By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Georgia News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as Director of Health and Human Services — the government department that oversees the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control among others — could be another damper for the plant-based food market. Through his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, Kennedy has repeatedly argued that processed foods are poisoning the country, a stance he maintained throughout his confirmation hearings. And because processed foods aren’t well defined, any efforts by RFK to restrict ultra-processed foods could end up inadvertently discouraging U.S. consumers from eating plant-based foods. That would be bad news for the already-struggling plant-based industry, but also for climate change and the environment.

Though he did not support an all-out ban on processed foods during his confirmation hearing, Kennedy expressed his support for restricting school purchasing and limiting SNAP beneficiaries’ ability to purchase processed foods. While both SNAP and federal school purchases are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and thus would be outside of Kennedy’s direct control, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services both work closely on food policy.

Now that he’s approved, Kennedy could push for a range of policies for reducing the country’s consumption of processed foods, including the FDA’s labeling requirements.

“Warning labels and taxes tend to change people’s behavior. So if you put a warning label on a product, people, on average, are a little bit less likely to buy that product. If you tax a product, people are a little bit less likely to buy it. It’s because it’s a little bit more expensive, so I would expect that those policies, if implemented, would reduce how much we eat those products,” Anna Grummon, who runs the Stanford Food Policy Lab, tells Sentient.

Defining Ultra-Processed Foods Proves Difficult

One of the factors that makes legislating processed foods difficult is the fact that not all processed foods are created equal. Some processed foods, such as sugary beverages like soda, have been linked to various health issues including diabetes and obesity. But that’s not the case for all processed foods, including plant-based meats.

The expansive category that is “processed foods” is why some policymakers and activists zeroed in on a new label: ultra-processed foods. But here too, there’s no single definition of what exactly constitutes an ultra-processed food. “That’s a challenge for making policy around ultra-processed foods,” says Grummon. “We have to have a definition we agree on, and that can be implemented by policymakers and by companies.”

Currently, the most prominent definition comes from the NOVA Food Classification System, which was proposed by researchers at the University of São Paulo. Under the system, ultra-processed foods are combinations of ingredients that are not whole foods themselves, or are “synthesized in laboratories.”

Another definition, appearing on the conservative organization Center for Renewing America’s website, notes a few factors in its definition of ultra-processed foods, including “packaged foods containing added preservatives,” and “manufactured ingredients…that extend the shelf-life of a product, enhance the taste of the product, and often result in habit-forming cravings…” (The founder of the organization was part of the first Trump Administration, and previously signaled his intent to defund the EPA, while also pushing transphobic rhetoric.)

The specific definition RFK Jr. prefers, and which would likely be replicated by the FDA, remains unclear. Regardless of the specifics of the definition, it’s unlikely to cleanly identify the least healthy foods, simply because all ultra-processed foods are not the same.

Some policies have addressed this problem by regulating nutrients, rather than the level of processing. For example, in Chile, products high in calories, sodium, sugar or saturated fat are required to have warning labels on the front of their packaging, and can’t be sold or served in schools. The approach has significantly cut how often those foods are purchased, though it doesn’t seem to have curbed obesity rates. In fact, the BBC reports obesity has increased among school children slightly since 2016 (though this may be attributable to an increase in sedentary lifestyles during COVID-19).

Policies focused on nutrient content “gets at ultra-processed foods indirectly,” says Grummon. The FDA is currently considering a rule that would require most foods to sport front-of-package nutrient labeling, ultra-processed or not.

Potential Health & Environmental Impacts of Ultra-Processed Labeling

Warning labels on ultra-processed foods sound like a good idea, but when it comes to plant-based meat, these labels could indirectly lead to negative environmental and public health impacts if consumers were to cut back on their plant-based eating habits as a result. Potential taxes that increase the cost of ultra-processed plant-based meats, like Impossible and Beyond products, are also likely to reduce the amount of those products consumers purchase, says Grummon.

“A key question is what do people switch to? Do they switch back to beef? Or do they switch to something else?,” she says. “That’s really important for understanding whether those policies would be good or bad for public health or good or bad for carbon footprint. I think if people switch back to beef, that’s not going to be good for carbon emissions, because, of course, beef has a much higher carbon footprint than Beyond and Impossible products.”

The average person in the United States already eats far more meat than the global average. For that reason and because of beef’s massive greenhouse gas emissions impact, climate research groups like the World Resources Institute include the recommendation that U.S. (and other global north) consumers eat less beef as part of their climate action plan for food-related emissions.

When researchers compare beef to plant-based alternatives, the alternatives consistently rank better, using less water and land and emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses. Other types of meat — like poultry and pork — are more moderate for greenhouse gas emissions, yet both are associated with poor animal welfare and polluting the air and water of communities that live near factory farms.

Even when looking at personal health, plant-based alternatives tend to perform as well as or slightly better than meat. Despite being categorized as ultra-processed, plant-based alternatives tend to be a little lower in fat and calories, and sometimes have more fiber than meat. On the other hand, meat tends to have less sugar and more protein per serving, and of course, individual products do vary.

If policies aimed at rolling back consumption of ultra-processed foods are enacted, many plant-based alternatives will likely be impacted, given that they’d be considered ultra-processed under the most prominent definition. “You can imagine some things being bad for sustainability, like people might eat fewer meat mimic[king] products, like Beyond and Impossible, because those are ultra-processed,” says Grummon.

A representative of The Plant Based Foods Association declined to comment for this article, stating, “given the potential regulatory outcomes are still unknown, we’d prefer not to comment at this time.”

The Bottom Line

It is possible that new policies targeting ultra-processed foods could persuade consumers to opt for more legumes over plant-based burgers or conventional meat. But given how often most U.S. consumers regularly eat lentils these days, it seems unlikely.

A new food labeling scheme could also make no difference at all. One study found that Swiss consumers already view meat substitutes as processed, regardless of the form they take; so it’s also a possibility that consumers willing to purchase plant-based alternatives won’t be swayed by new policies.

Ultimately, what policies RFK and the Trump Administration might pursue on processed and ultra-processed foods remain hard to predict, Grummon says. But many plant-based products are categorized as ultra-processed under any definition. Even if plant-based foods aren’t a particular target of policies aimed at sugary beverages or candy bars, regulatory language that focuses on the processing — instead of nutrient content — would likely end up including plant-based alternatives. These sorts of policies then could spell more trouble ahead, both for the plant-based market and the planet.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

As Women's Health Month winds down, experts in alcohol abuse are speaking out about an increase in binge drinking among women over the past five years.

A recent study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found that women are now binge drinking more than men for the first time in history.

Joanne Hawes - director of clinical operations with the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California - explained that women's bodies make them more vulnerable to excessive alcohol consumption.

"Alcohol is actually ingested differently for women, and can affect them more quickly," said Hawes. "So women tend to have health issues more quickly than men. Things like liver damage or brain atrophies, even heart disease."

Alcoholics Anonymous says 38% of their clients are women, and the proportion has been rising in recent years.

Data from the National Institutes of Health show that nearly one in three young women aged 18 to 25 binge drink on a regular basis.

Hawes added that the stress of holding down a job and caring for children during the COVID lockdown contributed to a rise in alcohol abuse among women.

Dr. Lisa Saul, chief medical officer for women's health at UnitedHealthcare, said heavy drinking among women has surged by 41% since the pandemic, heightening the risk of cancer.

"Alcohol is a carcinogen," said Saul, "and we know that it is linked to at least six types of cancer, including breast and colorectal cancer."

Many employee assistance programs offer help to find treatment. The National Institutes of Health lists alcohol addiction resources on its website, Rethinking Drinking.

Florida's new law banning fluoride in public water systems has drawn sharp criticism from dental professionals, who cite decades of evidence supporting its safety and effectiveness in preventing tooth decay.

Dr. Jeff Ottley, president of the Florida Dental Association, warned that the change will lead to a rise in cavities, particularly among children and underserved populations.

"Over the next two to three years, we will see an increase in the number of cavities, particularly in children and older adults who take multiple medications, which cause dry mouth," he said. "Those older adults will start getting cavities along the roof surfaces of their teeth and under existing restorations, like crowns and fillings."

Backers of the ban, including libertarian groups and some GOP legislators, have argued that "fluoride is a choice" and have recommended topical treatments, such as toothpaste, over what they claimed to be "mass medication."

Ottley stressed that fluoride occurs naturally in water, and the ban eliminates adjustments that allow cities to reach optimal levels for dental health.

He also predicted severe consequences, especially for Florida's Medicaid system and rural communities.

"The Medicaid system in Florida already has the lowest reimbursement rate across the country," he said, "and so you're going to have an influx in the number of kids looking, and parents looking to treat their kids who are on Medicaid, and the providers just aren't going to be there."

Ottley warned that higher Medicaid payments will be needed to attract dental-care providers, which he said could lead to ballooning costs.

His interim advice for parents: Seek prescription fluoride vitamins, and everyone should maintain rigorous brushing and flossing routines, cut their sugar intake and avoid post-brushing snacks before bed.


get more stories like this via email

California lawmakers are considering a bill to ease regulations on birth centers at a time when maternity wards are closing in many counties. Assembly Bill 55 would streamline the licensure process, which allows a birth center to accept Medi-Cal, making midwifery care available to low-income families.

Sandra Poole, health policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said the bill would also no longer require a birthing center to be within 30 minutes of a hospital but instead rely on a transfer plan to address potential emergencies.

"Of course, if you're in an area where the labor and delivery has closed, that's going to be impossible," she explained. "There are 12 counties in the State of California that have absolutely no labor and delivery wards at all in the county."

Birth centers are non-hospital, homelike facilities for low-risk pregnancies. At least 40% of California's birth centers have closed since 2020, and just four of the 37 remaining centers are licensed, because the current licensing process is unnecessarily burdensome, according to a study published today by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in partnership with the California Black Women's Health Project and the Black Women for Wellness Action Project.

The study also surveyed patients on the merits of birth centers. Holly Drayton is a mother and former doula from the Santa Barbara area.

"For people to have that option would really give them the opportunity to choose the birth that they want in an environment where they do feel comfortable to labor in the way that they're supported, to make it the best possible outcome," Drayton said.

Sarah Archer, a mother who supports birth centers, said they are an important part of the state's health care system, and are proved to reduce pre-term births.

"People deserve choices in the way they want to give birth, not just in a sterile hospital," she explained. "It's a very safe, very quiet, beautiful, serene environment versus a medical setting."

The bill has passed the State Assembly and is now before the Senate Health Committee.