Latest / REAP/SOW / Forked welcomes in the new year with bold (and unsubstantiated) predictions!
Transcript
- This transcript was exported on 01/06/2026 - 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. It's 2026, and we're back after a little holiday break. I have to say that I'm excited and maybe a little nervous to see what happens in the second year of life in the MAHA moment. In this episode, it's SNAP bans on junk food, why skinny Santas matter, and the pill that just may eat the American appetite. Helena, Happy New Year, and welcome back to Forked. How are you? Helena Bottemiller-Evich: I'm doing well. Happy New Year. I actually unplugged a little bit from-- [laughs] Theodore: Oh, really? Helena: Yes. Theodore: I didn't know that was possible in this day and age. Helena: I tried. I tried. Theodore: Congratulations. It is 2026, and for those of you who had to do without Forked for the last couple of weeks as we took a little break, I just want to welcome you back, say hi, this is a podcast about food politics and food policy, in case you didn't know it. It is produced by us here at the Food & Environment Reporting Network, where I'm the Editor-in-Chief, as I've mentioned before. You can find this podcast wherever you get your podcasts. We really like it if you would get it on the FERN website at www.thefern.org, or you can watch it, as I know people like to do, on YouTube. Our channel on YouTube is @FERNnews. Now, Helena, I know that you have something of a bit of a newsletter business going on. Why don't you tell all these good people about your newsletter before we get started? Helena: Yes, I will do that. Also, I want to say that I don't watch podcasts on YouTube. People should because it's fun, other than Amy Poehler's podcast, Good Hang, which is great watch. It's good to be back, Ted. I think everyone missed Forked. I'm glad to be back. Thank you to everyone for listening. I'm Helena Bottemiller-Evich. I know lots of you know me or maybe have been following Food Fix, which is a newsletter I write twice a week all about food policy. You can get it for free in your inbox by going to foodfix.co and putting your email in there. If you're not getting those emails on free every Friday, you should. It's fun and wonky and substantive and all of the things. People really like it. If you work in food, you can upgrade to get it twice a week. I highly recommend doing that. Foodfix.co is where you find all of that. Yes, it's good to be back. Theodore: All right, let's jump in then. It's a new year. As I like to do in the new year, I like to make bold and unsubstantiated predictions about the future. I think that's what the two of us should do, bold predictions. I'll go first since this was my brilliant idea. Helena: All right. [laughs] I try to not predict unsubstantiated. Yes, let's do it. Theodore: Bold and unsubstantiated. The unsubstantiated part is the key. I think that we have now reached and perhaps even gone past peak MAGA. Excuse me, not MAGA. That's going to last forever. Helena: Forever? Theodore: MAHA. MAHA. MAHA. I'm just being cynical. That the impact that the MAHA movement, such as it is, has had on the nation and on our politics, it's as big as it's going to get, and I think that we'll be-- I don't know what's coming next. Helena: We're coming down from MAHA. Theodore: We're on the down slope from MAHA. Helena: I don't know. Maybe. I don't know. I think my bold and unsubstantiated prediction is that MAHA is going to be tested like never before. This is really the year where rubber meets the road. Either MAHA is going to drive real policy change at the federal level and also at the state level, or it's not. Right now, we're looking ahead to 2026. It's like, okay, we're about to see the dietary guidelines. That is a policy change in a way, but it doesn't actually change the laws of the land. It changes the federal nutrition advice, which down the road could have big implications for school meals. We may see them define ultra-processed foods, but that's not really action in terms of cracking down on those things. I really think MAHA will no longer be able to be claiming bold action unless there are some actually big things that happen this year. That's my prediction. MAHA is going to be really tested, and they're going to keep having these political fights over things like pesticides and things like, "What are we going to do about ultra-processed foods? Are food dyes actually going to get out?" There was just a judge that ruled or that blocked the West Virginia food dye ban for a minute here. We'll see what happens there. There's a lot of testing of MAHA that's coming. Theodore: I honestly, I don't want to speak for you, but I think you're saying the same thing as me. Because I think that testing cannot succeed because the MAHA movement itself is not nearly as coherent as a political movement as it may appear to be. It is ascending right now. It has control in the government right now. They had a year to do a lot of stuff, and they didn't do a lot of stuff. Helena: Years and a lot of time in federal policy land. Although, yes, nothing has been banned. They have not really aggressively used the federal levers that they have. That is for sure true. I think-- Theodore: For food. Vaccines, different story. Vaccines, different story. Helena: Vaccines, different story. Although, even there, they are changing policy, but it's not like they are ripping things off the market. You know what I mean? They're not-- Yes. [crosstalk] Theodore: What they have done is undermine. They have undermined. [crosstalk] Helena: For sure, and they are absolutely coming for the childhood schedule. Major changes. Don't disagree with that. It'll be interesting because going into the midterm elections, MAHA leaders are really pushing this idea that the right needs to keep MAHA. Republicans need to keep MAHA if they have any chance going into the midterm. That is one piece of leverage that MAHA has. We'll see. I really don't know. I don't know what's going to happen. Theodore: That's why it's bold and unsubstantiated. All right. Let's go to our first segment of the show, which is the double take. That is something in the food politics and policy world that just makes you do a double-take. You can't believe it. Usually, it's bad. That tends to be the nature of the show. Helena: Sometimes it's a tough. Theodore: In this case, I don't know that I can fully say that it's bad. I would say that it is strange. The thing that I thought we should talk about is the Novo Nordisks having won the FDA's approval for the first GLP-1 pill for weight loss. It was a couple weeks ago. I think that they got the approval, and it is getting out onto the market. Helena: First out of the gate. Theodore: First out of the gate, the Wegovy pill. Now, this is not, strictly speaking, Helena, policy or politics. I do think it is relevant for us to talk about. Helena: Huge. No, it's major. Theodore: I wonder what do you think of it. Helena: I started writing about GLP-1s, oh, I don't know, maybe like two years ago. I have the same kind of like, "Well, it's not really policy." GLP-1s are affecting the food landscape more than any other policy, and it's not close. They are affecting demand. They are putting ultra-processed food companies on the defensive. They are, in their own way, a major force. They're a major force in this space. While it's not policy, I agree that it's major. Theodore: Let's describe that for us because I'll go over a few stats that I looked up. I saw in one study that by the middle of 2024, these numbers, I would assume, have gone up dramatically. 16% of American households had at least one person who was taking a GLP-1 drug like Ozempic or Wegovy. Now, I believe that a more recent study showed that 12% of American adults are taking it. That is a whole bunch load of people. What you see is that it works. People start to lose weight. When they start to lose weight, they start spending less and less money on food, including, or in particular, on all the foods that we shouldn't be eating, which is the ultra-processed foods, the McDonald's of the world, the fast food. All those kinds of things. The spending by Americans goes down. The caveat, and the weird thing about it beyond just the idea that there could be a mass change in the American diet based on a pharmaceutical, which is a weird thing, is that if people do come off the drug, you can't stay on it forever necessarily, or maybe you can. When they do come off it, people gain the weight back. Not only do they start going back to eating those baddy, baddy, bad foods that they were eating before, they actually eat a little bit more of them. It's not like a clear-cut silver bullet, "We have solved the obesity problem in the United States through the miracle of modern science," but I don't know what it is. It's something else. Helena: The way I think about GLP-1s is they give you a shield against the food environment that we are in. It's like Big Pharma and Big Food duking it out, and we are just in the middle. That's how I think about it, is that it's-- Theodore: I think that's a great way to put it, because it shows that it's really not necessarily towards the benefit of the American consumer. Helena: It's an economic battle, is what it is. The reason I started covering GLP-1s so early, and I actually got some people rolling their eyes like, "This will never scale." "This will not be a thing," or "This will not be as big of a thing as everyone is making it." The reason I started writing about it is because the Wall Street analysts were taking it seriously. They were crunching the numbers, like even if demand only goes down a little bit for this or that. We're talking massive changes. They flagged it early as a financial risk for particularly packaged food companies, but also like sugary drinks, even alcohol. It really reduces demand for alcohol and sugary drinks, snack foods, but you mentioned it actually reduces overall spending on food, which is-- Theodore: It's an amazing thing when you think about it because for decades now, as Americans have grown heavier and heavier, we've tried everything. We have done a million different things as a nation, whether it's diet books, diet fads, whatever it may be, eating like a caveman, whatever you want to do, eating grapefruits. Nothing works. It is a truth of the American society and culture that you cannot change the way that we eat meaningfully in a positive way until we created a drug to do it. Right? Helena: Yes and no. I think it's true that every fad, every diet fails. What you see in the research is that diets, they just don't work long-term. Diet and exercise is not actually-- you can absolutely get healthier. You can improve your markers. These are still things that are worth doing, like adding fruits and vegetables, whole grain, fiber, adding protein, whatever. Those are all good things to do. Exercise is one of the best things you can do for your health, regardless of whether you're losing weight. Theodore: It's good for you. It's good for you. Yes. Helena: It is not enough to take someone who has a very high BMI, like an obesity-level BMI, and then take them down to a normal BMI. It is not an effective intervention on the whole. For certain people, yes, they have success. I'm not saying that-- overall it's not an effective intervention. We've been sold this as American [chuckles] people that, "If you just worked a little bit harder, you could reverse this." Theodore: "If you were a better person, if you had more self-control." Helena: What I think the GLP-1s do is they reveal that lie that a lot of people have bought into. I think in that way, it does really change the way we think about it. I would argue that we haven't tried everything in terms of policy. We actually have tried very little in terms of changing anything, diet-related disease. The few things we've tried are calorie labeling on menus, which really only took effect for a couple of years before it was then disbanded during the pandemic because restaurants were struggling. I think it's come back in a lot of ways, but hasn't really ended up being a panacea in any way. We banned trans fat. That was one really major thing the government did. Other than that, it's like-- Michelle Obama updated the school meals program, added some fruits and vegetables, cut some calories, cut some fat. Now they're doing some food diets, although those are on their way out. It's like, yes, the American people have tried everything. They've tried all these fad diets. That is absolutely true. Theodore: I think that's great point. Helena: So many people. Has the federal government really meaningfully tried to reduce and reverse the diet-related disease epidemic in the US? I would argue no. At least not since I've been covering it. Theodore: No, no. I think that's an excellent point. I want to segue, as we move out of this subject and get onto our next part, to a little bit of politics surrounding this, because I found this quote from RFK Jr. This was in 2024. He was being asked about the GLP-1s. He was talking about Novo Nordisk, who makes Ozempic and Wegovy. He said that, "These companies were counting on selling it to Americans because we are so stupid and so addicted to drugs." I think it is fair to say he does not think that right now, at least publicly. Maybe they were supposed to. Helena: Was this on the campaign trail? Theodore: Yes. It was before he became head of HHS and started working for Donald Trump, who has cut a deal with these companies to lower the cost of these drugs, which is a whole separate ball of wax. The cost of the pill, while lower now- Helena: Way lower. Theodore: -it's still pretty expensive if you don't have insurance for it. Helena: Yes. $150 a month, I think, is Wegovy. It would be like a really high-end gym membership. That would be no. When I first started writing about this, it was $1,200 a month. It's a lot cheaper than it was, but yes, it is still out of reach for many, many people. Theodore: All right. Why don't we leave it with that, with the thought of RFK Jr. calling us all stupid? Move on to our next segment, which is Forks and Knives, the main meal, the thing that is driving the conversation in the food, politics, and policy world in the United States. What do you think that is right now, Helena? Helena: Yes. We are a few days into January as we are recording this. We are right in the middle of actually what is, I think, the one really substantive policy change that MAHA has accomplished, and that is allowing states to restrict what can be purchased with SNAP benefits in many states. There's 18 states that have been approved for various different kinds of SNAP restrictions. All of those are kicking in at some point this year, but there are several states that actually began implementing January 1, so we are a few days into it, and some big ones like Florida. Big economies. What's going to be really interesting about this in the next few days is how do consumers react? How do retailers react? This is actually more complicated than maybe it seems. You hear it, and you're like, "Oh, well, if you ban sugary drinks and candy, well, that's really simple." Then there's all these things at the margin. I think the one example that really caught my eye is in Florida. They are banning sugary drinks, candy, and they're also banning ultra-processed prepared desserts. You're like, "Okay, well, what does that mean to a consumer? It's confusing." Theodore: No Twinkies. Helena: No Twinkies. I think that's clear, is that that's an ultra-processed prepared dessert, but they are allowing freshly baked desserts. I immediately thought of those Krispy Kremes that are sold at end cap displays that are in the boxes, so they're freshly baked, but maybe they weren't baked in the store. I'm like, "What does this qualify?" It really goes to show you how implementing things like this, it's a huge policy change, and this is going to affect millions of people. At the cashier level, they're going to have to be sending people back. They're the ones that are actually going to have to enforce this. You can imagine all of a sudden you have millions of consumers who are used to being able to buy any type of food as long as it's not alcohol, they can't do alcohol, tobacco, or hot prepared food. Now they have all of these things that are banned. This is a really big change. There are now retailers posting lists of things you cannot buy, which is just, that's a really big change. Theodore: That level of confusion at the implementation stage, I think in some ways, why this is such an effective wedge issue. It sounds reasonable. Helena: I think this is popular. I think it polls well. It's been a while since I've seen polling on this specifically, but I think it is pretty popular. Theodore: I mean wedge issue against SNAP itself. When you look at this policy, you'd say, "Well, look, hey, the federal government should not be supporting the purchase of these things that we know are bad for people's health and nutrition. Why should we do that? That seems bad." On the other hand, if you are creating this level of chaos at the checkout, counter, and uncertainty among people who are of low income, what they can and can't buy, you are also potentially going to be pushing people out of the system, possibly. That could happen. Helena: Pushing retailers out of the system. Retailers will get knocked out. I think there's a 90-day grace period here. No, I think you're right. The chaos here, in a way, is the point. Theodore: The point I want to make is that it undermines SNAP itself. I don't want to make the moral hazard argument in either direction that the government should or shouldn't be supporting these kinds of products for people of low income. I'm not on SNAP. I feel like it's a little weird for me to say what somebody should and shouldn't be eating. The federal government might have a role in that. What it does is it belies the purpose of the program. Makes people feel like that the program is very conditional, and that people who are vulnerable, food insecurity, they're not guaranteed anything from the government in terms of food. It can be changed at any point. Helena: I think the shutdown proved that, yes. [laughs] Theodore: That's for sure, but this is probably even more impactful. This is like rolling out-- this is going to continue happening, whereas the shutdown, eventually, it was going to end, and it did. Right? Helena: Yes. I do think the shutdown, though, in a way, undermined SNAP as just this thing that will always be there, that people will count on, and that we wouldn't question. I do think that has psychically changed. I think there's two ways to look at this. There's the lens of does this increase program stigma? The stigma of being on this program because you will have to walk back and put foods away. The example that anti-hunger advocates always use is if this goes really far, like some states are trying to push it pretty far to include other processed products, like a cake mix, are we really trying to say that a low-income mom, a single mom cannot buy a cake mix for her kid's birthday party? Is that really what we want the federal government to do? Does that just send the stigma of this program is restrictive and paternalistic? That's the argument they make. I think that there is a real risk of increasing the stigma through things like this. The other argument that I hear being made, and I don't know where this shakes out, is that there is this maybe unexpected twist here, where something like this, if implemented broadly, could have this maybe unintended consequence of strengthening support for the program because it's no longer seen as this like way we buy Doritos and sugary drinks for low-income people. If you look at the data, the shopping carts of SNAP and non-SNAP households do not really look that different. We've always seen differences in higher-income people have more ability to buy fruits and vegetables and meats. There is difference, of course, in what you can afford. If you just look across similar income-level families who are on SNAP or not, it's not like SNAP households are uniquely unhealthy. It's not because of SNAP. I think a lot of the research would show that a lot of convenience foods are being bought because there's time poverty. A lot of people are working multiple jobs. Also, they might not have access. A lot of these healthier foods are more expensive. Theodore: Then what do you think of this argument? Do you think that it will reduce that stigma because now they'll see virtuous poor people buying beans or unprocessed foods? Helena: I think we're going to be in the messy middle. This is the other thing. I mentioned the Krispy Kreme example. It's not like these changes, wholesale knockout, everything that a consumer would look at a shopping cart and say is unhealthy. Potato chips in many places are still going to be allowed, but maybe not Twinkies, like we said. It's like-- Theodore: How does that work? Potato chips, but not Doritos? Is that the kind of thing? Helena: If you just focus on highly processed desserts and not all highly processed foods, in every state's different. Every state's handling this differently. Now we're seeing states, if you live on a border, and you live closer to their state, you just hop over. It depends on where the retailer's located. I think unless you're shopping online. If you're shopping online, it's where your EBT card was issued that governs the regulation. You could drive across the border to Michigan and not-- There's all sorts of complexity here. Theodore: It's like dry and wet counties. My family in Mississippi, my uncle was at school at Oxford, which was, I believe, dry at the time. Helena: The whole city. Theodore: Yes. You'd have to drive out to the next county. There were gas stations right on the border with cases of beer sitting out ready to go. It did not, as far as I could tell, at least in my experience in Mississippi, reduce drinking to have this in that county or otherwise. It might have increased some drunk driving because you might crack a beer after you went across the county line to get it. Maybe we'll have the big bins of Doritos lined up on one side of the county line and oranges and apples on the other. Helena: It's going to be interesting. I really hope this is studied. All the states are supposed to do basically an evaluation of what happens. I'm really concerned. A lot of people are concerned that these are not going to be rigorous. I have a lot of researchers who are like, "We really need to make sure there's money to really study what happens. Is this an intervention that does help improve health outcomes or not? Is this a complex, messy thing that isn't really worth doing?" We don't know the answer to that. In that way, we're embarking on a big research [chuckles] project that we'll see. One side note here is that I think it's so interesting that RFK Jr. gets a lot of credit for this, even though technically it was a Brooke Rollins policy. It's under USDA that they're allowing these waivers. It's just an interesting twist that the biggest substantive change to federal policy has happened over at USDA, not under HHS, in terms of food. I don't know. It's interesting. Theodore: I think that's an interesting point. You could ask the same question, let's say Biden had won or Kamala had won and we had a Democratic president, would these things have happened at state level? I think probably not, right? Helena: I do think this is inevitable. Theodore: Just these specific ones. These specific ones. Helena: I think actually the idea that a state or two would try this out was inevitable. Eventually, and I had been hearing that even during the Biden administration, there was some shifting thought on this around allowing a state to test it out, a state or two, to see what happened. Theodore: But not 18. [chuckles] Helena: Yes, I don't see a scenario where this broad-scale adoption would have happened. Theodore: It's pretty much all red states, right? I think there may be a purple one or two. Helena: Colorado. Theodore: Colorado, yes. Helena: I can't remember. Hawaii. You can look at the map. There's a SNAP restrictions map at usda.gov. Theodore: It's mostly Red. Helena: It's mostly Red, but there are some exceptions to that. Theodore: That suggests that maybe, although research is welcome and necessary-- Helena: Uknowing hopefully. Theodore: Yes, but that probably this is splitting along partisan lines. You have a Republican Party that is anti-SNAP, and they view this as a way to limit SNAP more than anything else. Helena: My memory on this polling is that it's fairly popular across party lines. It's interesting. I don't know that I've seen the polling recently. Theodore: I can see the polling being popular for both parties because, again, I think it is somewhat universal that people have, at the very best, a sense of disrespect for the poor. When they see them in the store buying things with their SNAP cards, it seems to anger everyone of all-- Helena: Because they're like, "That was my taxpayer dollars." Theodore: Exactly. The party that is much more likely to implement that kind of a change is the one that is more committed towards undermining and limiting and potentially getting rid of SNAP, and that's the Republican Party. Helena: I do think there's more ideological alignment, yes, on the idea that Republicans are trying to rein in SNAP. They're trying to shrink that program. They've been very clear about this. I do think that aligns. When I first started reporting on SNAP, it was actually the Democrats that wanted to do this. It's changed a lot because there's been a lot of arguments made that this is-- Theodore: Which Democrats? Do you remember? Was it anybody still around? Helena: I think Rosa DeLauro at one point was on this. Public health. Left-leaning public health researchers were absolutely the ones [chuckles] for this. It has shifted a lot over time. A lot of that had to do with looking at things like who would actually be affected. This disproportionately affects communities of color. This disproportionately affects probably folks who are not getting a say in the policy. Theodore: They're not choosing this policy, but they have to live it out. Helena: Yes. There's a lot of shifting that has happened in this debate. When I started covering this, it was a left-leaning idea. It was a left-wing thing. Theodore: That's a really interesting point. Let's say there is meaningful oversight of this and research, and the results come back, and it is, in fact, good for public health. It's good for the health of the people. The benefit nutritionally for people on SNAP can be demonstrated. This is a good thing. Do those same left-leaning politicians and perhaps advocacy groups, do they accept that, even though it's a Trump policy, it's a Red policy, it's a HHS and RFK Jr. MAHA policy? What do they do with that information? Helena: Yes, that's a good question. I don't know how that will play out politically. I really don't. One other interesting thing-- not to totally dodge, but I really don't know the answer to that. When we saw the soda tax debates happen in places like San Francisco, there was some discussion. I think there was actually some research that showed that even just the debate about the soda tax reduced consumption of soda. Even before it was taxed, that was part of the overall reduction was the public debate. Theodore: It got people thinking, "Maybe I shouldn't drink so much soda." [laughs] Helena: Yes, it's like, "Well, they're taxing it. This is starting to put it in a category like cigarettes or alcohol." Right? Theodore: Yes. Helena: Sometimes in the past, we've seen huge fights over what can be in and out of WIC. It's oftentimes not really about WIC. It's about the message that it sends to moms or the message that it sends to low-income shoppers or whatever. I do wonder if there aren't some other effects to this. If you are going to, in hundreds of thousands of grocery stores, post a list of what the government doesn't want you to buy with SNAP, that's a really interesting question, too, like does that affect other consumers? Do they make different choices or does it not? Does everyone just get lost in the chaos of it? I don't know. Theodore: I have a funny thought from this. When I was growing up, the cookie that we never wanted to get because we, as children, perceived it as being healthier than the other cookies was the Fig Newton. It was like, "Oh, there's figs in it." Actually, now if I get a Fig Newton, I'm very happy. I think they're delicious. Helena: They're fine. [laughter] Theodore: I wonder if there'll be like some of these healthy-seeming cookies that will come back. Some ways to get around the law by like we put a little spinach in your ice cream. You won't taste it. It's there, but it gets us over the health threshold. Helena: I think Fig Newtons are mostly safe. That's an interesting question. In Florida, can you buy a Fig Newton? That would be a good one to look at. Does that count? That probably does count as an ultra-processed dessert. Theodore: Fig Newtons are seemingly healthy, but not any healthier than the other ones, like Smartfood. I love Smartfood because it's got all that pasty, whatever, powdery cheese stuff on it. I can't imagine it's any healthier than those Doritos that I also equally love. I don't know if one falls under the law and the other does not. Helena: Right now, I think most of the states are targeting sugar-sweetened beverages and candy and things that are sweet. For now, you're Smart-- Is it called SmartPak? Theodore: What about drinks that are sort of juice, but they're hopped up with sugar? Where do they-- Helena: Every state's different. Every state is defining it differently. It depends. [laughter] Helena: It depends. Check your state's website for more information. It's going to be really interesting. Theodore: It should be interesting. More to come. Why don't we transition from that fun discussion into our final segment, which is something that we usually call good vibes, but in this case is just good and strange. This was your idea. You tell us about this video. Helena: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted-- I think this was ahead of Christmas, posted an AI-generated video of Santa Claus getting a phone call from him, like getting a cell phone call. He's like he can't make out what he's saying, but essentially, it seems like RFK Jr. is telling Santa to get on the MAHA bandwagon. Then it breaks to this montage, kind of Rocky-esque train. Theodore: No, not Rocky-esque. It is Eye of the Tiger. Helena: Santa's doing bench presses with a candy cane. It's this very funny AI video. Honestly, for all the AI slop out there that's super messed up and harmful, this was very light and joyful. It was silly. What struck me about this video is AI compilation. By the way, of course, Santa gets fit and is on Team MAHA. Theodore: He's ripped. Look at all the pull-ups he can do now. Helena: It just shows you how much the politics on this stuff has shifted. You would never have seen another politician touch Santa of all the icons and talk about health and maybe he should have a carrot. Theodore: It would just be the Happy Holidays figure, getting his shit. Helena: It was just untouchable. I really think it's a sign that the politics on this have shifted so much. These are okay things to say now, even if people are like, "Ha, ha, leave Santa alone." It fits in with a couple of weeks before the holidays, RFK Jr. had a pull-up contest with the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy. Is that his name? Anyway, Duffy. Theodore: I thought Pete Hegseth was doing it. Weren't they all here? Helena: No, they were there. Theodore: All the testosterone dudes were out there doing pull-ups? I think there's a Hegseth challenge. I'm really not clear. I'm not good at pull-ups because I'm so tall. Maybe people don't know about this. I'm 6'1". It's hard for me to do a pull-up, even though I'm pretty strong. I'm just going to put that out there. I'm not doing-- Theodore: You're an athlete, right? Weren't you a volleyball player? Helena: I'm an athlete. Yes. At most in my life, I've been able to do one pull-up. I'll work on it. I'm all for the physical challenges. I'm good for it. Theodore: I'm not saying how many pull-ups I can do. I'm going to leave that to the imagination. Helena: [laughs] [clears throat] Breaking news, I can't do any pull-ups right now. I'm all for it. It's a reminder that this is not seen now as this-- It used to be seen as rude to tell the American people that they needed to exercise more or whatever. Now it's not. It's like a nanny state thing. It used to be seen as this nanny state thing. The government shouldn't be-- I feel like we've just blown through that gate. Now there's a pull-up bar at the airport in DC. Theodore: Now it's a Sylvester Stallone-like figure who's actually Santa doing arm curls with a candy cane. We are in a different space. Helena: Maybe that should be my 2026 resolution. Pull-ups, yes. Theodore: I have two responses to that. One, it's, well, it doesn't really fit into the GLP world that we are moving into, but it's up on elective video. Helena: No, I don't think these are mutually exclusive. You've got to be active and you have to lift. You're going to lose too much muscle in a GLP-1. Theodore: Absolutely. The other thing, though, is I think that it is in no way a threat to my actual favorite Christmas song, which is not The Eye of the Tiger. It is Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer. I think that song is still ready to pump out the jams. All right, Helena. I think on that very strange note, we should call it a day. Helena: Go watch the video. Theodore: Yes, go watch the video, all of you. We will see you all back in a couple of weeks. Helena, thank you, as always. I love talking to you about food and politics. I'll see you soon. Helena: Yes, let's do it again soon. Bye. 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 me, Theodore Ross. To find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent nonprofit reporting, go to www.thefern.org. [00:36:20] [END OF AUDIO] Forked ep.13 1.13.26 _mixdown.mp3 (Completed: 01/06/2026) Transcript by GoTranscript.com