By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A growing concern among Americans, spanning the political spectrum, centers on the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler are uniting to address this issue, pointing to the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) classification as a loophole allowing the widespread use of unexamined ingredients in these foods. This has contributed to ultraprocessed items making up a significant portion of the American diet, leading to a surge in chronic diseases. Both men are advocating for greater transparency and accountability from the food industry.
Read the original article here
It seems like there’s a growing consensus, amplified by former FDA head David Kessler, that our human biology simply wasn’t built to cope with the onslaught of ultra-processed foods that now dominate our diets. This isn’t about the simple act of cooking or breaking down ingredients like corn; it’s about the extreme level of industrial processing that transforms food into something our bodies struggle to recognize or effectively metabolize. When we look at ingredient labels and find lists of unfamiliar chemical names, it’s a stark indicator that we’ve veered far from what nature intended for our sustenance.
This disconnect between our biological design and the modern food landscape raises significant questions about the health consequences we’re now facing. It’s not a matter of whether our bodies *can* handle these foods in the short term; they demonstrably can, as evidenced by decades of consumption. However, the long-term effects of consistently ingesting high levels of refined sugars, artificial additives, and ingredients stripped of their natural nutritional value are becoming increasingly apparent, leading to a variety of chronic illnesses.
The core of the argument is that these ultra-processed foods, with their hyper-palatable flavors and textures engineered for maximum appeal, exploit our natural cravings in ways that our ancestors never had to contend with. We weren’t evolved to crave the intense “extreme nacho flavor” or the sugary sweetness of products loaded with corn syrup, maltodextrin, and dextrose. Our taste buds have been, as some might put it, “trained” by corporate food producers to desire these artificial concoctions, leading us down a path of suboptimal nutrition.
Furthermore, the idea of “intent” in biology, while potentially prone to naturalistic fallacies, serves as a useful framework here. While nature doesn’t consciously design things, biological systems evolve to function within certain parameters. The widespread availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods represent a radical departure from the dietary patterns that shaped human evolution, creating a mismatch that our bodies are ill-equipped to manage optimally over extended periods.
This brings us to the crucial point of regulation and intervention. If it’s understood that these foods pose a significant health risk, then the question naturally arises: what is being done about it? The historical context shows that when proposals to limit things like sugary drink sizes have been raised, they’ve often met with strong opposition. Yet, the debate around improving food accessibility and affordability, particularly for lower-income communities, remains a critical conversation, especially concerning the prevalence of “food deserts” where fresh, healthy options are scarce.
The challenge is that for many, these highly processed options are the most accessible and affordable sources of calories. While the desire for more nutritious food is paramount, the practical realities of economic constraints and the current food system make it difficult for individuals and families to consistently choose healthier alternatives. The argument isn’t about demonizing all processed foods, as many everyday items require some level of processing to be shelf-stable or palatable, but rather about identifying and addressing the specific harms associated with the extreme end of the processing spectrum.
Ultimately, the warning from figures like David Kessler serves as a critical call to action. It prompts us to re-examine our relationship with food, to question the origins of what we consume, and to advocate for systemic changes that prioritize public health over profit. Understanding that our biology may not be inherently equipped to handle the current deluge of ultra-processed foods is the first step towards making more informed choices and demanding a food environment that supports, rather than undermines, our well-being. The conversation needs to move beyond simply acknowledging the problem to actively seeking solutions that promote healthier eating habits and a more sustainable food future for everyone.