Transcript for

Ep52: Neena Prasad on the power of UPFs

Matthew  0:05

Welcome back to Feed, a food systems podcast presented by TABLE. I’m Matthew Kessler.

More than half of the calories consumed in the United Kingdom and the United States come from ultra-processed foods. More than half. But is that a problem?

Neena  0:22

These are products that are created in labs and factories, usually wrapped in plastic, almost always high in added sugar, sodium and saturated fat. And they contain ingredients that you wouldn't see in a normal household pantry. They're aggressively marketed, hyper palatable, and therefore encourage overeating.

Matthew  0:45

That’s Dr Neena Prasad, our guest for this episode.

Neena  0:48

My name is Neena Prasad. I'm a public health physician. I live in New York City, though I grew up in Toronto, and I have the great privilege of leading the Food Policy Program at Bloomberg Philanthropies in New York City.

Matthew  1:05

The Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Food Policy Program focuses on promoting healthier diets through influencing policy change. They have evaluated the impacts of taxes on sugary drinks across the world and are now concentrating on regulating the rise of ultra-processed foods. Specifically in Latin America, South Africa, and the Caribbean, so low and middle-income countries don’t follow the same dietary patterns of the US and the UK.

For regular listeners of Feed, this conversation will act as a bridge between our last season - where we explored power in the food system, and our next season, where we ask if food systems should be more natural, say with fewer ultra processed foods lining our grocery stores and markets.  

I chat with Neena about the corporate power behind ultra processed foods, and whether adding labels and taxing ultra processed foods actually produces desired results, and we also chat about how to separate the positive benefits of processing food from some of the negative health effects.

So I want to start with this idea of naturalness. We all might have an innate idea of what is natural. But just like everything else we know about the world - those ideas are influenced by our childhood, our culture and our education. So Neena, can you share a story about a time in your life that helped form your views on what are natural and healthy foods?

Neena  2:33

Sure, I would be happy to. And I don't know that I can necessarily pinpoint a single story. There are so many. But a few different parts of my identity, I would say have shaped my views around healthy foods. The first is: I'm a child of Indian immigrants, specifically from the Punjab region. And the cuisine is incredible as it is throughout all of India, really. And my mother grew up with a garden that was a major source of fresh food for her family. And I think that upbringing really shaped how she fed her own children, and likely also instilled in me a love of gardening. My mother is an incredible cook, and we were exposed to so many wonderful tastes and smells and textures growing up. And to this day, one of the most comforting smells for me, and the one that creates such a sense of nostalgia and transports me right back to my childhood home is the smell of fried onions, which is the start of many great Indian dishes. There's something about it that just brings me so much comfort. 

And my mother had a real curiosity about food, and cooking is really one of her love languages to this day. And I was really fortunate to have my tastes influenced in this way. And moreover, an appreciation for the effort and care and love in preparing a meal. And as a result, I'm someone who loves cooking, though I very much recognize the privilege that's inherent in that. It means I have access to ingredients, I have a safe space to cook, as well as time to cook. And I don't take those things for granted. 

The other piece I would just mention is that I am a child of the 80s. And this is when ultra processed foods, or ultra processed products as we like to call them, were really starting to proliferate on grocery store shelves, but nothing like it is today. And when I was growing up, having a soda or potato chips was really considered a treat. It was something reserved for birthday parties. It wasn't an every day at every meal kind of thing. 

And then the last thing that I would say that’s really shaped my views on food is I'm a physician and a public health professional. And I've seen sort of firsthand both the individual level and at the population level, the benefits of eating a healthy diet and the harms of eating an unhealthy diet. And I think all of this just really brings me to a place of having a diet that's nourishing and that can mean so many different things to so many different people but it's about promoting and sustaining health - physical and mental. Food makes you happy. It's pleasurable. It has deep connections to a place as I described, in my own case, a deep connection to your ancestors. And it just brings you a lot of joy, and I also find that there's a meditative aspect to chopping vegetables and cooking. So I just really come back to this concept of nourishment.

Matthew  5:56

And just like nourishment is an idea that can be achieved in a lot of different ways, ultra processed foods themselves are a bit of a confusing category that many people have different understandings of. So can you give your 30 second definition of how you understand what ultra processed foods are?

Neena  6:14

Absolutely, it's a really important point and one that I think it's important to discuss right at the top as we get deeper, I might need a little more than 30 seconds. So yes, I think the first thing I want to say is food processing generally refers to any action that alters food from its natural state. For example, drying, freezing, milling, canning, adding salt or additives, this is all considered processing. And most foods that we purchase or consume have been processed in some way. And I want to be really clear that processing is not inherently bad. What matters is the extent and the purpose of processing. And to that end, researchers in Brazil developed a classification system called the NOVA classification system, which is widely used in the public health and scientific literature, which categorizes food into one of four groups, according to the degree and purpose of processing. 

Matthew  7:19

Neena walks us through these four groups in the NOVA Classification system.

Neena  7:24

Group one is unprocessed or minimally processed foods, I think that's pretty self explanatory. But to be specific about it, this would be an ear of corn or frozen corn. Group two are processed culinary ingredients. These are usually made by taking group one foods that I just described, like corn and subjecting them to some degree of industrial processing, such as pressing. So if you press corn, you get corn oil, for example. Salt also falls into this category. Group three are processed foods, these are products that are made by adding ingredients from group two to group one. So this would be canned corn, it would be taking corn, adding salt to it, or brining it, preserving it, that's a processed food. And then group four gets to your question which is ultra processed products. And I do think it's important, we really in the work that we do prefer to use the word ultra processed products as opposed to ultra-processed food, because it is arguable that these are not actually foods. 

And the reason for that is these are edible products that are made from industrially manufactured ingredients that have been extracted from food, processed, and reassembled. So you're literally taking food apart through various manufacturing and industrial processes and reassembling it. So continuing with the corn example, this would be corn chips. And we generally say that ultra processed food cannot be made in a home kitchen. 

These are products that are created in labs and factories, usually wrapped in plastic, almost always high in added sugar, sodium and saturated fat. And they contain ingredients that you wouldn't see in a normal household pantry. And there's a large and growing body of evidence that points to a number of health harms associated with high ultra processed product intake, or UPP for short, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, depression. The evidence is growing daily. 

Matthew  9:44

Quick aside here. While the evidence bears out the health claims specific to category four, it’s worth noting that much of our food is produced, regardless of what category it is in, is produced in factories. This includes category 1 meat and fish, and not just category 4 ultra-processed foods.

Neena  10:01

And so we want people to primarily eat from the first three categories that I described, and limit their consumption of the fourth category or UPPs. And I think practically speaking, if you pick up a product at the grocery store, and it has a bunch of ingredients that you don't recognize, and is also high in salt, sugar and/or fat, it's a pretty good clue that that's a UPP and you probably don't want to eat too much of it. 

So that's kind of the view that we take around processing and what UPPs are. At some point, I would love to just tell you a little bit about how the history of some of these products and how they emerged and who was responsible because I think it's really salient to the discussion that we're having.

Matthew  10:48

Yeah, well, first of all, that was longer than 30 seconds, but it was a wonderfully clear description of ultra-processed foods, which are a very complicated topic. So I appreciate you taking the time to go through that. 

There are so many threads that I want to discuss with you, including the history of processed foods, the scale of it today - the fact that it makes up over 50% of calories consumed in the United States, United Kingdom. There's a number of threads, but I want to continue on this fourth category for a little bit longer. So processing, as you said, is not all bad. It's able to extend the shelf life of products, you can fortify nutrition. There's also arguments that it could reduce the environmental impact of animal source foods like plant based milk alternatives, or plant based meat alternatives. So I want to understand how you sort of parse the quote “goods and bads” of ultra processed foods. A more pointed question is, are we breeding an unhealthy fear of processed foods, when we just say, everything that falls into this last bucket is bad?

Neena  11:57

Yeah, it's a really good question and I'm so glad you asked it. And I would say this is really about looking at the overall profile of your diet, and ensuring it isn't dominated by UPPs. And by that I mean, the really high sugar, salt, fat products that have a bunch of additives that you wouldn't see in your home. That's really what we're talking about here. And if the vast majority of your diet falls within those first three categories I described earlier, no one is saying don’t buy packaged bread or oat milk, not at all, I think the point is really that UPPs should be limited. So, you know, for example, many people buy packaged bread, because making it yourself or buying it at a bakery is just not possible. 

But if with that bread, you are consuming highly processed meats and soda and potato chips regularly, that's the concern. But if with that bread, you're scrambling some eggs and some olive oil and having some avocado and veggies on the side, that's perfectly okay. Because the overall picture of your diet is one that is not dominated by UPPs. So that's really, really what we're getting at here. And as you said, that the reality in countries like the US in the UK, and much of the global north is that the vast majority of our diet is coming from unhealthy, ultra processed products. And with that, we see this very stark, clear association with rising rates of obesity and other diet related diseases like diabetes and heart disease and cancer. So that's really what this is about.

Matthew  13:52

I just want to flag here that there is no official health definition of ultra-processed foods. Even the NOVA Classification categorizes these foods by the extent and purpose of which they are processed. There’s a lot of debate and disagreement among researchers on the utility and the harm of these products, though most agree on the negative health impacts of category four. While we’ve heard the case against ultra-processed foods, some researchers prefer to emphasize the extended shelf-life of these products, the increased palatability - meaning processing these foods are a way to get people to eat foods that they typically wouldn’t, and the potential for fortification - so adding vitamins and minerals into foods especially in regions where nutrient deficiencies are common.

So there's many trends happening in the food system. And I want to highlight two in particular to help set the scene for the next part of our conversation. So one is there are fewer food companies in the world, not just the United States that produce, distribute seeds, farm inputs and food for the whole world. And another is there's a steep rise in the consumption of ultra-processed foods. And I want to zoom in now on Latin American contexts where Bloomberg Food Policy Program does quite a bit of work. So can you set the scene and talk about how these trends are playing out in Latin America?

Neena  15:11

Yeah, absolutely. I think you hit the nail on the head. It's very few corporations that produce and sell the vast majority of UPPs. You know when you have such concentration of food production in the hands of just a few corporations and a few retailers, it's really clear where that power lies. And we are, in fact, seeing a growth of these products in countries around the world, regardless of their level of income. So that includes low income countries as well. 

In other parts of the world, and middle income countries, about 20 to 40% of calories come from the sales of ultra processed products and I would say this change is due to a variety of factors, including a growing middle class with greater disposable income. I think a real appeal and a desirability of these foods. And that really goes back to very sophisticated, assertive, pervasive marketing by a lot of these companies. 

I also think, and this is something we've really got to grapple with is there's a convenience factor here too, and being able to prepare a home cooked meal, not only requires monetary resources, but it requires time, and so it can be convenient to get something that's ready made, or nearly made. And we completely appreciate that. So I think all of these factors are contributing to a worldwide shift towards greater consumption of ultra processed products. And as a result, like in the US and other countries in the north, we are seeing in low and middle income countries, rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and this can really overwhelm already burdened health systems. It can impact people's quality of life, their ability to go to work. So it's really potentially a catastrophe in the making. And our hope is that countries in Latin America are not going to get to the stage where we are in the US, and that's really what this program is about that we support. It's about putting in place policies that reduce the appeal and demand for ultra processed products and help people choose healthier foods, including foods that align with the rich culinary and traditional history in many of the places where we work.

Matthew  17:59

I will jump into next reducing the appeal and demand for ultra processed products and how you're going about doing that. But I just want to linger a little longer on the power aspect. So we've talked about the power of the size and scale of these multinational food corporations, the power of marketing, the power of say, convenience, these are all economic efficiency arguments in a way. Are there any other aspects of power that you want to touch on? 

Neena  18:25

There are many aspects and really, we could probably spend at least an hour talking about power. And there is a really rapidly growing field within public health around the commercial determinants of health. And those are both the positive and negative influences on health as a result of the activity of commercial actors. So there's really a lot to unpack here. I think we've touched on some of the really big and important pieces. The other element that I would add here is these corporations are not at all driven by a concern for public health, but by maximizing their profits. And as their profits grow, so does their influence with policymakers. But we have power too. 

We tend to sort of focus on the power of our opponents. But we have a lot of power, particularly when we come together as broad based coalitions and it was really through a powerful and well organized civil society campaign that was clear eyed about protecting health, that Mexico, for example, became one of the first countries in the world to tax sugary drinks in 2014. And this was in a country where Coca Cola was deeply entrenched. In fact, one of Mexico's presidents had previously been a very senior executive at the Coca Cola Company, and Coca Cola had about 70% of the soft drink market in Mexico. And despite that power and influence and sort of deep embedding of Coca Cola in Mexican society, civil society was able to prevail. And that was because they were strategic. They came together. And there were courageous policymakers that were willing to put public health interests before industry interests. 

One other thing I would just mention about other ways that power dynamics come into play is how corporations from wealthier countries, I mean, often the big multinationals that have so much of the market are based in the Global North. And the reality is many, many of these companies exploit resources from low and middle income countries to produce their products. So an example of that is partners in Mexico and Colombia have documented the practice of water capture by Coca Cola. And this has resulted in water scarcity in both countries in Mexico and Colombia. And in fact, this is the case in other countries in the world. And these practices lead to the displacement of local populations, and they disrupt traditional food systems. And this is a form of extraction and neo-colonialism. So I think that's another type of power that we really need to talk about. And I think it also, it behooves us to join forces with other actors, those in the environmental movement, those in the human rights movement, in the water rights movement, and so on and so forth. We have a lot of shared interests. And when we can kind of define those shared interests and show up for one another, our power grows by multitudes.

Matthew  21:55

So Neena lays out how big multinationals have used ultra-processed foods to exploit resources in low-income countries for profits. And this doesn’t only have a long history, it also follows a particular playbook used by other corporations.

Neena  22:09

So you know, it was in the 1980s, that tobacco companies, the giants, really, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, acquired some of the biggest food companies at the time. So they had acquired Kraft, General Foods, and Nabisco. And there was a study that came out a few months ago in Addiction, the journal Addiction that found that during the decades when these tobacco companies owned these food companies, the foods they sold were far more likely to be ultra processed than similar foods not owned by tobacco companies. And so really, we saw the steepest increase in the prevalence of UPPs between 1988 and 2001, which is the era when Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds owned these food companies. 

So what these tobacco companies did was they literally installed their executives at these food companies. And what they did was they used the same playbook that they had used to market their products and get people hooked on their addictive products and they applied that to food.

How did they do that? They did it through really kind of savvy, well tested, marketing practices.

And then the other really interesting thing was these companies had an extensive library of colors, flavors and additives that they had developed for cigarettes. And these executives realized that they could use these ingredients in processed food. And that's really when we saw just this explosion of ultra processed products on the market. And these were products that were quite literally produced by the tobacco industry. You know, and there's been so much documentation about the harms that the tobacco industry has caused to society. So I do think it's really important for us to know that little bit of history.

Matthew  24:15

So that's a perfect transition to talk about your efforts to tackle the negative public health impacts of ultra processed foods.  So clearly, this is a massive challenge. But as you said, your work will fit in with other actors and the ecosystem of larger efforts. So let's just first start with, what is your work? What are you doing to tackle this?

Neena  24:38

So I would first just start by saying, there is wide acceptance among the public health community that what we eat is not only a matter of individual choice, and in fact, individual choice probably has very little to do with it. But rather, our choices are influenced by our environment. And many of us live in very unhealthy food environments. And this is evidenced by the marketing that we are bombarded with. And, you know, that's traditional marketing, TV if you still watch TV, print, radio. Increasingly though that marketing is moving into digital spaces, and it's very tailored to the individual. We also know that UPPs are really easy to access, you know, often, you have what were previously coined as food deserts, places where you couldn't find healthy food, but you could find a lot of junk food. And you know, that tends to be the case in poor communities, communities of color here in the US. 

And these products are also relatively low cost compared to foods that are healthy and nourish. We've really recognized that we live in this environment that is driving people completely rationally to choose products that are not good for them. So what we're trying to do is use policy to change that food environment, so that healthier choices are the default choice and are the easy choice. And what we do is we support civil society organizations in countries around the world to advocate for healthy food policies. And once these policies are implemented, we support rigorous research to study the impact. 

And the policies that we have prioritized are fiscal policies. So this is taxing sugary drinks and ultra processed products. As I mentioned, Mexico was one of the first countries to adopt a sugary drink tax. Now over 50 countries in the world have taxes on sugary drinks. And in fact, just last month, Colombia became one of the few countries in the world, perhaps the first country in the world, to not only tax sugary drinks, but to tax ultra processed products. And they have framed it that way. This is a tax on ultra processed products, which is really exciting. Other policies that we work on are front of package nutrition labels. And in particular, there's really compelling and growing evidence around the impact of a warning label approach. So Chile was the first country in the world back in 2016, to place octogonal, warning labels on the front of packaged foods that exceed set thresholds for sugar, sodium, saturated fat. And it's a really incredible thing to see. To see a product and Chile has these large stop sign warning labels on them. They're really easy to understand. 

And what they did was they coupled it with two other policy areas, which are also areas that we work on. The first is a marketing restriction. So if a product and Chile carries a warning label, it is subject to pretty comprehensive marketing restrictions. And that includes on the package itself, and it's pretty incredible to see a box of Frosted Flakes or what is called Zucaritas in Chile without Tony the Tiger on it, because that is considered child targeted marketing. 

And they've also coupled this policy with restrictions around what can be sold and served in schools. So, improving the public sector is a very big focus area for us. So in Chile, if a product carries a warning label, it can't be served or sold in schools. It was really effective in kids. Kids understood it immediately and in fact, became some of the best messengers in guiding their own parents on what they could and couldn't buy because they couldn't take certain things into schools. I also want to call out recently the city of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, adopted a bill that prohibits the sale and consumption of UPPs in all schools. And that's a pretty I think remarkable policy that's going to lead to social norm change in a young population, and hopefully, stay with them throughout their lives. So that's sort of an overview of the types of policy work that we support.

Matthew  29:27

So to review, we've got supporting taxes on high sugar, high salt, or even ultra processed foods; marketing restrictions, particularly those aimed at children; public sector interventions, like regulating what is served in schools; and front of package warning labels. Some of these interventions, like front of package labeling, are a bit contested. While evaluations of front-of-package nutrient warning labels in Chile and multiple other countries have demonstrated their efficacy, some other versions of labels, such as the Traffic Light and Health Star rating systems, have been found to be confusing to navigate for consumers. And it takes a lot of resources to figure out the right way to regulate and monitor these products. Neena shares why the Food Policy Program supports front-of-package nutrient warning labels.  

Neena  3:19

I mean, this is a policy where the burden is really on the industry to implement. So of course, governments need to monitor it and enforce it and ensure there is compliance. But the large burden of administering it falls on the industry, which I do think is a beautiful thing. If you've got, you know, limited resources and capacity in a government. There are many approaches to front of package labeling. The way to think about this is, this is really meant to be a tool to inform customers. You're in the grocery store, you make decisions quickly, what is the approach that's going to help you make the best decision in just a few seconds. And in all of the places where we work, where partners are working on front of package labeling, we test in the population various approaches to labeling. And inevitably, the warning label approach comes out on top in country after country in that it helps consumers quickly identify foods that are bad for them, ie UPPs. And an understanding that these are foods they shouldn't be choosing. 

We have since Chile adopted their policy and in 2016 been supporting an evaluation of very rigorous multi dimensional evaluation and we are seeing that the purchase of nutrients of concern, so sugar, sodium, saturated fat, calories have declined significantly. In the first year that Chile implemented their front of package warning label policy, there was a 24% reduction in the purchase of sugary drinks. There's been a recent finding in the last few months around the marketing dimensions. And what we observed was that there was an over 70% decline in children's exposure to regulated foods, ie. foods that carry these warning labels, on TV, which is just a massive impact from a policy. The industry will like to say, well, this, this is going to result in job loss, it's going to hurt the economy. And we've studied that. From the evidence that we have so far, there are no known negative impacts on the retail sector, and on employment. So overall, this is looking to be a very effective policy.

And in fact, countries in Africa, like South Africa, and Ethiopia, and in Asia, India, for example, are seriously considering a similar approach as well, because it is the best studied approach, and it's one that's showing to be very effective. 

The other thing I want to say that's really important is that there's no magic bullet here. We can't just say, okay we're going to put in a tax, or we're going to adopt the front of package labeling, and that's going to solve obesity and chronic diseases. Not at all. I mean, what we really need is the adoption of all four of those policies that I described, and so much more. Our sort of comparative advantage at Bloomberg Philanthropy is in putting in place policies that reduce the demand for unhealthy foods or UPPs. 

But there's also a whole supply side dimension to this like, what products are we subsidizing? What products are governments subsidizing? They're often very heavy subsidies for things like corn and soy, and how are those commodities being used, it's usually not to produce healthy foods, it's often to produce feed for animals. So this is really a big and complex system. And it's really going to require a whole host of actors working right from community level up through global levels on both supply and demand interventions. We are really just one piece of a very large and complex puzzle.

Matthew  34:34

This might be a bit of a tricky question, but why regulate the products rather than the companies that are producing them? Is it just a matter of what's possible?

Neena  34:52

Yeah, such a great question. And I think what you're really getting at here is about the outsized role and influence of corporations in our world, regardless of what they are selling. And so I don't think we can realistically isolate the food and beverage companies from say other corporations that have a lot of influence and cause a lot of harm like the fossil fuel industry, or gun manufacturers, or tobacco companies. And I don't disagree that all of these corporations should be regulated. And there are undoubtedly activists and organizations working on this. But we are public health professionals. And that's really the lens through which we look at this. 

Matthew  35:38

This is why Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Food Policy Program is primarily focused on informing people about the harms of ultra processed products and putting in place policies that make them less desirable and make healthier choices easier. 

Neena  38:51

I think one other thing I would say here is that in all of our work, we feel pretty strongly that industry should not be sitting at the table when it comes to setting health policy. Because their interests are so diametrically opposed to our interests, which is promoting health. Their interest is selling more UPPs and maximizing profit for their shareholders. Our interest is selling fewer UPPs and maximizing health for the public. And so, a great deal of our partners’ advocacy and effort is focused on ensuring the public health policymaking is not muddied by commercial interests.

Matthew  36:29

Do you have any additional reflections on naturalness or power in the food system that you'd like to share that we haven't touched on yet?

Neena  36:36

There's often a lot of talk around reformulation, like, ‘Well, if we take an ultra processed product and we reduce the sugar, we reduce the sodium then isn't that okay?’ And I would say maybe in the shorter term in a place like the US where there is so much UPP consumption that might make sense. But that can't be our end goal. The end goal has to be access to healthy foods, minimally processed foods, time to cook, education around cooking. That's really the aspiration that we have. And I do, just on this topic of reformulation, want to tell you about a really important study that was published a few years ago, this was a study done by Kevin Hall. And it was the first randomized controlled trial to look at a processed diet versus an unprocessed diet. And what he did was he had some healthy adults stay in a facility for four weeks. And for two weeks, half of the group was fed an ultra processed diet. The other half was fed a healthier diet, minimally processed. What's interesting and really important is that these diets, the ultra processed diet, and the less processed diet were matched on the levels of salt, sugar, sodium, fiber, protein. So from a nutrient perspective, they were largely equal, and people could eat as much as they wanted. And after the two weeks, they switched. The ultra processed diet moved to unprocessed and vice versa. What Kevin found was that while on the ultra processed diet, the study subjects were consuming about 500 more calories per day. And they gained about two pounds of weight per week. And they lost that when they went on the minimally processed diet. And so what this really tells us is that there is something intrinsic to ultra processing, that is bad for us. My point is really that this isn't about tweaking sugar and salt and fat. There's something about this category of products that is not good for us. And you know, and I think as tough and as crazy and as idealistic as it may seem, our vision has to be one that gets people to a place where they can access affordable, culturally appropriate, healthy foods that they have the time to prepare and share with their loved ones. That's really our vision. And it may take us a long time to get there. But I really do have a lot of hope that we're going to get there. I know we're going to get there.

Matthew  39:37

Dr Neena Prasad, thank you so much for speaking with us.

Neena   39:39

Thank you so much, Matt. It was really a pleasure. And I really appreciate you taking the time to take a deep dive into UPPs.

Matthew  39:49

A big thanks to Dr Neena Prasad, Director of the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Food Policy Program. We’ll link to all the studies and resources mentioned in our conversation, and you can find out more about their work in our show notes and on our webpage - https://tabledebates.org/podcast

If you’re interested in this topic, you might also enjoy reading TABLE’s explainer on ultra-processed foods. We have a few other pieces of work coming out on UPFs soon, which you can read as soon as they’re published by subscribing to our newsletter Fodder.

And thanks to you for listening - you’ve heard me and every other podcaster say it before, but it’s true - the best way to show your appreciation for our show is by rating and reviewing us on Apple podcast, on Spotify, or wherever you listen. You can tell your friends and colleagues, and also let us know what your favorite episode is! You can always send us a message to podcast@tabledebates.org 

Music in this episode by Blue dot Sessions. This episode was put together by me Matthew Kessler with lots of great feedback from the TABLE team. TABLE is a collaboration between the University of Oxford, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Wageningen University in the Netherlands, and now we have two new partners in our growing team - University of the Andes in Colombia and National Autonomous University of Mexico.

We’re hard at work putting together the ‘Nature’ season of Feed. New episodes will come out in March. Talk to you soon.