Exposing the Cozy Relationship Between Big Food and the Government
I've got some disheartening news. The U.S. government’s top diet advisors recently met to review the latest research from the past five years and update the dietary guidelines for Americans.
The 2025-2030 edition is set to be released this December, and their stance on ultra-processed foods is… well, let’s just say it’s not encouraging.
This advisory committee had the perfect opportunity to place restrictions on ultra-processed foods. And what did they do?
They concluded there’s “not enough evidence” to link ultra-processed foods to obesity.
Seriously?
We've seen this play out before, straight from Big Tobacco’s handbook. Philip Morris dodged the truth for decades until the evidence became undeniable, forcing them to comply with the Surgeon General’s warnings.
Now, it’s Big Food’s turn…
Just this past year, dozens of studies have been published showing the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods…..
How can one government body claim there’s “not enough evidence” while psychiatrists push to add food addiction to the DSM-6? It just doesn’t add up.
These foods are engineered to be addicting.
They are made in labs and factories with sugary syrups, chemicals, flavors, additives, gums, and emulsifiers to achieve the perfect mouthfeel.
They hijack the dopamine reward centers in our brains, making us crave them. That’s the design—to take advantage of how we’re designed—for profit.
To make matters worse, the advisory committee expressed “serious concerns” about bias in studies linking ultra-processed foods to weight gain.
Really?
The Big Food Bias
Nine out of 20 experts on the dietary guideline advisory committee have financial ties to Big Food, grocery, and pharmaceutical companies, openly receiving millions in federal lobbying dollars from companies like Kellogg’s, Kraft, and General Mills.
Does that not raise serious concerns about bias? Does that not skew the interpretation of the “data”? 😮💨
Tired of Excuses
The advisory committee also leans on the tired argument that ultra-processed foods lack a solid definition, which leans on subjective interpretations of what’s considered ultra-processed.
In English, they say that without a “concrete definition,” we can’t advise avoiding all ultra-processed foods because some might be better than others.
Sure, not all ultra-processed foods are equally harmful. Some are worse than others. However, we do have a definition of the worst offenders from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (Did the advisory committee forget about it?)
“Food substances of no or rare culinary use, employed in the manufacture of ultra-processed foods, include varieties of sugars (fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, ‘fruit juice concentrates,’ invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose, lactose), modified oils (hydrogenated or interesterified oils), and sources of protein (hydrolyzed proteins, soy protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, and ‘mechanically separated meat’).”
So, what’s the excuse now? I really don’t see one.
A Profit at Our Expense?
This is a blatant case of corporate capture of our food system. Our health is at risk for the sake of sales, making those in charge rich while we get sick and drown in medical bills.
As a middle-class American, I’m fed up with being taken advantage of. I’m tired of those in power failing to prioritize the safety of the American public. It’s downright wrong.
Taking Back Our Human Right to Health
Stay tuned for an exciting announcement on how I’m helping to empower everyday Americans to take autonomy over their health in a world that’s set up for us to fail.
Talk soon!
In health,
Taylor 🍉🫶
