Protein, Politics, and Policy: What the New Dietary Guidelines Really Mean for American Farmers and Consumers

Yeager: There's a new way to stay connected and know what's happening with market to market. When you subscribe to Market Insider, one email and a lot of information awaits you. Go to markettomarket.org and subscribe to Market Insider. 

Yeager: A couple of months ago on the Market Insider newsletter, I wrote about a trip I took to Europe. It was a look at the Christmas markets up and down the Rhine River. Also on the trip was Doctor Sean Cash from Tufts University. He was there as the guest lecturer. He lectured twice on the boat, and we also had several conversations because we kind of travel in a little bit of the same lanes. Maybe it's not all corn and beans, but it is about food with Sean. He is the professor in global nutrition. So he talked about some of the regional things there in Germany and in France, and certain economic things, food policy things. Also environmental were part of his discussion. He's also chair in the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment. And he is someone who I found a lot of interest in. And I think you do as well. We're going to cover a whole bunch of things, so forgive us. We're not super focused on many things, but we do cover a lot of things. And I do want to talk about consumer behavior. I want to talk about the Farm Bill. We're going to talk about that new food pyramid that got flipped upside down, heavy on the protein. We'll talk about some other policy things that are going on. And also what his students are interested in and how that relates to his classes. That is today's podcast. I'm Paul Yeager. This is a production of Iowa PBS and the Market to Market TV show. So we're going to go a little global for you. And also some very heavy, hearty things here in the United States. I have to admit, when I first saw the itinerary of our trip and I saw your, institution and your things that you were going to talk about, I got excited. Do people get excited when they see that you. You're going to talk about food, but maybe not the way we think we're going to talk about food.

Sean Cash: I'd like to think that they do. I care a lot about these things as, I know you do as well. So, I hope people will be interested, on some of these trips. Like the trip that you and I met on, when we're going to Europe, there's often a lot of focus. And some of the university hosts are talking about history and things like that. So I'll tell you, a few years ago, I did a trip where we went to, Celtic Lands and a lot of the trip was in Normandy. We were looking at a lot of World War Two history. Every other speaker on the trip, was a historian of some sort. And so after 5 or 6 days of being told wonderful stories about 19 year olds dying on beaches, I came in. I had such an easy time. I was a comic relief like, oh, we're going to talk about food policy. We're going to talk about food and climate. We're going to talk about how foods are named. Yes. As long as there are no teenagers, you know, fighting in wars. And that's great. So it really depends on, you know, sometimes, like the old joke, you don't have to run faster than the other camper. Faster than the bear, just faster than the other camper. So, but I do find that when we talk about these things, people are very engaged.

Yeager: And where you where in Europe, maybe not necessarily. All the food production of Europe is centered, but Germany and France also, I mean, those and I as I told you, those are areas that we watch. And the farmers that are like, behind me here, they're watching their, how does it impact you to go every once in a while and just kind of recalibrate and just see what and get a pulse on what's happening?

Cash: Yeah. Well, certainly the food culture is wonderful. I think that's a lot of the reason why our travelers want to go on trips like that. You and I were long going along the Rhine River and stopping at holiday markets and having Gluhwein and tasting local cheeses and and meats and, so, you know, and two of the things I was talking about was how people there name the foods and how they really keep that tied to a local area of production to try to maintain that heritage. And then also as some of the, conditions under which food is being produced, and sometimes processed are changing and sometimes becoming more challenging for the historical production. They are. What does that mean? If you historically attach a certain type of grape to a certain section of a river and a certain part of the valley, and the best place to grow those grapes is moving 30 miles down the road, right? So I think those are some of the challenges. But, you know, I also think we have a lot to learn. And I think as we've we've seen more and more effort here with, agricultural and food marketing approaches in different states and regions to try to build up more of that idea of really connecting food to place in ways that will help producers and resonate with, consumers and increase our joy in food.

Yeager:  We just happened to have a discussion last night at dinner. Amy and our youngest were at home, and something about, champagne popped up in the conversation, and I said, I learned a lot more about that from Sean, about that. It says in a certain region, you you also lectured about the climate changes and shifts and, and product. And I think that's maybe where some of our fellow travelers may have gotten tired of you and I, going back and forth on that just a little bit, I, I had to stop and read the room. You were talking, and I still found, and told that story about how things are shifting, whether it's cotton moving north or corn moving north or certain things moving south.When did you start getting interested in that topic?

Cash: I've been interested in it for a while. Certainly. When we think about food production and climate, everyone here is a lot about how food production might impact climate. You know, and there's a lot of discussion around that. And then the other side of it, which was more of a focus of what you and I were talking about previously, is on how climate impacts food production. And those yield impacts that you mentioned. Those are important. We've seen, parts of the United States in North America, see yield increases on average, except when there's an early flood impacting corn, right after you planted in those and those roots just can't, you know, having established themselves and can hold up, right. And then other years where we see increased yields, including where you're sitting, and then we see other places where those yields have gone down, where things on average just seem to be getting tougher from year to year for, farmers. And then, you know, so you can either change your approach or change your cropping or both. The other thing that gets lots of attention, and this is part of what I was chatting about on that trip, is it's not just that changes in long term weather patterns impact how much we grow. It also impacts the quality of what we grow. And that's that can show up in the taste of the food we eat and the beverages we drink, those grapes that we like in wine or the things that influence coffee and tea. And the flavors. And that's what drives consumers to those products. Right. As well as the nutritional quality of some of what we, consume.

Yeager: You are based at Tufts University, which is in Boston, Massachusetts. Do I have that right?

Cash: That is correct. So I have these,

Yeager: More of the quiz of what Tufts is. Explain it to me.

Cash: Yeah. So I have the joy of being an agricultural and food economist at a school of nutrition. Tufts University is very much located, in an urban setting. My health sciences campus is in downtown Boston, the main campus where undergraduates and some of our other professional programs are, is just a few miles away in a suburb called Medford. But we've got a long tradition of connecting with agriculture, food, nutrition and veterinary medicine. We have a vet school located about 30 miles outside of Boston as well. My home base is the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. We're the only standalone school of nutrition in the United States. And within that school, I chair the Division of Agri Food and Environment, which is where our students who are interested in food production and how food production systems connect ultimately to nutrition outcomes. That's where they come to study.

Yeager: And your classes. I just immediately when I saw your bio and I looked at, what you teach, what the others teach you, and I asked you about the department. It's just fascinating to me. Let's go back to the only thing, or the only school that teaches nutrition like you do. How is that that, that allows you to be the only game in town?

Cash: Yeah. Well, so there are other programs in nutrition, but they tend to live, either as a nutrition department, in and out in life sciences college or nutrition department in a school of public health or school of medicine. So we are a standalone school, which lets us put the nutrition first and think about that in the larger context of everything, how we either nourish our bodies or get enough food to meet our basic energy needs. And so we have a slightly different focus. A lot of our my colleagues are grounded in the health sciences. Several of us are grounded more in, agricultural economics or policy. And, it attracts wonderful students. And it just, I, it gives us a different starting point for consideration than in the past, when I sat in an AG school or, or if I were sitting in, School of Public Health.

Yeager: Well, that's what I was going to ask, or where I wanted to go. So if you were to land Grant institution, we'll just say Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Cal Davis, that approach is different with nutrition. Is it question mark? Is it different?

Cash: I'd like to think that at the end of the day, you know, science is a common language. We're all looking at the same evidence. We might have different interpretations, but I do think there are a few different starting points. You know, many of my colleagues are focused on the health science funders first. And, I'm focused more on USDA as a federal thunder, thinking more about food production systems. You know, and and it also means that different people are connecting with us. That might be the case in other places. So we have a very strong program in food security, a long history of looking at domestic food security issues. One of my colleagues is really one of the experts in how we measure that and how we consider that, we have long standing programs in food assistance in disaster situations overseas. The Feinstein International Center has really focused on that, because when things are going wrong, when there are wars and famines, you know, getting food assistance in or how people are dealing with, hunger, those become priority flash points right away. So those are some of the areas that I think we're very, proud of, our history. And, and then also we have, USDA Human Nutrition Research Center co-located with us. And so, most of the researchers there have faculty appointments at Tufts as well. So that's a nice place where we see, the federal research priorities coming together, and supporting the things that our students and faculty do.

Yeager: Is there anything going on in food policy these days of interest? What would be the top two things that, garner the attention of of faculty and and knowing that and I guess I want you to answer it this way, knowing that, academic calendars and studies take time to ramp up or you just don't turn it on and say, we're going to now go in this direction like someone would and say, I, I'm hard to say. The government sometimes has to pivot quickly because it's the desire and wish of those elected.

Cash: You're absolutely right. The speed of academia is not always blinding. You know, we do tend to take our time doing our studies. And, you know, part of that is about how we, find the resources to conduct the work we do. And part of that is about our mission and training. You know, we're not going to tell a doctoral student work on a dissertation, throw that all out. Here's something else that's cooler. So sometimes we, are a little slow to respond, but other times we can jump on things. And certainly we are all keenly observing some of the changes and the measurements going on. I think the big one, is that we've seen, a new dietary guidelines released in the last few months. They were somewhat overdue. The process is meant to be an updating of those dietary guidelines for Americans every five years. Typically those are larger documents are usually communicated out formally in 150 pages or more. This, current round is a ten page document, right? So there are a lot of changes there. There were some changes in the process of how we got to the Dietary guidelines, as well as changes in the content of what those dietary guidelines entail. I don't know where you'd like to start.

Yeager: Well, again, six hours. Well, we'll get it at least started, as we cover. So let's start with the ten page document. The big thing was protein. That was something that, in fact, I've been doing something, on the show recently about GLP one and the demand for protein when it comes to chicken and beef and pork and, and how we're going to have this huge demand and need for those three as people are losing weight and they're replacing bad foods with good foods in its protein, the dietary guidelines put that protein at the front and center, but it leaves some other things off to the side. I guess my question is it's five years, how how binding is something that comes in this form.

Cash: So what do the dietary guidelines mean for better or worse people? Don't you know, most individuals are not sitting there on the edge of their seat waiting for the new dietary guidelines to come out and saying, okay, every five years I'm going to change my whole diet. We are creatures of habit. We're driven by cost, convenience and taste. And that doesn't change just because the government comes out with new guidelines or updates or guidelines. So in that sense, if you don't like the new guidelines, the good news is most people don't pay a lot of attention. And if you like the new guidelines, the bad news is most people don't pay a lot of attention. It does make some difference around the edges in that often, especially when you have new guidelines and they're getting a lot of press. And this year we've seen perhaps even more press because of some of these changes being a little more dramatic. That, it might reinforce what people already want to do. Where the dietary guidelines have more teeth is actually in informing other policy. So the Dietary guidelines form the basis for the formulas that are used to determine, other food programs, funding levels, particularly Snap benefit levels. So that has to come from a formula about, well, how would a thrifty consumer meet the dietary guidelines. So that's one big area. Other food provision programs are also based on the dietary guidelines. Are there implications for how school meal, targets are formulated etc. with the new dietary guidelines? So those are some of the larger areas and also how we measure a healthy diet. What we've been using both government agencies and the broader research community have used something called the Healthy Eating Index. For, quite a while now. And it's based roughly on how well you're adhering to the dietary guidelines. So when you see a dramatic shift like this controversial in many areas, I think you'll see a lot of people in the research community stepping away from basing adherence to the current guidelines, making that their main measure of a good quality diet and perhaps sticking with previous measures of this healthy eating index. You know, that's one for the researchers.

Yeager: Because there's no penalty for not adhering to this because, like you said, the very first work guidelines, it's not there. It's not a law change will get into the law change possible in the food, farm bill, food, food bill. You I see I did it right there. I just want to tie back again to our initial, reference. Are there other countries that do this type of, food policy with that, they lay out? Let's just go back to Europe for a minute.

Cash: Yeah. A lot of countries do have food based dietary guidelines. That that is a common approach and in many ways inspired by what, many countries were inspired by how we've been doing this in the US because we've been doing it for a while. So they have different names in Canada. They call it Canada's Food Guide. You know, and, you know, but to give this advice to the public as well as in many places to inform the formulation of other policies, we've seen differences in how this plays out. There are different priorities, obviously, things that are culturally relevant or relevant to the foods that are more available in different places. We wouldn't expect to see every country's guidelines look the same. Some countries now, for the last 15 years or more, have very explicitly included sustainability and production constraints in their dietary guidelines that has been, some people have argued vociferously for that in the United States as well. Doesn't matter who's in charge in Washington that has not really had traction in the last few rounds of this. So, you know, but some countries, like Brazil, very explicitly say no. Our guidelines reflect what is environmentally sustainable as well as what we are recommending for human nutrition.

Yeager: And see everything here. And I think I did tell you this, in December, American farmers perk up when they hear Brazil. They want to know a lot of things about anything that's going on in Brazil, because they just think they're bulldozing every part of the Amazon and putting beans and corn, and they're having their two crops. But when they know that there's environmental issues facing those farmers as well, that is something that they can tie in and maybe help make some of their own decisions. So that's the only reason I asked. Sorry about the curveball. Tell me all about the Globe Food Global Food policy and 30s ago.

Cash:  Well know you are right there. And there are constraints on Brazilian farmers, and Brazilian farmers have the things that they grumble about. You know, now the enforcement isn't always perfect. You know, there has been a lot of deforestation of the Amazon, but it's still you know, it's a sizable chunk. It's a huge amount of land, but it's also a small fraction of the total forest land area there. Right. And, you know, so there and there, the local debates and political changes change the level of enforcement and the guidelines there. And Brazilians have seen that, and, you know, happened so quickly and, you know, and dramatically that, you know, it's hard to keep up with changes there, but it is relevant, you know, and same thing, our trading partners and competitors in Europe, same thing. They've got, there's a common agricultural policy there that puts a lot of constraints and opportunities. And I think you see just the same thing there. Farmers will grumble about the things they don't like. And farmers there are very good about taking advantage of new incentives and, and, and trying to incorporate that into their practices. So I think that type of responsiveness, to both the constraints, the sticks and the carrots is a universal thing in food.

Yeager: I'm laughing because I'm thinking about the farmers behind me, where I grew up. They're not the only ones that grumble. Okay. They grumble all over the world. Okay, I don't know. Let's go back. Domestically, food and farm bill. Since we last talked, there's been a markup of this through the house. It's moving forward. You and I both know it really should have a different name. It should be food. Not necessarily farm the way the policy is. However, there has been changes in the way that that is approaching, our government right now, and at least how they're looking at we are delayed on having a new farm. Bill, what have been the highlights of or. I'm sorry, what are the prospects of us being able to have what we had with new updated numbers and policies? Or are those days over and we're splitting. We're going to have a farm bill and a food bill.

Cash: From Bill or nothing new, as you and many of your listeners, know. Right. So we often, fall behind with one year, renewals and a lot of things being kicked down the road. But I think things are different this year. I'm not claiming my crystal ball is better than anyone else is, but I do not have high hopes for a farm bill passing this year. Certainly not a multi-year farm bill. And, big reason for that is that a lot of, a lot of the things that people care about and that have been part of the historical coalitions and compromises that have gotten farm bills passed, have been taken off the table because of the one big Beautiful Bill act last year.  What do I mean by that? We've see it. We saw about $60 billion worth of direct payment programs go into place as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill act, largely in response to changing trade conditions. And then we also saw, what amounts to a very large cut to snap, about 186 billion is what most people, estimate that as being, worth. And part of that is in fraud prevention, new cost sharing mechanisms with the states, part of which is tied to, error rates and fraud prevention rates, as well as some other changes. Well, why why do I mention that when I'm talking about why I'm not very optimistic about a farm bill passing this year, it's because historically we've seen coalitions, you know, red blue coalitions, urban rural coalitions where the need to fund and support food security programs would have a lot of support, particularly in urban areas. And, the log rolling there was with, a lot of the things that people in rural areas care about, the types of programs to support farmers or at least set the rules of the road for farmers. So that's how we would see these bills passed both sides of the aisle. And, with support from folks at historically, you know, otherwise their districts would not have a lot of interest in some parts of the Farm Bill. So taking, such a huge amount of both the direct payment, equation as well as the food support equation off the table, it just really lowers the stakes, and the incentives for people to come together and compromise in a huge way. Not to get political, but we've also seen with the save, America proposal, President Trump has said that he doesn't want to sign anything until he has, you know, a near complete version of Save America in front of him. I don't know if he'll stick to that, but you could imagine that lowers the incentive to try to find compromises. If you're not even sure that something would get, you know, would get vetoed later or signed in. So, none of these things look like it's going to make it easier for a farm bill to pass. And it's never been easy to get a farm bill to pass.

Yeager: If you were to have two bills, is the one that gets passed the food bill before the farm bill.

Cash:  In this Congress, I don't know that either one would pass it.

Yeager: I think so either I just you you're in a different part of the country. You're in a different, same, different line of work. And I know what the majority of our viewers are going to say is they think that a farm thing would pass before a food thing. But I also know the make up financially of what that bill has been in the past, what you just talked about various things. That's why I hedge my answer that way.

Cash: And the structure of the Senate has had historically and will continue to have so much to do with how farm bills look. Right. So on the one hand, two senators per state that has always meant that that's always been a boost for the prospects of farm interests and things like the farm bill. Right. It's it's made it that much easier. But we also have the filibuster rule. Neither party wants to get rid of it. No matter how much the people in charge say, now's the time to get rid of the filibuster rule. And so that always gives essentially veto power to the minority party. So right now that's the Democrats. And it's going to be really hard to I have a hard time seeing how you overcome that with, either, an omnibus bill or trying to separate it into two still very large bills, unless you are putting some of the 186 billion in, food security payments back on the table, which there does not seem to be an appetite to support, from the administration, certainly.

Yeager: Which is hard, then, when it becomes to put all of this together, when you're trying to put all of these chickens in one house and move it down the road, it's next to impossible. You're one of your classes that you're teaching. This semester is, basically the economics of food. Is that how do you summarize it best?

Cash: We have a few a few courses at the Friedman School in that area. So I have a colleague who teaches kind of, introduction to economics for food and, nutrition and agricultural policy. I teach an environmental economics of food and agriculture class. So that's where we do a deeper dive on some of the environmental regulations, how we think about, environmental impacts of food production as well as environmental impacts on food production. And really, we're trying to train folks, not all to become economists. Certainly. Nobody needs a world full of economists. But rather, to just give people frameworks for considering these things. And a big part of what I try to do in that class is to give people a broader perspective. A lot of our students come in with a high level of passion for something I'm really passionate about making sure everyone has enough food to eat. I'm really passionate about making sure that American farmers are have a path forward. I'm really passionate about the quality of what? Of our diets. Great. Those passions are wonderful. But if your passions are not the same as somebody else's passions, what we need to do is come together, and really think about what's right, not based on what you prioritize, but all these good, well intentioned interests that we all care about on some level. So how do we think about that? And frameworks a lot of economics is about the should, the ought, what should we do, what ought to do. And a lot of politics is about, well, what happens.

Yeager: Well, okay. So and the reason I ask is exactly what it is you're teaching. And I kind of joked earlier about academics move slow when you hand that syllabus out in January, you don't know what's going to come up. But what current topics have been folded into the pre set up discussion with today's happenings.

Cash: Right. So I mean we'll always look at certain regulations or changes like that. One thing I actually do in my teaching is I let the students drive a lot of it. So after the first two weeks, I basically tell each student, you are going to be randomly picked. They get advance notice. It's not, you know, you're going to be randomly picked, and you're going to teach the first ten minutes of class and you're going to tell me something you care about and relate it to some concept that we've introduced in class. So, you know, we talk about externality as, you know, academic economic framework for thinking about when good or bad things happen that aren't the thing that I'm focusing on. So, you know, if what I'm doing, as a farmer, is causing problems for my neighbors water quality. Well, that's a negative externality for what I'm doing as a farmer is helping out, habitat for local species. Well, that's a positive externality, right? So we teach a concept like that, and then I tell those students, you tell me something you care about that's current and related to these concepts, and they're put on the spot and they do that. And so they've brought in all sorts of things. A lot of them are very much exactly the types of things you and I have been chatting about the last 15, 20 minutes. Sometimes somebody will come in and say, well, you know, I was a big fan of the jackass movies and let me apply environmental economics to that.

Yeager: I got those, how are you going to tie that together? But yeah.

Cash: I let them do whatever they want. You know, but usually they're bringing it to, food production and consumption.

Yeager: Well, that's what I was going to ask. What have been a couple other topics here, in that they have said.

Cash: Right. So, one thing, a lot of food marketing topics often come in because we do spend some time talking about, consumer behavior and, and economic aspects of that. So, how, so some people very much care about, what I call political consumerism, this idea that there are certain certifications out there that growers and producers can put on their products, that then help consumers who care about certain topics, help them connect with those products. Right. So the National Organic Program, organic certification, that's an example of a very large certification scheme with all the details laid out in law. A lot of these things were, you know, are set up by private concerns, NGOs, sometimes different retailers have their own certifications. So my students care a lot about some of those. Right. So okay, what does a regenerative, agricultural certification mean? What does, the proliferation of non-GMO certified labels on products where there are no approved GMO ingredients that even exist, you know, so what does it mean? What does it mean to see gluten free certified orange juice? You know, is is just posturing on the part of food manufacturers often? Yes. Is there something that you're really communicating to consumers? Do consumers see this as a warm glow? So those connections, certifications and other things that really connect the production side and manufacturing side to consumer interest, that's a perennial favorite topic.

Yeager: And that's a great topic. I mean, that's a lot of stuff, that's happening that the common, consumer is having to sort and make sense of. Well, what do you mean, gluten free orange juice? Of course. It's, you know, but I mean, that's what companies have done. One of the greatest things that the America that the United States has given the world is marketing and advertising. Yeah, absolutely. The current dietary guidelines, and the changes there, that's been something that's attracted some attention from my students as well. I don't know if you wanted to come back to some of that because we didn't get to go into some of the details of the recommendations. You know, I kind of discounted the recommendations, but.

Yeager: Well, and you did, and, and I joke about, ours, I'm afraid. Sean, you're going to book yourself a regular appearance with me. It's not just a one time. Okay. Yeah, let's let's put it up. Let's go back to dietary guidelines for just a minute to to finish up, their guidelines. Like we said, you don't have to follow. But give me. Let's be positive. Give me something good that came out of those and then give me some of the eyebrows. I, brow raising.

Cash: Yeah, I, you know, I think, what, something good that's come out of this is an explicit focus on ultra processed foods. You know, and so to see, recommendations on limiting consumption of ultra processed foods, you know, that's useful. A lot of the folks in the nutrition science community are genuinely excited about that. It's still a little bit vague, because we actually don't have great definitions that everyone agrees on. On what an ultra processed food is. I think we have a sense that we understand it. I think most people would put a Twinkie in that box, for example. But there are other things where maybe it's not so obvious or where your interpretation or gut is different from my interpretation or gut. One thing that I think has been challenging to the, folks on the nutrition research community is that, even though there's a general consensus that we'd be better off eating fewer ultra processed foods, the not all the mechanisms for that are well understood. The epidemiological studies, kind of, there still are some things that need to be disentangled that are very important. So we don't see the full scientific basis for those recommendations, even if people are cautiously optimistic about it. You know, in the, there's also still guidelines on things like alcohol consumption, but they've gotten very vague. So it went from specific things about two drinks per day for men, one drink per day for women to just limit and consume less. Sounds good and common sense, but what does that really mean? Whatever you're drinking, consume less. Somebody else who is drinking less, they should consume even less. Still, if you're drinking a lot, just try to drink less. Right. So these vague guidelines, I don't think, give good, benchmarks for people who do want to pay attention to it. And it's not clear what that means for policy elsewhere.

Yeager: It could be could be one of the ways to tie it down from lots of pages to ten.

Cash: Yeah. And that is part of it. There is less part of the process of getting there. There's a scientific review process that is in place, and it was largely ignored in the formulation of these final guidelines. You know, so, so basically there's a, systematic review of what is the newest evidence and updating that based, in comparing that to previous evidence that happens as part of this dietary guideline process every five years in this year that was not relied on for the formulation of the final guidelines. You mentioned protein earlier, basically, you know, a very large increase, roughly 60% increase, the guidance for how much protein to consume. That one's a puzzler to me. And I think to a lot of people, because on average, Americans already eat more protein than the previous guidelines were recommending. Very few people have protein shortages in the United States. So regardless of both, you know, regardless of both evidence and, trends, pointing towards benefits of, protein consumption, the need for an increase is not clear. You know, so again, people are already exceeding the guidelines. So now we've changed the guidelines. I think people will hear that and say, well, I should eat more. And some of that can be very useful and some of that can be downright harmful. There are issues in how we metabolize proteins that there, you know, it's certainly not true to say there's no such thing as too much protein in the diet. That is not, that that's not, helpful. Mind frame. And then also around the quality of the protein. And here's where there's some real inconsistencies in the dietary guidelines between what's written in the guidelines and the messaging. We heard Robert F Kennedy talk about the war on saturated fats is over, but the saturated fat guidelines to be less than 10% of caloric intake are exactly the same as the previous. So I don't know how to reconcile that change in messaging with the guidelines being exactly the same as they were in the previous round. So, I think this is why some observers have said that this was more of a political than a scientifically based, round of the Dietary guidelines. And in reality, there's always plenty of politics and plenty of science going into both. The balance feels a little bit different here.

Yeager: Those are all good points. And we could go on, because the very first thing I want to write, just follow up on is the definition of processed food. Excuse me? Ultra processed. I mean, sausage is one of the things that the pork industry is jumping up and down about that that needs to be considered a non processed or non ultra processed food, but by definition it's totally processed and but but it's what are they processing back to, they're not making a Twinkie. They're making a sausage link. Yeah.

Cash: And that's one of the things. So the the the research that most of the research we've seen over the last decade around relating higher consumption of ultra processed foods to incidence of stroke or incidence of heart attacks, or, you know, or any other health outcome has relied on a classification system called Nova. And this was a classification system developed by Brazilian researchers. And it the appeal is you can, without too much trouble classify most things. But you mentioned sausage. This is one of these things that's not really captured in the Nova classification, which is, it hits level of processing without talking about level of processing compared to what? So what you get at is the idea of a lot of people would like to see processing classifications that look more within category, that the Twinkie is a highly processed cake or, you know, but are there other things that would be less processed that I would think of as being fresher, or having more of a clean label or simpler ingredients? Things like that, where I might care a lot about the amount of preservatives in there and other aspects, whereas other things where some processing has to occur. So it's by definition everything in that category ultra processed. Then how do I distinguish between the ultra processed sausage and the even more ultra processed sausage? These are debates that happen all the time, that comparison within categories, the comparison across categories. And at the end of the day, what we often capture when we look at these epidemiological studies that are based on this nova classification is the fact that, well, a lot of the unprocessed foods are healthy foods that we've always known are healthy foods for other reasons. So telling me that if I eat a lot of blueberries instead of a lot of Twinkies, I'm probably going to have better health outcomes is not really. What we care about is what we're really talking about is processing level. And when you look at an ingredient list that also doesn't tell you much about the processing level, necessarily, a longer ingredient list implies more processing. But what about the amount of processing within a single ingredient? There are vast differences there, and we still don't really understand how much it is the processing versus the ingredients. Based on the classifications we've been using.

Yeager: I wish I had a big book around here, because I would use it for, a definition right now because that's what the the complexities of these things is, is what gets lost. Sometimes people think they need to have it simpler, but this is a lifetime of work for many people who are trying to categorize these certain things no different than they are on trade to understand that this is taxed on this, and this tariff is different. And here and it's all of these, you know, add two words and it changes the complete meaning.

Cash: Of is everything.

Yeager: Oh man. Yeah.

Cash: Well regulations and policies need bright lines which need you to define everything. And once you get into the nitty gritty of defining everything and drawing those bright lines, it's we sometimes lose track of the intent. Right. And right, because they're different exercises.

Yeager: Because you can't make a political campaign on something so complicated. You need that line to say that Sean Cash is tough on whatever or is strong is weak on something. That's what you need. And that's what unfortunate.

Cash: And not coming in. It's. Yeah. And not saying well, the cutoff for saturated fat should be this percentage of total calories or, you know, limits here should be X parts per million. That's not a good campaign slogan. You know, 15 parts per million or bust.

Yeager: Put that on your bumper sticker as you leave it. Okay. Sean, I appreciate it. We could seriously. And we are going to have to because I'm always fascinated with, you know, every time we have a conversation. Lastly, this is the last thing, when you go to Europe, are you is there a food or a beverage that you need to have to make that trip complete?

Cash: Yeah. I'd say one of each. I've got, when we're at the on the Rhine River, like you and I were together a few months ago, I've got to have some Kolsch. And, the closer to, having it, within that 30 kilometer radius of the Cologne Cathedral that allows you to call it a Kolsch. For anyone who doesn't know a Kolsch's, a type of a beer, it's actually an ale, but it looks like a lager beer. And there's a great history behind that that spans, centuries and centuries. And then the other one, which I'll probably, lose a lot of your, audience, but pickled herring. I've got to have some pickled herring on every visit. Okay. Yeah. Pickled herring coated in onions. Give it to me.

Yeager: Oh, man. Oh. You're indigestion. That makes me. Do you get indigestion? Just, putting those two together, so. All right, Sean, thank you so very much for the time, I appreciate it.

Cash: Thank you so much, Paul. Really enjoyed this.

Yeager: If you have any feedback, send it to me at Paul.Yeager@IowaPBS.org. Our production supervisor is Sean Ingrassia. His team is Reid Denker, Kevin Rivers, Neal Kyer, Julie Knutson, and David Feingold. The executive producer of Market to Market is David Miller. I'm Paul Yeager. We'll see you next time.