Latest / REAP/SOW / Just how mad is MAHA about glyphosate?
Transcript
- This transcript was exported on 03/04/2026 - view latest version here Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked. I'm Theodore Ross, editor-in-chief of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, and I'm joined by my co-host, Helena Bottemiller Evich from Food Fix. This episode, we're doing a roundup of what people who don't have time to come up with better nicknames are calling GlyphoGate. We're also taking a closer look at the Senate testimony of Casey Means, nominee for surgeon general, and asking, should the nation's doctor be a wellness influencer? Helena, how are you? Welcome back to Forked. Helena Bottemiller Evich: I'm doing all right. How are you? Theodore: I'm great. I'm so glad to be here because there is so much going on and plenty for us to talk about, so why don't we just dive in? Helena: Always. Never a dull moment. Theodore: Yes. You know what, I'm going to do some business before we start. As you know, and maybe the audience doesn't know, Forked is a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, and FERN, which is Food and Environment Reporting Network, is a nonprofit independent news organization, and we do lots of journalism beyond just this here podcast, and you should go to our website, www.thefern.org and check it out because we have all kinds of good stuff there, and we'd love you to come and read our stuff and listen to our stuff and watch our stuff and maybe even make a donation, who knows. For you, Helena, I always talk about this in the introduction, but tell us a little bit about this Food Fix newsletter you do. Helena: Yes. If anyone's not on the list, you can go to foodfix.co and get the Food Fix newsletter. It's all about food policy. You can get it for free every Friday, and then if you work in food and you want more, you can upgrade to get it twice a week. Everyone loves it, and you should go read it. Theodore: It's good stuff. I'm giving my testimonial here for free. Anyway, see, I was so excited about what's happening in the food world that I was going to jump in without actually singing for my supper first, so I caught myself. Let's get started. The first thing we do on every episode of Forked is we do something called the Double Take. Now, that is something that is happening in the food world that is so shocking or weird or difficult, that it just makes you do a double-take. In this case, I think we should talk about the Trump administration's new executive order on the promotion of elemental phosphorus, which is a great phrase. We'd have to go talk a lot about what that means, but really, it's also about the production of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the primary active ingredient in the weed killer, Roundup. Helena, what did the MAHA folks think about this? Are they thrilled at this new executive order? Helena: Yes. This executive order posted, and within minutes, we had a very public meltdown, primarily on X. I'm sure it was also unfolding on other social platforms, but I think they-- Theodore: Homeschools around the country were freaking out, right? Helena: I don't think they're on X. That's a slower roll for it to reach the homeschool crowd, for sure. Theodore: Okay. Helena: The activists who are very engaged online, Zen Honeycutt from Moms Across America, Kelly Ryerson from American Regeneration, were furious. I think Zen actually used the term– I think she said something like, "I'm sick," like, "I'm physically sick from seeing this." They viewed this as basically the Trump administration choosing Bayer over them. That's what they did. Theodore: It's true, isn't it? Let's just back up a little bit and talk about good old RFK Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, who, before he was in the government and before he ran for president as a Democrat, sued Monsanto, which is now Bayer, which is the company that produces glyphosate. Helena: Bayer bought Monsanto, yes. Theodore: That's right, yes. He won, or he was part of the legal team that won the case against Monsanto for glyphosate- Helena: It was a seminal case, yes. Theodore: -and he's called it poison. In fact, he's called it poison recently. I think-- Helena: He still calls it poison, yes. Theodore: He still calls it poison. Helena: He said recently he believes that it causes cancer. Juries have awarded billions. Theodore: Our friends in Europe think it's causing cancer or probably causes cancer, but our industrial overlords here in the United States do not think it is causing cancer. Helena: Our regulatory agencies here in the US have long maintained that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and presents no public health risk when used according to the label. That is the official stance. Basically, what the Trump administration is arguing here is that it's a national security risk to be so heavily reliant on imports to make glyphosate, to source glyphosate, okay? We are heavily reliant on imports, primarily China. They're making the argument that, look, we have to start onshoring more of this. We have to prioritize domestic production because if we lost access to glyphosate, whether it was a foreign actor or liability risk, that's also going on, all of these lawsuits, Bayer is facing a torrent of lawsuits, so much liability, billions and billions in payouts. If we lost access to this, it would be catastrophic, which I think is true. I think that's true. Theodore: It's true under the current way that we produce food in this country, which is also an act of [crosstalk]- Helena: It is like-- Theodore: -with MAHA folks, right? They hate it. Helena: Yes. In a lot of ways, glyphosate is like the symbol. It is the foundation of our current agricultural system in a lot of ways. MAHA hates it, wants to, at the very least, see it more limited in how it is used in agriculture. They particularly hate desiccation, which is when glyphosate is used at the very end of the crop cycle to help dry it out and speed up the process. That's sprayed on right before harvest. They really hate that. They would like to see EPA straight up ban that. I think Vani Hari talked about that when we had her on, that maybe that would be a middle ground because it makes up such a small amount of the overall volume of glyphosate usage, but it makes up a disproportionate contribution to human exposure, which makes sense because of it being spread at the end. That is not what is happening. We are not seeing any movement on limiting glyphosate. We are seeing the administration really throw down this-- they're invoking the Defense Production Act. That's meant for wartime. We saw DPA invoked during the pandemic to keep meat plants open, and that was this huge deal, like, "**** ****”, we're using wartime powers." Theodore: That's where the elemental phosphorus comes into play. Helena: Yes. I don't know as much about elemental phosphorus. I don't know. Theodore: Elemental phosphorus is part of this. It is used to make glyphosate. Elemental phosphorus, if you read the executive-- Helena: Also for a whole bunch of other stuff. Theodore: Absolutely, but it is also a key input-- this is from the executive order, in smoke, illumination, and incendiary devices. It's also a critical component for manufacturing semiconductors, batteries, all kinds of good stuff, but it is effectively-- the pesticides that we use in this country, they come from fossil fuels, they are made through a process that creates ammonia, and that ammonia is then used to create the pesticides that we now build our country around. Yes, the national security part of it does relate to weapons, but it also just really relates to the way we've organized our commodity growing of crops. The big three. Corn, wheat, and soybean. Those are part of our-- Go ahead. What were you going to say? Helena: Wheat actually doesn't use glyphosate, except for sometimes at the end, some portion, but I think the most common, it's almost exclusively all the corn and all the soy, and then I think it's heavily used in cotton as well, but it's also just used as a weed killer in so many agricultural applications. Theodore: The point I just wanted to make-- Helena: It can be found in wheat, but I just want to make that clear that there isn't actually Roundup-ready wheat. Theodore: Fair enough. Helena: It's a common-- Yes. Theodore: The point I was making, though, is that the mass production of those three crops at scale is part of the United States national security. We consider the growing of food part of the casting of our soft power around the world. It's part of our competition with China, it's part of our competition with the Russians, all of those things. It is, in fact, and has long been part of national security in the United States. The difference is that the MAHA movement coming to power with RFK Jr. was supposed to change that. The connections to other parts of the MAHA movement are very strange, because if you think about, yes, glyphosate is used to grow all these crops, those crops are heavily subsidized by the government, and what do they become? They become a lot of things, but one of the things they become is high fructose corn syrup that goes into all those ultra-processed foods that supposedly RFK Jr. is going to ban and put into the dustbin of history. It is a symbol, by promoting Roundup or glyphosate, but it's also a direct attack on the things that MAHA was put into power to do, right? Helena: Yes. I think it really gets back to this divide we often see, where the current administration loves talking about MAHA, if they can bash Big Food. They can bash food companies, they can bash soda, they can bash synthetic food dyes, but nothing on the ag side. I mean that inside the administration. MAHA leaders outside the administration are coming hard. They're like, "We want regenerative ag. We want to completely reform the system." They want to revolutionize how food is grown in this country. They're very open about this, but the Trump administration itself, you do not see Brooke Rollins talking about the need to fundamentally overhaul food production in the US. She may eventually start saying that, I don't know, but we are not there right now. Certainly, we don't see Lee Zeldin, who's off in his own world, and is in no way-- he's banished from the MAHA Island at this point. There's just a clear divide. They don't seem willing to take on agriculture, even when-- We should also mention Kennedy defended this executive order, and MAHA lost it even more after that. One of the MAHA supporters tweeted something like, "Bobby, blink twice if you're being held against your will." That's how a lot of them felt. They were like, "Are you serious? We thought you would come on, and--" On Joe Rogan over the weekend, he did offer, I think, a more nuanced explanation where he basically said, yes, I did listen to all two and a half hours. You're welcome. You're welcome. Theodore: No, thank you. I appreciate that. Better you than me. Helena: He explained that he believes glyphosate causes cancer. He said that very clearly. He believes we are basically addicted to a toxic system and that we have to figure out how to get off of it. What they are now doing, the administration, is they're announcing money at NIH, of all places, to study, I guess, cumulative chemical exposure, and then also, they're trying to use ARPA-H, which is, I think, partly NIH, maybe partly defense, like DARPA. It's like the DARPA model. ARPA-H, though, is for health, okay? Just to clarify that. They're trying to-- I think they're putting in 200 million or pledging 200 million. They got to track, if this money actually happens, where it goes, all that. They're saying they want to incentivize people to figure out how we get off using certain chemicals for inputs. So far, I've not seen anything from USDA on this. I've not seen anything from ag groups on this. It feels like the HHS folks are trying to lean in and say the administration is all on board for transitioning off, but I'm not sure that that's the case. Theodore: That's definitely not the case. Helena: We don't see that from USDA. We don't see that from EPA. We don't see that from the ag groups. Theodore: Hold on, that is-- Helena: It's the vibes getting way ahead of where that could possibly-- Theodore: It's not even the vibes. It is blatantly, patently false to say that they're going to change the agricultural system in the country. They have done nothing to do it. This is only the best evidence that they are absolutely not going to do that. The question is, I think, politically, how mad are people about it? Helena: I think this is where a lot of the MAHA moms, are they really going to get information about the ag policy? It's really complicated. It sounds like they're doing things, right? The $700 million to regenerative agriculture, that's just repurposed money. That's not new money. They're giving them crumbs and basically saying, "Look, we're changing." Meanwhile, there's tens of billions of dollars of subsidies going to prop up the system we currently have. The MAHA activists understand this. They're like, "We need--" I think they're calling for somewhere between 5 to 10 billion per year, or initially to actually try to incentivize some transition. That's a much different situation than what we have now. Let's see. This isn't going away. This is going to test MAHA for many months. This is not going away. I've actually seen a few folks on social that actually identify as ex-MAHA now over this. I don't think it's been a full-blown divorce, but this has really, really pushed a real divide within MAHA. Theodore: This is a bad date night. Nobody's talking to each other. It's not a divorce. Helena: I'm calling it a marital spat. Theodore: That's right, yes. Helena: In the open, though. It's like a screaming match in front of everyone. Theodore: This is where the mom says, "You tell your father that he should do this. He should clean up the garage before he says anything to me about the living room." It's that kind of thing. Helena: Yes. Theodore: All right. Why don't we move on? Actually, before we move on, I just want to read one, and I think when it gets at the potential for a transition to a regenerative agriculture system, what's happening, why RFK Jr. is forced into doing things that he absolutely doesn't want to do and has said he would never do, there's one line from the executive order that I think is key. It's about glyphosate, and it says, "There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides." My understanding of that is that in the world that we live in today, and the world always changes, but in the world that we live in today, there is no real substitute in the United States for glyphosate. Helena: That's true. Yes, that's true. Kennedy, again, on the Joe Rogan podcast, really emphasized that they believe technology will eventually provide a substitute. There are some really interesting attachments for agricultural equipment that can basically zap the weeds in real time. It's really cool to watch. Theodore: I've heard about these. Helena: These systems are like a million dollars. Yes, the largest of the large could maybe take that kind of investment. That's still a lot of money, but that's not a solution. Theodore: Certainly not in the near or medium term. Helena: Not in the near or medium term. We'll see. It's been interesting to me how much political pushback there has been. This is new. I think if Tom Vilsack had done something on glyphosate during the Biden administration, there would have been some gripes, but nothing like this. This, I think, shows that MAHA is really flexing its muscle in a way. They've been really successful at beating back some state policy. Now, they're actually planning a rally at the Supreme Court when the oral arguments begin, April 27th. I think it's called The People vs. Poison, or something really stark. We'll see how many people show up for that. I don't think this is going away. I don't know how the Trump administration deals with this, especially going into midterms, because people are mad. Theodore: Maybe they'll start a war somewhere. All right. Helena: Oh, yes. Theodore: Let's pass on to our next segment, which is the Forks and Knives, the main meal, the biggest thing happening in the country right now. I'll say, I don't know if this is the biggest thing happening in the United States with food policy right now, but it's important. It is the testimony at the Senate of the nominee for the surgeon general, Casey Means. What do you think about that? Why does that make any difference? The nation's doctor doesn't do all that much, but it is an important position. Helena: I think, Casey Means, if she's confirmed, which I think is likely, but we'll see. We haven't seen any recent indications one way or the other, but I think, Casey Means, if she's confirmed, is going to be a similar voice like RFK Jr., like big spokesperson against ultra-processed foods. I pulled up a quote. She, at one point, told Bernie Sanders during the hearing that basically, he would be annoyed by how much she talked about processed foods. "I think you'll be frustrated by how much I'll be talking about ultra-processed foods," she kind of said tongue-in-cheek. He was like, "Good," because Sanders agrees with her on food, which is wild. He basically was like, "Yes, I mostly agree with your food ideas." Then he was like, "How about vaccines?" Theodore: How about those vaccines? Yes, she's not a big fan of those. Helena: She repeatedly stayed above it. She would say, "I believe vaccines save lives. I believe they're part of a public health strategy," but she would not say, like, "I would endorse giving babies the measles vaccine or anything." Anytime anyone tried to pin her down on anything specific, she absolutely would not-- She did say at another point, which I thought was interesting, she said, "Anti-vaccine rhetoric has never been a part of my message. I don't mention the word vaccine in my book. This is not part of my core message. I am not here to complicate the message on vaccines." What I took away from this hearing is that she would focus largely on food as surgeon general, if she's confirmed. It's just interesting. Theodore: I don't believe that, by the way. No, I don't believe that. Because if you-- Helena: Oh, RFK doesn't bring up vaccines unless asked, even. Theodore: Yes, but he's doing plenty of things to undermine these vaccines in this country- Helena: Oh, for sure. Theodore: -and so would she. Helena: She doesn't have purview over that. She doesn't have policy purview. She has a lot of messaging might. This is a bully pulpit position. She said she backed banning junk food ads on TV. She could absolutely put together a report that's like, "Here's why we should do this." It's almost like a think tank, but with a lot of heft coming from the federal government. You can come up with ideas, you can promote narratives. It's actually a very important position in its ability to drive a national conversation. There's many examples of that over time, but she wouldn't actually have policy purview. The Trump administration seems to be trying to talk about vaccines less, especially going into the midterms. It doesn't pull well. I'm not saying her views on vaccines aren't relevant. They very much are because if we face any sort of public health emergency, she would be one of the top spokespeople. I understand why they were trying to press her on that. I'm just not sure it's enough to not get her confirmed. Theodore: I don't know if that's the case either, but I do think that even though she is quite capable of dodging a question, it doesn't make her something other than an anti-vaxxer. There's a nice little quote. She's being questioned by Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, who's a doctor. To the extent that his partisan beliefs allow him, he is someone holding the line on vaccines, which is not that much. That line is not being held that much by somebody like him. This is what he says, "Do you believe that vaccines, whether individually or collectively, contribute to autism?" Dr. Casey Means replies, "Until we have a clear understanding of why kids are developing this at higher rates, I think we should not leave any stones unturned. I don't know what those stones would be, but we should not leave them unturned." Then Cassidy, "There's been a lot of evidence showing that they're not implicated. Do you not accept that evidence?" "I do accept that evidence. I also think that science is never settled." That's a pretty bold brand of nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. That, to me, means that if in position as the surgeon general, she will publicly voice suspicions, distrust, opposition, guardedly, to vaccines in this country, and we shouldn't convince ourselves otherwise. That will be part of what she believes and will espouse publicly, to the extent that she is able to politically, which seems like less and less. Do you-- Helena: I think every signal I got from that conversation is that she will not be discussing vaccines, which I understand why that would make public health very nervous and very angry, because in a situation where you're facing down flu season, you want the nation's doctor to be like, "Everyone should get the flu vaccine." That has been the message of public health every year for a long time. I don't think they're going to get that from her. I think it's more an omission. I didn't hear any indication that she would be out there sowing distrust in vaccines, though certainly that answer suggests, like, "Well, we don't really know." Most people in public health would argue that we have so much evidence that vaccines are not linked to autism, that they make stronger statements. She wouldn't even say that she thought the flu vaccine-- I can't remember exactly what she was asked, but it was something like, does the flu vaccine reduce adverse outcomes? It was something very specific. I think for most doctors, it would have been an easy answer. She also sidestepped that one. I viewed it as she's going to focus more on food and holistic, root cause health, and just leave that to other people. You already see a very notable divide. Dr. Oz goes on TV and is like, "People need to get the measles vaccine." He says that. Then RFK Jr., when asked, is like, "People need to talk to their doctor and make their own decision and do their own research." They do not have the same message. It is very different based on who you ask. I think that's part of why infectious disease experts are so horrified, because they want to see the government have a unified, clear message so there's no confusion for consumers. We are already seeing vaccine hesitancy grow, although it is still deeply unpopular even with Republicans when you ask them in polls. I don't know. I think if confirmed, we expect the focus on food. That's my understanding based on what I heard, but who knows? Theodore: Did I ever tell you my Dr. Oz story? Helena: No. What's your Dr. Oz story? I have one, too. Theodore: Maybe yours is better than mine, but I'll tell you mine first. I used to work for a sports television show on HBO. We were a small show. We didn't last very long. Our office was in the same floor, directly opposite the John Oliver show. Every time I walk out of the elevator, there to my left is the John Oliver folks, and to my right was my office. That office that we were in was, right before we came into it, the offices of Dr. Oz when he had his television show. He left that show to run unsuccessfully for the Senate. Apparently, the Oliver people did not like that. You'd walk out of the elevator, and there was a big green, plastic, fiberglass alligator looking at you, smiling and flipping you off. That was the thing that you saw from John Oliver. It was all pointed at the then former, what used to be the Dr. Oz offices. They were flipping off Dr. Oz every day as you walked out of the elevator. They never bothered to change it. They didn't think enough of our show to actually change that out, which I just thought was funny. Helena: Oh my gosh. Theodore: What's your Dr. Oz story? Helena: I went on The Dr. Oz Show once. Theodore: Really? Helena: Yes. To talk about an E. coli outbreak. This was after he had been really taken to task by this-- I think there was a Senate hearing, basically slapping him for promoting all sorts of supplements and things that were unproven in a very certain way on TV. Being certain about outcomes and things that were-- Anyway, senators were very mad. He got really dragged in that hearing. This was, I don't know, maybe a few years after that. It was really interesting how scripted everything was. I got to choose what I said, which was basically just, what is E. coli? We've seen outbreaks. Where do they usually come from? I can't remember if it was Chipotle or some other-- whatever. I was so shocked at how they were very-- it wasn't like you could just say whatever you wanted. I think that was in response to that. They were trying to make sure no one said anything too wild. Theodore: I see. The shows I worked on didn't work like that. Guess if we had them, you could say whatever you wanted. Helena: No, I was surprised. Again, I was not told what to say, but it was like, here's what I'm going to say. I was not supposed to differentiate at all, which I have never been on any other show that does that, but I also never went on talk shows or anything like that. Theodore: Unfortunately, you were not flipped off by an alligator, which is good. Helena: I don't think so. I think it was before that. This was a long time ago. Theodore: Let's get back to Casey Means for a second. One of the things that I think is pretty interesting about her in the context of what we're talking about with glyphosate is she is a big backer of regenerative ag, and she is very much opposed to the use of glyphosate. She has plenty of public statements on that. Here's another thing about what happens with you when you work with the Trump administration. You never know which side you're going to have to be on in the future. How does somebody like her deal with that kind of thing? Obviously, she didn't take it down off her website. I just checked it this morning. Still all there. Helena: Yes. She got asked about this during the hearing. It's interesting. It didn't really get much. I'm trying to think if I actually pulled out this quote. She says, basically, the American system is addicted to dangerous chemicals. She basically said that in the hearing, which I was shocked. In before times, that would have been a disqualifying thing to say. The ag industry would have just put the kibosh on that. I don't think that's true anymore. I think that's politically what MAHA wants, what a significant portion of the Republican base now wants. You have to remember that agriculture has outsized power in Washington, but because agriculture is so efficient, there are actually very few farmers that produce the vast majority of our food. It's not like there's a ton of votes there, actually. She actually, I think, stayed pretty on her own message on glyphosate when she was asked about it in the hearing, but I wouldn't expect her to be talking about that as surgeon general. I could be wrong. We'll see. She may not get confirmed. We'll have to see. Theodore: If she does not get confirmed, then it would be interesting to understand the reasons why. It seemed to me the most public traction, and I don't know how much to value this, is the fact that she's not a licensed physician. She is a doctor. She went through the-- Helena: She has a medical license. It's inactive. Theodore: It's inactive. Well, we can quibble here, but does that mean if your license is inactive, are you licensed? Helena: This is something they really push back on. She has a medical license. It's inactive. She could, at any time, reactivate it. I'm not sure why they didn't do that to just eliminate this talking point. I just don't know if it dissuades people. Theodore: I don't think it matters. I don't know why it would make a difference, yes. Helena: It sounds like a technicality. She went to Stanford Medical School. Did not complete her residency, but almost did, at one of the top ENT-like programs in the country. I don't know that this works. What I did hear, which was really interesting, was from Senator Collins, which, again, there's this whole meme about her expressing concern and then voting with the Trump administration anyway. Theodore: That's not just a meme. That's not a meme. That is a fact, yes. Helena: Yes, I would say, though, this is the overall narrative that she has created for herself. The issue she brought up in the hearing was Casey Means use of psychedelics and her promotion of them in her book. She was basically like, "These are illicit drugs. Would you be promoting illicit drugs?" Casey Means basically said, "I think my views as a private citizen would obviously be different than--" She basically said, "No, I will not promote illicit drug use as surgeon general," which I think that's the answer you have to give. I don't think she would. I think that's a fair thing, but it was interesting that that was-- Theodore: She believes in it. She believes in the beneficial aspect of it. Helena: For sure. This is a really growing issue on the right. Also, interestingly, on the left. I didn't read Michael Pollan's book. Theodore: It's about the use of psychedelics, right? Helena: Yes. There is a lot of clinical research being done, specifically around depression and PTSD. I do think there's something real there, but it's under medical supervision. Some of these things, I think, will go through actual FDA clearance, and probably the formal medical system will eventually adopt them. Right now, it's in a place where this is illegal in most places. That was what Senator Collins had issue with, but I don't know where she'll ultimately land. Theodore: What do you know of or think about-- was there much coverage of her businesses? Helena: Yes, a lot. There was a lot of focus on that. Theodore: I was looking at the website of her business, Level or Levels? I can't remember which. Helena: Levels. Theodore: Levels Health this morning, and for the life of me, I could not understand what it is. Maybe you can tell me. Helena: Levels is a continuous glucose monitor thing that you put in your arm, and then there's an app, I think, that tracks it. Theodore: That part, I got, but what's the value of that? Why would I want to continually monitor my glucose? Helena: Their argument is that you can learn how your body responds to certain foods, and maybe be healthier from that. A lot of the mainstream medical professionals that I've heard from talk about this; they just don't think this is useful for most people. I think if you have pre-diabetes or diabetes, that's maybe a different equation. It's expensive, and they view it as not particularly useful. Also, I think the tech, I think the CGM that they use is one that's used for people who have diabetes. It's not something they invented. I think it's more the app and the, maybe, recommendations that come around it. There's also a bunch of other companies that do that. Really, what the hearing focused on was not Levels. They focused on all of these other companies that Casey Means has promoted over the years without clearly identifying that she had a financial tie. This is super common, by the way, on social media. I'm not excusing not following FTC policy, but a lot of influencers do not follow FTC policy. It's basically not enforced, which is basically that you're supposed to put #ad or partner. You're supposed to very clearly indicate that you are going to financially benefit, or if it's an affiliate code or affiliate link, whatever it is, if there is a financial relationship, you are supposed to clearly note that. I think in the hearing, they noted that there were many instances where she did not clearly disclose that. Theodore: In a broader sense, though, what's interesting about that-- and I don't know that it's disqualifying. This is 2026. Things are different than they used to be. This is handing the bully pulpit of the surgeon general, the old Everett Koopership, however you want to call it, to an influencer. That's a first. I don't know that we have ever had somebody in that role. She would be a first for not being a practicing doctor. There was a brief period of time where a nurse held the position of the surgeon general. Helena: Oh, I didn't know that. Theodore: Well, that's what Wikipedia says. I don't know if that's true, but this would be the first-- Helena: Wikipedia's usually fairly accurate, but yes, it's interesting. Theodore: I know, but it would be the first full-time person in the role of surgeon general who's not a practicing physician, and it would definitely be an unusual thing to have a wellness influencer who has made her name and reputation and living by somewhat sketchy-ish, at the very least, somewhat untraditional means of selling stuff online. I don't know. I don't know what to make of that. Again, should that be disqualifying? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not great. Helena: I think in the past it would have been disqualifying to openly sell-- imagine if it were pharma. If she were openly selling or promoting GLP-1s, I think you would have some populist pushback on that. I do think we're in a new era, where in before times, doctors wouldn't have been on social media at all. I think, also, there are other constraints that doctors or practicing physicians are under for having alternate sources of income. I'm not sure what those are, but there's probably more constraints there. I think we are in just a totally new era. If confirmed, she may transform how people think about the surgeon general in good ways and in bad, I don't know. I think it's so out of the realm of what we've seen. I don't really know, but there's no question that it's just a totally different situation. Theodore: It would definitely be new. Let's leave it with the new world about to be ushered in. Normally, what we do at the end of the show, Helena, is a good vibe, something that we can take a note of hope about in the food, politics, and policy world. I think, though, and maybe you'll agree, that right now, when we're taping, the war against Iran is well underway, and I don't really have a good vibe. How about you? Helena: Yes, I'm fine to skip. I'm having flashbacks to my youth when we started other wars. That did not end well for us or for anyone. Theodore: I think we'll leave the good vibe for the next time. Hopefully, we'll be able to come up with a good vibe in a couple more weeks. Until that time, it has been great chatting with you, Helena. I always enjoy it, and I will see you soon. Helena: Yes. See you soon. Theodore: Forked is a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Our executive producers are me, Theodore Ross, and Tom Laskawy. Our sound engineer is Lauryn Newson. Our producer and video producer is Amanda Vicari. 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. [00:36:40] [END OF AUDIO] Forked 3.3 _mixdown.mp3 (Completed: 03/04/2026) Transcript by GoTranscript.com