. The snack has grown into a $3 billion business that has spiked fan controversy over its ever-growing smorgasbord of spiciness and flavors.

Among old and new meat stick lovers, "the flood of flavors and high-end options that has come with the snack’s rising popularity has divided fans," Williams writes. "Traditionalists, who prize the snack for its smoky simplicity, have a beef with the onslaught of choice. Other fans are being lured to a new breed of packaged offerings. . . Some won’t touch anything that didn’t come from a butcher — and please, whatever you do, don’t call it a meat stick."

Meat sticks are the go-to snack of choice for common and famous Americans. "Roughly 41 million households buy meat sticks annually," Williams explains. "Actress Jennifer Lawrence took Slim Jims — hot and mild — to the Oscars in 2014, an emergency nibble for the hourslong ceremony."

Slim Jim maker Conagra Brands purchased Fatty meat snack brands to create what "their executives call the 'trifecta smokehouse,'" Williams reports. "The acquisition beefed up a portfolio that already boasted the Slim Jim and Duke’s brands." Ashley Spade, vice president of Conagra's snacks, described meat stick sales as "explosive."

Meat stick choices include "jalapeño, taco-seasoned, teriyaki and dill pickle. Meat options range from beef to turkey, chicken and lamb," Williams reports. 

Some fans feed their meat stick needs with a trip to the local gas station, but others up the ante. "Sarah Steele goes to her local butcher. . . . Steele prefers her meat sticks to have a kick. And high-quality meat is a must." She told Williams, "I’m a meat snob, what can I say? But I don’t judge — if you enjoy it, eat it.”

An FDA proposed rule would force food manufacturers to add a 'nutritional info box' to the front of their packaging

The 'nutritional info box' would focus on saturated
fat, sodium and added sugars.

Warning labels for grocery items with salt, added sugar or saturated fat may become the federal government's newest tool aimed at educating U.S. consumers about their grocery choices. "Under a new rule proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, food manufacturers would be required to put new labels on the front of packages flagging key nutrition information," reports Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. The current administration believes bold labeling could help Americans make healthier food choices.

Most packaged foods sold in the U.S. already have nutritional information on the back or side of the box. "The new labels, dubbed a 'nutrition info box,' would go on the front of packages," Newman explains. The box would flag foods as "high, medium or low in salt, added sugar and saturated fat, which the FDA has warned can lead to chronic diseases when consumed in excess."

Most food companies oppose labeling foods with warnings, "The Consumer Brands Association, which represents big food manufacturers, said the rule doesn’t reflect the latest research," Newman reports. "The group said studies show the most effective labels include calories and nutrients to encourage, along with nutrients to limit."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is the incoming Trump administration's prospective next head of U.S. health policy, "has been outspoken about his view that U.S. food companies are partly to blame for sickening Americans," Newman writes. "Consumer advocacy groups and public health organizations cheered the rule." Some groups hope the Trump administration will support more specific labeling, which is used in Chile and Mexico.

The FDA is accepting public comments on its proposal until May 16. Newman adds, "If the rule is finalized after that, food manufacturers would be required to add the new labels to most packaged food products three to four years after it takes effect."

Food industry groups warned they could sue to overturn labeling mandates. Newman adds, "Such labels, they said, could threaten First Amendment rights — because companies could consider them a form of forced speech — and only Congress has the authority to require them."

Ultra-processed foods cause poor health outcomes in Americans; researchers look at their link to cognitive decline

Regular servings of hot dogs drizzled with liquid cheese may
be linked to cognitive decline. (Adobe Stock photo)

A big old hot dog, fried salami and a heaping pile of bacon may sound delicious to many Americans, but emerging research shows Americans who regularly consume processed meats are more likely to develop dementia, report Dana G. Smith and Alice Callahan of The New York Times. Processed red meat, which falls under the umbrella of ultra-processed foods, is only one part of a larger dietary equation where the traditional American diet is linked to poor health outcomes and possibly cognitive decline.

The scientists who studied processed red meat consumption "tracked more than 130,000 adults in the U.S. for up to 43 years. During that period, 11,173 people developed dementia," Smith and Callahan explain. "Those who consumed about two servings of processed red meat per week had a 14% greater risk of developing dementia compared to those who ate fewer than three servings per month." Eating unprocessed meat did not "significantly increase the risk for dementia."

Ultra-processed food is often made with ingredients most Americans don't have in their kitchen cupboards. "Products like soy protein isolate, high fructose corn syrup, modified starches, flavorings or color additives," the Times reports. "Many of these foods also have high levels of sugar, fat or sodium, which have long been known to adversely affect health." Soda, breakfast cereals, flavored potato chips, white bread and energy drinks all fall are all ultra-processed, but they "account for about 58 percent of the calories consumed by both children and adults, on average."

As for ultra-processed foods causing dementia, a body of research is growing, which "shows an association between ultra-processed foods and brain health," Smith and Callahan write. "[The studies] cannot prove that the foods directly harm the brain. And not all studies have found a consistent link between ultra-processed food consumption and cognition." Dr. Dong Wang, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, told the Times, "You cannot conclude that if you eat a certain amount of processed red meat, you’ll definitely get dementia. That’s not the case.”

For most people, changing diet habits is process that takes time and patience; however, experts encourage people to move away from a diet dominated by ultra-processed foods. Dr. Karima Benameur, an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine, told Smith and Callahan, "Even modest changes over time can have an impact, and that’s important because it means it’s achievable." The Times reports, "Rather than trying to eliminate all ultra-processed foods from your diet — what Dr. Benameur calls 'a recipe for failure' — focus on cutting back on some of the worst offenders and replacing them with healthier options."

Food and Drug Administration considering product 'warning labels' to help Americans make healthier choices

Food sold in some Latin countries features bold
warning labels. (Adobe Stock photo)

To help Americans improve their diets, the Food and Drug Administration is "considering requiring food manufacturers to put new labels on the front of packages," report Andrea Petersen and Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. "The labels might flag certain health risks, such as high levels of salt, sugar or saturated fat."

With the alarming rise in diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the United States, the FDA is exploring distinctive labeling on the front and back of packaging to help Americans make better nutritional choices. "One label idea the FDA has tested uses red, yellow and green to convey whether products are high, medium or low in added sugar, sodium and saturated fat," the Journal reports. "Other potential labels that the FDA has shared state how much of those substances a product contains per serving."

Food industry leaders indicated that they might sue the FDA should the labeling proposal become a rule, claiming the requirement "poses a threat to First Amendment rights and that only Congress has the authority to require it," the Journal reports. "Such labels could unfairly convey that certain foods are bad to eat, when in fact a candy bar may not be healthy, but consuming it in moderation isn't a problem, lobbyists said." Food industry proponents also insist the current labeling system is sufficient.

"The FDA says it intends to propose a rule on the labeling this summer."

So far, studies have supported the FDA's labeling idea. The Journal reports, "Scientific studies have generally found that front-of-package nutrition labels lead people to identify and choose healthier foods. More countries now require them on food and beverage containers. Others, including France, the U.K. and Australia, have voluntary programs."

In Chile, warning labels are put on products, and the country has seen dietary changes for consumers. According to Petersen and Newman, "After the warning labels were implemented, food manufacturers changed their products, too — by reducing the amount of sodium or sugar."

Opinion: Look out for these three common fallacies the supplement industry uses to market products

Taking extra vitamin C doesn't prevent the flu.
(Photo by P. Gauthier, Unsplash)

Eating your fruits and veggies is an excellent way to get the nutrients a body needs, but so are dietary supplements; at least, that's what industry marketers want Americans to believe.

"According to a 2023 survey, 74% of U.S. adults take vitamins, prebiotics and the like," writes Katie Suleta in her opinion for The Conversation, a journalistic platform for academics. "It's important to consider why so many believe supplements can help them lead healthier lives. While there are many reasons, how supplements are marketed is undeniably an important one. In my years following the industry, I've found that three mistaken assumptions appear repeatedly in supplement marketing."

First off, there is the "appeal to nature fallacy." Marketers treat vitamins and supplements as "nature made" and, therefore, will make or keep you healthy. Suleta explains, "If I say 'vitamin C, what do you immediately think of? Probably oranges or citrus in general and flu prevention. But if I say 'the flu shot,' what immediately comes to mind? Probably doctor's offices, a little bit of pain and pharmaceutical companies. One of these is clinically proven to prevent flu infections and lessen the severity of illness. The other has been marketed as though it does those same things, but there's no clinical evidence to support this."

The second assumption supplement companies use is the idea that more equals better. "If a little vitamin C is good for us, then a lot of it must be great," Suleta writes. "The truth is that our bodies tightly regulate levels of the vitamins and minerals we consume. If you don't have a deficiency, consuming more of a particular vitamin or mineral through a supplement won't necessarily lead to health benefits."

The third concept nutritional supplement companies use to boost sales is the action bias. Suleta explains, "Taking action makes people feel like they have more control of a situation, which is especially powerful when it comes to health. 'Even if I don't need the extra vitamin C,' they might think, 'I'll take it just to be sure. What's the harm?'. . . It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Too much vitamin C can lead to diarrhea, nausea, stomach cramps and more. . . . Too much vitamin D can lead to conditions including nausea, vomiting and kidney stones."

Suleta recommends taking a guarded approach to what supplements promise and speak to your medical provider before starting on any new nutritional regimen.

Hot dog! After 140 years, a new, meatless hot dog will be on the shelves later this year.

Hot dogs are part of American culture.
(Kraft Heinz photo via Scripps News)

Hot dogs. Poor people created them. Rich people found a way to charge $15 for them. They're high culture, they're low culture, they're sports food, they're kids' food. . . . You can love them, you can hate them, but you can't avoid the great American hot dog. ~ Raw Dog by Jamie Loftus

Even though Loftus traveled America snarfing down hot dogs from coast to coast, she didn't get to try Oscar Mayer's newest weiner. "For the first time in 140 years, Oscar Meyer will be making meatless dogs," reports Justin Boggs of Scripps News. "The hot dog maker's parent company, Kraft Heinz, announced a new line of plant-based hot dogs and sausages soon hitting store shelves. The company says it projects plant-based meat alternatives will go from an $8.3 billion market in 2023 to $19 billion by 2030."

While some plant-based "meat" companies have struggled to make a profit, "Kraft Heinz says the Oscar Mayer NotHotDogs and NotSausages will have a 'smoky, savory taste, meaty color, and thick, juicy bite,'" Boggs writes. Lucho Lopez-May, CEO of the Kraft Heinz Not Company, told Boggs: "We know people are hungry for plant-based meat options from brands they know and trust."

Oscar Mayer will showcase their new dogs at the Expo West event in Anaheim, California this month. "The company said major retailers will receive product shipments later this year," Boggs reports. "According to a 2022 poll by the Vegetarian Resource Group, 6% of the U.S. adult population considers themselves vegan or vegetarian. In 2015, a similar poll found that 3.4% of Americans said they never eat meat, indicating that there is a growing number of Americans opting not to eat meat."

A new way of evaluating food as healthy or unhealthy could improve diets but also cut profits for major companies

Gummy worms are ultra-processed.
(Photo by Karsten Winegeart, Unsplash)

What does ultra-processed food sound like? It sounds like the polyglycerol polyricinoleate in Hershey's chocolate or the tripotassium phosphate in Cheerios, or more broadly, the protein isolates or emulsifiers that "aren't normally found in a domestic kitchen," reports Carol Ryan of The Wall Street Journal. "Growing scrutiny of the peculiar ingredients in popular snack foods might be bad news for their makers."

Evaluating foods based on their ingredients vs. salt, sugar and fat content to determine if they are "ultra-processed" comes from "a way of classifying foods, called Nova, that emerged in Brazil over a decade ago," Ryan explains. "It is also a new way to think about diet. Nova groups foods based on how intensively processed they are. Some scientists think that industrial processing of food itself might be harmful and encourage overeating."

Nova's evidence is controversial, but "it is being taken seriously, including at policy level. The U.S. government will give Americans fresh diet advice in 2025 as part of a review that happens once every five years," Ryan reports. "For the first time, federal researchers and health experts will examine the relationship between ultra-processed foods and the risk of obesity. A scientific report is expected this year."

Meanwhile, big food companies are monitoring the debate, which could cut into revenues. "Ultra-processed snacks and meals are highly profitable. Major packaged food companies, including Kraft Heinz, General Mills and Nestlé, made an average operating margin of 17% over the past five years, according to FactSet data," Ryan writes. "Products that fall under Nova's UPF category make up roughly 57% of the average American and British diet and an even greater proportion for children."

Some ingredients in processed foods are there to give food a longer shelf life, prevent waste or lower costs. According to a Barclays analysis, "products containing the most common preservative, emulsifier and sweetener additives were 5% cheaper than their category average," Ryan reports. "Even foods that target health-conscious consumers — such as oat milk and plant-based meat — can be intensely processed, as manufacturers try to mimic the taste, texture and smell of animal products."