Latest / REAP/SOW / The Food Babe dishes on MAHA’s next moves

Transcript

The Food Babe dishes on MAHA’s next moves · REAP/SOW

• This transcript was exported on 01/21/2026 - view latest version here Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked, Food Politics in the MAHA Age. I'm Theodore Ross, Editor-in-Chief of the Food & Environment Reporting Network, and I'm joined by my co-host, Helena Bottemiller-Evich from Food Fix. Today, we're joined by a special guest, Vani Hari, who you may know as the Food Babe. She's a public figure of great interest and some contention in the world of food and health politics. Last May, The New York Times ran a profile of her with the headline, How the 'Food Babe' Went From Obama Ally to Trump Crusader. A blogger entrepreneur and social media influencer, Vani Hari speaks directly to many of the issues on Forked and around the country. Welcome back to Forked. How are you? Helena Bottemiller-Evich: I'm doing well. How are you? I'm excited about our guest today. Theodore: Yes, Vani, welcome. We are so thrilled to have you here and have a nice chat about the food and the politics. Helena: There's so much going on. Theodore: Helena, you're up first. Why don't you jump in? Helena: Yes, okay. I wanted to actually bring us back to the spring because I have this very clear memory. I should probably say first that I've covered Vani Hari for, I don't know, 15 years. You've been on the food radar for a long time. I think you call yourself public enemy number one of the food industry, and I think that's true. A lot of my sources in the food industry hate you. Vani Hari: I didn't say that. I didn't name myself that. That was The New York Times. Helena: I think there's truth to that. I definitely hear from folks in the industry that you drive them nuts. They do not like you. One of my most vivid memories covering this administration is last spring when you were on the lawn of the White House with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, and you were doing TV hits side by side, together. You posted on X something like-- Oh, I guess we have it pulled up here. You posted on X, "Dear Food Industry, I know you didn't want to do this, but it's okay. You'll have to anyway. I hope you enjoy this clip of me on the White House lawn with the head of FDA. Love, Food Babe and her army." This was about food diets, of course. This was a big deal. The administration's trying to phase these out. They did not ban them, but they are pushing the industry to phase these out. Can you just talk? Let's just start there. How did you go from this loathed food blogger building this audience, this army, to the power that you now hold in this movement and in this administration? You're standing there with FDA Commissioner. How did this happen? What is your elevator pitch for how you got this power? Vani: I think it's just years and years and years of telling the truth, and not being afraid to tell the truth, and staying on the topic, and being really clear about the ways the food industry has duped the American people, how they've used their ability to make money and put profits before people, and calling out the times where the food industry hasn't been held accountable, where they outright lied to people on the issue of artificial food diets. How, in 2015, so many big food conglomerates like Mars and General Mills and Kellogg's all came out and said, "We are going to remove artificial food diets." Got worldwide press about it, then literally went back on their commitment. Nobody was holding them accountable. Nobody in Washington, there was no politician, there was no nonprofit organization doing anything about the fact that they lied to the American public. I think it's just, this is one of those things that when you learn the truth about how American food companies can reformulate their products with better, safer ingredients in other countries and take out these artificial food diets and the exact same products that they're selling here in the United States, you can't look away. There's no way that doesn't make you mad when you see the side-by-side images of Fruit Loops in Korea, and India, and China, and Canada, and Australia, and all of Europe that doesn't have artificial food diets, and it has it here in the United States. It's like, "What are we doing to our own children?" Seeing those side-by-side comparisons, which when I first did the investigation on US foods versus Europe and the rest of the world, it was 2013. It's 13 years ago that I did that initial investigation where I did the side-by-side images. I compared everything from Quaker oatmeal to McDonald's French fries to cereals to yogurts—all kinds of things. It was the blog post that went the most viral because people were upset. At the beginning of that blog post, I put the stats, the stats that are talked about every day now in this administration about how we are so sick, how we have so many chronic diseases, how the rates of diabetes, and heart disease, and cancer, and everything just keep increasing. We're not looking at the food. We're not looking at the chemicals we've put in our food, and how we've engineered our food to become addictive, and how our food is so different than the rest of the world that has better health outcomes. Helena: Really quick, did it go viral at the time? Vani: Yes. Helena: It went viral 12 years ago. Then I do think this specific narrative of comparing American food ingredients to the same products in Canada or Europe was really potent during the run-up to the 2024 election. You heard it a lot. I remember you made this point at the Senate roundtable, the MAHA roundtable, the September before the 2024 election, and you got a standing ovation. People were-- they were mad. It seemed like this very potent argument. It is interesting that you were talking about this 12 years ago, and now it has taken on a life of its own. We should also say the reason those ingredients are different is because FDA has not banned-- they allow those. They've determined they're safe or they're GRAS. There is a regulatory reason for that. I'm curious, with all of this new focus from the administration, and you're obviously very close with these folks, like standing on the White House lawn, you were there when Kennedy and Makary announced that they were going to phase these out at HHS. Did you ever think about going into the administration? Why didn't you? Couldn't you have been running food over at FDA? Kyle Diamantis obviously has that role, but why didn't you go in? Vani: That's a good question. It's probably because I hate politics. Theodore: [unintelligible 00:07:23] This is politics. We're talking about being on the lawn of the White House. Vani: I know. Theodore: It's 100%. Helena: She's like, "I know." Vani: It is a love-hate battle every single day of my life. You don't know how many times I've wanted to just quit being a food activist this year. [chuckles] Helena: Really? Vani: Yes, in the last year. This is so hard. Helena: Go on, Vani [crosstalk] Theodore: Wait, let me ask you about that. I want to ask you about that. Give us an example of what made you want to quit. Vani: First of all, in politics, there's never anything that-- It's usually so much negotiation happening behind the scenes with all of the interested parties that you have to compromise. I just don't like compromising. I like getting my way. Helena: It's good to be clear about that, to know that. Vani: For my personality type, it's really hard to do that and to be in that position day in and day out and almost muzzle yourself, in a way. That's just the reality of it. I don't think we're ever going to solve that until we get rid of the two-party system. That two-party system situation is bigger than my realm of influence, I feel like. Given what we have, it becomes very frustrating. There have been times, for example, within the last year where nonprofits who I have loved and worked with and tirelessly linked to and promoted and sent people there on Giving Tuesday and all of that, that they won't get involved in some of the things that are happening now because the other party is leading the conversation. That's very frustrating. I am of the ideology that, if you have an opening, if you have home court advantage, if you have the opportunity to make a change, you should do it. You should gather your forces. You should get everybody together, collaborate, create a coalition. Let's get this done while everybody's paying attention for the first time ever. Theodore: Is that an absolute? If you're those nonprofits that are unwilling to step in because it's the Trump administration, that may be connected to other issues related to the Trump administration. How do you make that kind of decision? This is something, here's these other things happening in the world of Trump that maybe I don't have any position on. Maybe I don't agree with, maybe I do agree with, I don't know. I don't want to get involved. That's not my thing. I'm here for the food dyes and food health and that kind of stuff. How do you decide what makes it okay? That really gets back to Helena's original question, which was, "Why are you not a part of the administration?" How do you decide how far into the camp of the current administration you want to get into? When do you decide, "Well, no, that's too close for me?" Vani: Again, I've kept all other topics are off limits on Food Babe. Food Babe's the platform, my voice, everything has been solely focused on talking about processed foods, talking about how food is produced, how the food affects your body and your health. It stems back from how I felt as a child. Where I ate every single processed food under the sun, was raised on processed food, raised on fast food because my parents were both teachers and immigrants. They came to the United States, they had nothing. Fast food was cheap and it was easy to feed us. They had no idea that this food was bad for us or that it would eventually lead to health issues, which it did with me, where I ended up being on nine prescription drugs by my early 20's, had 2 abdominal surgeries, one where I almost died. It's that situation that I think back at, of there are so many Americans out there that are in this position, not feeling the best that they could feel because they don't know the truth about food. I truly believe that you don't even find your calling in life or why you're meant to be here until you get your true health. I don't feel like you serve God's purpose until you actually clean up your body and feel really super healthy. I don't even feel like you can give back to the world because you're just surviving. You're just in your own misery and you don't even understand what you're able to give back to the world. For me, health is the number one priority for everyone before anything. For me, when I think about all the other politics going on in the world that I may or may not agree with, that is the thing that's my true North Star that I just keep focusing on. It's the thing that I think also has made me able to be part of this administration without the backlash of politics in a way, not being part of the administration, but being a supporter of what they're doing. When I think about wholeheartedly what I want out of these next three years that we have left, I want the Make America Healthy Again movement to succeed more than anything because this is our opportunity. We have the head of HHS. We have the head of FDA that knows what he's doing. We've got the head of US Foods that is, so far, so good, a good guy that I've had interactions with. I think we have a real opportunity to get things done in a way that we've never had before where it takes the snail's pace of 10, 15 years,- Helena: Decades. Vani: -decades to get anything done. It took 30 years to ban one food dye, Red No. 3, which wasn't even in a lot of foods. It was in maraschino cherries. Helena: Yes, trans fat took decades and literally causes tens of thousands of premature deaths, which is-- Vani: Yes. It just took so long. If we can change the culture of how Americans eat in this short period of time, we've done quite a bit. If we can get them to eat more real food. Just hearing Secretary Kennedy say that, as part, last week, of the dietary guidelines announcement, and saying, "We need to eat more real food," that is the crux of everything I've been working on. If I would say there's just one goal in mind that I have through all the silly campaigns against yoga mat chemicals and artificial dyes and all of the things that I target to wake Americans up, it's to eat more real food. I couldn't have thought of something more grandeur coming from the government to go out there and spread this culture across America and spread it across a group of people that have largely been asleep to these issues. That's what I think is so good for this country. Me getting invited on Republican-leaning podcasts and the wives of people who are in the administration and being part of this new group of people to educate them about what has happened to our food system and how it's been engineered from everything to the texture, to the color, to the preservatives, to the flavorings, how everything is engineered against our senses so that we can't stop eating, and have them understand what a force we're up against. How PepsiCo has a robot in their science labs that mimic human taste buds so that we cannot [crosstalk]-- Helena: It's us versus the robots. Vani: What'd you say? Helena: It's us versus the robots. Vani: It's us versus the robots. How do we even stand a chance against that type of manipulation? If I can get this message out to a whole new group of people like myself, haven't been on those platforms, that is so good for American health. It's so good for all kinds of people. I feel like we live in this divisive time where social media, especially, is almost created to create this ongoing fight about every single topic. We're not supposed to know about how we feel about every single topic. Human beings aren't supposed to know about how everyone feels about a certain thing. It's too much information. You should learn about your friends and what they think by speaking to them and having conversation, not these one-minute viral clips on someone taking out a context or something. It's such a messed-up world. I want to do everything in my power and my ability so that I can contribute in a positive way towards that. If I can keep bringing people back to this idea that, "Hello, without health, you have nothing. Who cares about all this other stuff?" Then they really come together in this kumbaya moment. They're like, "Yes, I see it, Vani. I get it." You don't know how many times I've had comments on social media and DMs and other things of like, "I can't believe you're doing this. I cannot believe you went to the White House. I cannot believe all of this." It's like I fight back and I answer almost every single comment because I feel so strongly that, like, "Who do you want in the White House fighting for better food? Do you want someone else there or would you rather have me?" When I even ask that question to my followers or the people who have been like, "Oh, I've followed you forever. I can't believe this." They question themselves and they're like, "Wait a minute. Yes, we do want you fighting for us, Vani, because you tell the truth and you're not scared to tell the truth." Theodore: I'm going to shift gears a little bit. I'm going to take in that answer. I'm going to have to go listen to it after we finish this recording and try to take in all the different things that you said. Let's talk about something that we cover at FERN, the Food & Environment Reporting Network, a lot, which is Roundup. The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case brought by Bayer where they want to suppress state bans on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient in Roundup, because it doesn't include warnings for people that it may cause cancer. At the federal level, the EPA and its leader, Lee Zeldin, they are on the side of Bayer in this case, which is causing a split within this part of the Trump administration that you are adjacent to. I don't know how you put it. You are in, but not in. There's been calls for Lee Zeldin to be fired and to step down. I'm curious how you square that with the same thing that you just said about being on the inside, working with the administration, being the person that can bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans on these political issues as the federal government is going against what the MAHA movement really, really wants, which is one of the things that it really wants, which is for Roundup to be taken off the market and to be out of our food system and out of our foods. Vani: Just to tell you, that petition, firing anybody in any kind of position would not solve the issues that we have had decade after decade at the EPA. I would say it was the frustration of the pesticide policy to date that led to that petition. Helena: Because they're approving new pesticides that environmentalists and health advocates are really concerned about. Vani: What's really important to recognize is that the EPA has failed to protect the public health when it comes to chemicals like glyphosate, as you mentioned. Signing that petition was really about elevating the urgency of the situation. I think one of the things that I feel personally responsible for is I didn't reach out to Lee before signing that. I think that was a huge mistake. I think that I should have sat down with him and talked to him about this bubbling-up frustration that's happening within people who really believe in the MAHA movement. Theodore: Speaking to Lee Zeldin, what would your goal have been with that? If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't think he should be fired. You don't think anybody should be fired for these kinds of things. What would speaking to Lee Zeldin do? Vani: I think one of the things that the EPA should understand is that when we have the President of the United States running on the issues of food and health and regulating chemicals and pesticides, which is something that he mentioned when he got together with Secretary Kennedy-- Helena: Yes, mentioned often. Vani: Yes. He tweeted recently, on Truth Social. I can't remember the exact tweet, but it was something along the lines of, "I'm witnessing the mass poisoning of America." I'm like, "Yes." Helena: Trump said that? Vani: Yes. Helena: Oh, that is nice. I'm not on Truth Social. Theodore: I [unintelligible 00:21:40] Helena: Oh, geez. Vani: I was like, "Yes, you get it." You know what I mean? I think in order to serve the President in this way, the EPA really needs to take a new look at glyphosate. The information that we have gotten in the last 10 years is so much more on the side of real human impact. We also know that when they made the designation that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer back in 2015, they were relying on a ghostwritten study that was cited 800 times, I think, to show that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer, going against the International Agency for Research on Cancer and their designation. When you're going against them, you better have really good science to back up what you're saying. We now know that that science was not good. I would urge him to take a strong stance on glyphosate and the human impacts that it does occur. I also would say that, politically, it is completely explosive and volatile to take any stance when it comes to a pesticide liability shield. This has been an ongoing whack-a-mole type situation for the last year where it's been state bills that come up that are trying to shield Bayer from these cases that they cause cancer. Then there is sections that are put into the spending bills that we have to go and fight. Then they're trying to do the farm bill that's coming up. That's going to be another fight. Helena: MAHA advocates did get it stripped from the Spending bill, which was a huge sign of power, I think, on the Hill. You are right that there are more attempts coming. Vani: There are more attempts coming. If this administration knows what's good for them and they know what's good for MAHA to succeed, they know to get out of this fight right now. It does not serve them to take the stance of a foreign company like Bayer over the American people when it comes down to their product potentially causing cancer. That's what needs to be done. I think the general solicitor deciding to support the case with Bayer at the Supreme Court was a huge mistake. It's what broke the camel's back for so many advocates and why that petition occurred because it was a knee-jerk reaction. I think there's a real opportunity here because, because of what happened with that petition, it's almost like the EPA woke up to, "Wait a minute, we should really be working together on figuring this out." They're now opening the door, having conversations with so many advocates. Helena: Have you been part of those meetings? I know there have been a lot of meetings. Vani: Yes. I am going to be actively involved in making sure that we get really meaningful results out of the EPA this year. I think there's some really amazing things that could happen. For example, training farmers to remove their reliance on pre-harvest use of glyphosate. The percentage of glyphosate that's used in that way where they dry out the crops right before harvest is a very small percentage. They say it could be up to 3% or maybe a little bit more. There's not a ton of accurate data with that because not all farmers tell you that they're doing this and there's just not everybody reporting. What scientists have found is that that small percentage of glyphosate being used for a drying agent so they can rotate the crops faster, that small percentage is actually 60% to 80% of humans load and their impact. It's the reason why we have it in our urine. It's the reason why it's in breast milk. It's the reason why it's in oats and almonds and wheat in an extraordinary amount when it's being tested, and why you find it in things like Doritos and Cheerios and Quaker Oats. It's problematic because it's being sprayed at the last stage of the growth cycle and it's staying on the product. It's systematic at that point. You can't really wash it off. Helena: You're saying maybe targeting those uses would be-- Vani: That's right. I think that could be a huge human health impact that we could have-- Helena: Without banning it by large. Vani: Without banning it. There are not many nations that outright ban glyphosate. Theodore: They restrict it. Vani: They restrict the use. For example, in Europe, they restrict this pre-harvest desiccation application. Theodore: That's a change, a compromise coming out of the EPA that you could maybe-- This is a [unintelligible 00:27:23] Vani: I don't even know if it's a compromise. I think telling the truth that glyphosate causes cancer and stopping this pre-harvest desiccation use, which is what is the most problematic for our exposure, those two things would be huge, right? Helena: I do want to interject just because we'll have listeners who are wanting this context. All the health authorities maintain that these uses pose no problems. They are not being found at levels that are over the thresholds the EPA has set. However, I do think you can understand why consumers, when they read about residues being found in things like Cheerios, which we give to kids, you can understand why there would be eyebrows raised about that or concerns or just sort of like, "Is there a way to reduce this? Is there a way to cut this back?" Even if there isn't hard science where EPA is like, oh boy, this-- They're not taking action right now against these uses. I just want to provide that context. Theodore: I want to follow up on this because what we're talking about is a form of a negotiation with the EPA—this leads to my next question—in time for the midterms, right? That would be the idea that this could come out. Something that the Trump administration could show to maybe some folks in the MAHA movement who are a little upset that these kinds of things didn't happen yet. The question that I want to get to is, coming into the midterms, one of the narratives that Helena and I talk about on the show all the time is what is the nature of the MAHA movement politically? It is, right at the moment, I think, pretty closely aligned with the Republican Party. I'm curious what you think about it because I'm not so sure. It seems that it may be up for grabs, right? Here comes the midterms, the MAHA moms, the MAHA movement haven't gotten what they were hoping for, maybe, depending on how you look at it. Helena: I think some things, but not others. They're mad at EPA for [crosstalk]-- Theodore: I'm just laying out the narrative here. I'm not asserting things factually. I'm laying out a narrative of how it could be understood. If they don't get what they want by the time in the midterms, they might swing back to the Democrats. What do you think of that? Because I'm not so sure. I think that the MAHA folks, at least the leadership, certainly— don't know what the voters are going to do—but I think the leadership is staying quite firmly in the Republican Party. I'm curious to hear your perspective. If things like what you're talking about at EPA don't happen, what happens? Vani: I think, first of all, there cannot be this amazing progress at HHS with this amazing collaborative effort that you have with other agencies happening, like with Brooke Rollins, where together with the dietary guidelines, they had this big moment and this big celebration of Eat More Real Food and Whole Milk and all of these positive things coming out of the government and widely celebrated, more positive press than I've ever seen for the MAHA movement that week. Then you have Secretary Duffy from the Department of Transportation work with Secretary Kennedy on the airports and that being a big-- I just remember the big splash on social media. People loved that. That was just a huge moment of, "Yes, we need gyms in airports. Yes, we need better airport food." Everybody struggles with that when they go travel and they just have to eat [beep] airport food. It's these moments of huge wins. We haven't had that with the EPA yet. We haven't had that kumbaya moment of everybody's celebrating Zeldin, and I think there needs to be that. I think there can be that moment. I think right now the conversations are opening, which make me very hopeful and very positive in that respect. To answer your question, I think when I think about the MAHA voter, the MAHA voter is extremely independent-minded. I think it's made up of super diverse voices out there. There are people who are ones that are the most passionate about these issues. When you look at polling on pesticides, it is one of the most popular positions to take. Theodore: Bipartisan, absolutely. Vani: Bipartisan. It is a 90-plus polling issue that is super popular. For me, again, I hate politics and I don't want to get into that [crosstalk]- Theodore: [chuckles] Here we are. Helena: Yet here we are, Vani. [chuckles] Theodore: [unintelligible 00:32:17] Vani: -but I'll tell you this: if the Republicans know what's good for them, they should do something about this issue because it's so incredibly popular. If they want to ensure their victory in the midterms, this would be the one to focus on, in my opinion, because this is the one that gets everybody engaged and super excited. I think would even sway some of the environmental folks that have been a thorn in my side this year to maybe say, "Okay, well, we got something done. Maybe something nice will come from them." I don't know. Helena: One quick thing I wanted to ask you about on this because it strikes me that—and we have talked about this a bit on this podcast—it strikes me that one of the reasons that there haven't been big MAHA wins at EPA is just the strength of the agriculture lobby in DC compared to the food lobby. I have covered extensively over the years the crumbling of the food lobby, like GMA imploded. Vani: It crumbled. Helena: It literally imploded. Vani: Yes, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which was the former-- Helena: Big Food. Vani: Consumer Brands Association. That was just an abysmal failure. Then they tried to come up with the Americans for Ingredient Transparency front group just recently. That was, I think, a failure. Helena: We're going to see. I've been meaning to check in. Where's that bill? Where's that bill? The food lobby's been weakened a lot, but the farm lobby remains very strong. They really got a lot of pesticide discussion cut out of the MAHA strategy. There was a lot more talk of that in the initial MAHA report. How do you see that? It strikes me that this administration is like, it's a little easier to take on the food companies because they're in a weaker position. Whereas, taking on the farm lobby is still like, "Good luck. They just don't really lose." I think that explains some of the difference. Theodore: Despite the popularity. [crosstalk] Helena: I don't know what you think about that. Theodore: The issues of her food- Helena: Despite the popularity. Theodore: -and the issues of pesticides, those have bipartisan support. People like that. They may not like vaccines, but they definitely want to get rid of the pesticides. They want to change the food system. That ag industry, that ag lobby, they remain a lot stronger. Helena: I think they are stronger. Yes. Vani: They are some of the most sophisticated forces in Washington that I've ever seen. I've seen it all play out in different ways in that even the people who are in the administration have had dealings with big agriculture companies. It's like there's this systematic conflict of interest happening that hasn't been undone. I think what Secretary Kennedy has done in HHS has been extraordinary in trying to root out the conflicts of interest, but that work has not been done at the EPA or at the USDA. You have those two agencies that are riddled with ex-lobbyists for these big chemical conglomerates who are selling agrochemicals. You have the farm bureaus, who are doing their bidding because they're getting money from the agrochemical corporations. It's this incestuous circle of influence that's happening. No one's really been able to break through. I think what has been frustrating is that this movement isn't anti-farmer or anti-eating farmed food. It's really about saving our soil and saving human health, and really impacting what's happening here in America. When you look at the statistics and see that we have 500% more glyphosate being sprayed on our land than in other countries. Why is that? Why do we use 25% of the world's pesticides, but we're only 3% of the world's population? Are we being systematically poisoned more than everywhere else? At that point, it becomes an extreme disadvantage from a America First perspective, from a military perspective, from just a sheer might of our country. We have to look at those, and we have to realistically look at those. Some people say that, in 10 years, we may not have any of these issues anymore because we'll have robots doing all the work in the farm fields. Theodore: That's what Brooke Rollins said. Yes, she said that. Helena: Oh, did she say that? Theodore: She said something along the lines. She was questioned about immigration crackdown in the farming system. She said, well, she supports the president, and I don't remember the rest of the answer, but in the future, we'll have robots doing these jobs. It was the upshot. Helena: I will say that, for row crops, they're so highly mechanized. One person, two people can literally manage thousands of acres. Theodore: But not the specialty crops, not the fruits and vegetables. Helena: Not on the specialty crops, for sure. I do want to say I'm not as familiar with the pesticide statistics and usage, but I do think one of the big reasons for the gap is just how much food we produce. I'm not sure acre for acre how different it is. I do think you're tapping into something which is real, which is that consumers are increasingly watching documentaries or they're asking questions or they're reading about this. Consumers are asking more questions about how their food is raised, especially compared to Europe. There seems to be this really big focus right now on the ways the US food system is different from Europe. There are a lot of differences. This seems like this very salient political argument right now, which is interesting seeing it come from Republicans because Republicans have always been like, "Europe's terrible," or the socialists. Now, it's interesting to peel back and be like, "Well, maybe we like some of their food stuff, still don't want the healthcare," but that's a whole other follow-up. It's been interesting watching that. [crosstalk] Theodore: [unintelligible 00:38:54] the news related to Europe right now, but yes-- Helena: This is not a foreign policy- Theodore: That's true. Helena: -podcast, like I said. Yes, there's a lot of interesting, crazy things happening. I do think that European comparison that's made often, I hear it from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, it's not partisan. It is this increasingly mainstream narrative of like, "Well, wait, why do I feel better when I walk around and visit Europe?" There's lots of theories. Is it less stress? Is it more walking? Is it better healthcare? All the things. A lot of Americans, when they visit Europe, notice they feel better. Then, vice versa, Europeans complain about our food. That's a thing that is a real political narrative that I think has taken hold across party. It'll be interesting to see what does that mean going forward. Do Democrats start? I haven't heard a lot from Democrats on a lot of these issues in a while because it has become so partisan lately. I don't know. It's very interesting. I don't know if we want to switch to good vibes. How much time do we have? Theodore: I think we have a little more time. I thought we were going to talk about protein powders, Helena. Helena: Oh, yes. Going back to the conflicts of interest thing, which I should have noted earlier, we were talking about rooting out conflicts of interest at USDA and EPA. I think that is generally true, that there's a lot of former lobbyists at USDA and EPA, no question. There were some concerns raised in the recent dietary guidelines that some of the scientists that helped with the scientific review did have some ties to, I think, particularly dairy and livestock groups. After Kennedy has focused so much on conflicts of interest, I'm curious what you think about that. Then also more generally, you're now part of the food industry. You have a protein powder line, which I always see out in retail [crosstalk]-- Theodore: Reviewed on Wirecutter, very favorably. You did well on Wirecutter. Helena: Oh, is it? Theodore: Yes, I saw you were in the-- I can't remember what the category they were looking at Wirecutter. Helena: I forget Wirecutter does food. Theodore: They're like, "Oh, yes, that's one of the ones you can try and not die from." Helena: Setting that aside, you're now also part of the food industry. How do you think about this idea of conflicts of interest? It is a common refrain we hear, it's a common criticism we hear within MAHA, that a lot of people within MAHA are also maybe selling a wellness program, like Mark Hyman and Function Health or protein powder or whatever. It does seem to get complicated and blurry. How do you think about conflicts of interest and this criticism that is often leveled, to say like, "Oh, this is hypocritical," because we're mad about these conflicts of interest, but there's also conflicts of interest within MAHA? Do you know what I mean? Vani: Yes. I think it's funny because it's like-- I have this hat that says Big Wellness. Helena: You have a hat? Vani: Yes, the hat that says Big Wellness, and we all wear it as a joke because it's like Big Food versus Big Wellness. If you look into why people created their wellness businesses, it usually was to solve a need that they had. With Function Health, I would say Mark wanted to make it easier to have all these biomarkers that people could make better decisions about their lifestyle. With my protein powder, it was the one thing that I used as fast food when I didn't have time to sit down for a meal. It's like all the protein powders out there had natural flavors and guar gum and xanthan gum and artificial sweeteners and other additives that I didn't want to put in my body. I was like, "Why can't I get a good-tasting protein powder without any of these additives? There's got to be a way that we can do this." We did it at Truvani. We proved that you don't have to have all of those unnecessary ingredients in your protein powder to have a good-tasting protein powder. I also wanted to make it organic and non-GMO and have the highest quality so that when I'm having my fast food in the middle of the day when I don't have time to sit down for a meal, I feel good about it. We're all solving a need in the marketplace for people to feel better. Whereas the conflicts of interest that exist within Washington to prevent certain things from happening are actually making people more sick. I think about Bayer's influence at the top levels of government and the fact that they sell a product that causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and then sells the cure to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and then sells the cure to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, sells the medicine that somebody would take to fix that type of cancer. That's insane to have anybody like that having a conflict of interest at the top of government, making decisions on how things are regulated. It's not just blankedly throwing around this word "conflicts of interest." It's actually when it makes sense for an agency to make sound decisions based on human health and to take away any influence from industry, then we should be doing that. When it comes to people like me who, again, I'm on the outside, I don't work for the administration, I want people to eat more real food. When you look at the integrity behind that statement and the integrity of what I do and what I fight for, it's to get people to eat healthier. Helena: It sounds like what you're saying is take it case by case. Look at what they're selling. It's not necessarily selling something is the problem. It's not being clear about it. I think a lot of the concern with the dietary guidelines has been the lack of transparency around the conflicts of interest and which individuals had conflicts or at least perceived conflicts of interest. It's hard, too, because on the nutrition side, the reason there's so much industry funding is there's not very much federal funding. Industry comes to fill the gap. That's why you have all these studies that are funded by industry. If you read Marion Nestle's food politics blog, she does a regular series where she flags industry-funded studies. Lo and behold, they never show something that's bad for the funder. [laughs] It's this persistent thing that we see in food. I do think it is a real concern. I don't know. I'm hearing much more awareness from consumers about it. I think there is a lot more scrutiny, which is probably good. Scrutiny is good. Vani: No, I think it's great. Theodore: I'm going to change gears a little bit. We are coming a little closer to the end. We're going to do our final segment of what we normally do on the show. It's something called The Good Vibes. These are complicated times. It's always nice to have one thing in the food and politics world, or at least the food world, that you can point to and say, "I can take a little hope out of that." Helena and I do this each time. We're going to ask you to do it as well. I know you had a little bit of a struggle to come up with a hopeful note to go out, so I'll go first, if that'll help. All right? Helena: Yes, you go first, Ted. Theodore: In these dark days, I always like a good yogurt. I find this very funny to me because my wife is from Japan. We'll travel there, and there's amazing food there. Everything you eat there is amazing. You'll also meet somebody in Japan, and they'll say, "Well, we make the best brie cheese in the world here in Japan." You'll be a little shocked. You really think in Japan they make the best brie cheese? They do oftentimes. The one that I discovered-- it is a hot thing. [crosstalk] Helena: That's a hot thing, Ted. [laughs] Theodore: Go there. You can meet the average Japanese person on the street. They will tell you that all the food that they make there, whatever kind of cuisine, it's the best. I think they're right. That's a hot thing. That's my hot thing for the day. My good vibe is something I just discovered in the grocery store, Bulgarian yogurt, which is a different category. I've heard of Greek. I've heard of flavored. I've heard of all kinds of yogurt. I've never heard of Bulgarian before. It's a little extra sour. It's a little salty. Damn, it was good. I liked it. Helena: Salty? Okay. Theodore: Yes. All right, so that's my good vibe. Helena: Okay, I'll go next. I didn't have one coming in, but I thought of one. I think my good vibe right now is that, because of the dietary guidelines revamp and all of the noise around it, mixed reaction, lots of positive vibes around the eat real food, consume less ultra-processed foods, a lot of criticism around some of the other details, which we should do a whole episode on. The thing I think is really great about this is it's getting more people to talk about school meals, which is these programs that I have covered for 15 years that nobody cares about. The national conversation, the national press does not focus on these issues. These programs are so important. They serve tens of millions of kids every day. I think we're about to see more focus and conversation and debate around them. It does take me back to my Michelle Obama days, where I was covering this. It was, I think, briefly a time where we focused on it, although, of course, Republicans hated it back then, but we're in a different time now. Maybe we'll see a different political debate. Just focusing on it, talking about it, debating it, I think is good because it's a lot of kids, a lot of food. I got school-aged kids. I know, Vani, you do too. You see some of the stuff that's served. It's not what Japan is serving their kids. Theodore: It's not. They're eating good stuff in their schools. Helena: We can improve. Let's say that. Theodore: Vani, I hate to put you on the spot too much, but maybe just a little bit. Do you have a good vibe? Vani: No, it's okay. Helena: What's your good vibe? Vani: When the new upside-down food pyramid came out, I was really thrilled with the graphic. I think the graphic is so beautiful. I love how big the broccoli is. It's so big. The day it came out, I, of course, made broccoli for my son. He left it on his plate. He didn't really eat it right away. I showed him the graphic of the upside-down pyramid. I said, "Look, this is the new dietary guidelines from the United States government. Look how big the broccoli is on here. Look how important it is." All he had to do was see that visual, which is now on my fridge, and he just ate up all of this broccoli. It was just the most beautiful moment. I'm thinking, this is just based on what you just said, Helena. It's like, "How many kids can we impact with this message of eating real food?" It's so incredible. My feel-good moment, and it makes you literally feel good, is the sauerkraut that I found at Whole Foods recently that I am obsessed with this brand. It is so good. Helena: Well, now you have to share what brand, but only if you don't have a financial conflict of interest. [laughtere] Vani: I do not have a financial conflict of interest. I should get one. I should [crosstalk] -- Theodore: You will very soon, I think. Helena: Tell me the brand. Vani: -sponsor me. Helena: I'm going to write it down. Vani: [laughs] They should sponsor me. It's called Cultured Traditions. It's such a no-name brand. Helena: Traditions, okay. Vani: Cultured Traditions. It's organic. They have a variety of different flavors. They have a Russian-style. They have a garlic pickle that is insane. It's so good. It's like eating pickles. Helena: Love pickles. Vani: They also have a beet version of it with the beet juice. Oh, it's so good. One thing I've been doing, which we can go back to the dietary guidelines, they, for the first time, recommended fermented foods, which is incredible. Fermented foods are so good for your body. It's good for your immune system, especially right now, cold and flu season, to have just a little bit every single day. All I do is take two or three tablespoons and just add it to my dinner plate, no matter what we're having. I'll eat that first, almost. Helena: News you can use. Theodore: Yes, now we know. Vani: Yes, I know. It is so good. I swear it's kept me, so far, so good, from getting sick this season. Helena: Don't jinx yourself. Your kids are going to bring home something gnarly now. Vani: No. Theodore: Now we know. Sauerkraut is good. Vani: I think it's the best form of probiotics that you can get. This is going against my financial interest because Truvani does have a probiotics that we sell. I think this is the most bioavailable way to do it is by eating sauerkraut and kimchi and fermented foods and fermented vegetables. Anyways, I love it. I think [crosstalk]-- Helena: All right. Theodore: I think we're going to start to wrap it up from there. Helena, I know you have this great newsletter. Helena: We don't have sponsors for this podcast, Ted, but we might now. [crosstalk] Theodore: We don't have sponsors, that's right. Maybe we will. They should come talk to us. Vani: You should go get [unintelligible 00:52:07] Theodore: I will say, I'm going to ask Helena to talk about her newsletter, and then we'll say goodbye. Before we do that, as soon as I get off this, well, tonight when my kids are at home, I'm going to tell them about what you said, Vani. I'll be like, "Her kids were thinking about broccoli when they looked at the upside-down pyramid, and all you guys could see was a rib eye." I don't know. Helena: They wanted a rib-eye? Theodore: Yes. [laughter] Helena: Children everywhere will use it. Theodore: Exactly. Helena, tell me about this newsletter of yours. Helena: Oh, yes. Anyone who's listening who's not reading Food Fix, go to foodfix.co. Get on the list. You can read it every Friday for free and upgrade if you want more. Yes, I think most people, at this point, Ted, should be reading the newsletter, but definitely fix it if you're not. Theodore: All right. Well, thank you so much, Helena. Thank you so much, Vani. This was a very interesting conversation. I appreciate you taking the time to come here and talk to us. Helena, I'll see you in a couple of weeks. Helena: All right. See you soon. Thanks. Theodore: Forked is a production of the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Our executive producers are me, Theodore Ross, and Tom Laskawy. Our sound engineer is Lauren Newson. Our producer and video producer is Maya Okindo. Our hosts are Helena Bottemiller-Evich and, again, me, Theodore Ross. To find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent nonprofit reporting, go to www.thefern.org. [00:53:30] [END OF AUDIO] Forked ep.14 mixdown.mp3 (Completed: 01/21/2026) Transcript by GoTranscript.com