Key takeaways

• Same plant, different story: how a potato is cooked and what goes on it changes how filling it is.
• In a classic satiety study, potato chips scored slightly below white bread, and boiled potatoes scored more than three times higher.
• Large studies link chips and fries to more weight gain over time than potatoes in general, but they can’t prove cause.

Same plant, different rap sheet. One is a side dish with the skin on. The other is a bag you finished during a TV show. Baked potato vs potato chips sounds like a trick question, but the research gives a fairly clear answer, with a few catches.

I went to the studies so you don’t have to. Some of what I found helps the potato. Some of it doesn’t. You get both.

Where I’m Coming From

I’m not here to put a food on the “bad” list and send you off in shame. I’ve spent more than five years teaching health classes in community churches, and I know the potato is affordable, familiar, and a fixture at many family tables. Telling people to “just avoid potatoes” is not a plan. Knowing what changes a potato is a plan.

In some cultures, the Potato is the meal’s staple, as rice is in others. Boiled, baked, mashed, or fried, for some families that’s the glue that holds the whole meal together. What’s a cookout without potato salad, or mashed potatoes and gravy, at a family gathering? Good, better, best- that is the test. Explanation and instruction can temper a well-meaning discussion about this dietary staple. Showing the benefits of a whole food over a bag of chips is worth the conversation. 

The Lineup: Baked Potato vs Potato Chips

A baked potato is a whole vegetable, cooked with heat, usually eaten with the skin on. Potato chips are potatoes that have been sliced thin, fried in oil, seasoned, and bagged. Under the NOVA system, which sorts foods by how much industrial processing they go through, chips typically sit in the ultra-processed group, while a plain baked potato does not. (New to that term? Read What Is Ultra-Processed Food?)

That difference isn’t just a label. It changes the texture, how fast you can eat it, and how much of it fits in your hand.

Which One Keeps You Full? The Satiety Evidence

In 1995, researchers at the University of Sydney fed volunteers 240-calorie portions of 38 different foods and measured how full they felt over the next two hours. White bread was the reference food, set at 100%. Boiled potatoes scored 323%, the highest of any food tested. Potato crisps (what Americans call chips) scored 91%, a little below white bread. French fries scored 116% (Holt et al., European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995).

In the baked potato vs potato chips matchup, that’s a point for the potato. Two honest notes. First, that study tested boiled potatoes, not baked, so I can’t tell you a baked potato scored 323%. Second, it’s a 30-year-old study with a short follow-up. What it does show is that the same plant can sit at the top of the fullness chart or near the bottom, depending on how it’s prepared.

That matches what many of us have felt: you can finish a bag of chips and still feel like something is missing. It’s hard to say that about a plain potato.

What About Blood Sugar? The Glycemic Index Problem

Here’s where the potato’s defense gets weaker. The glycemic index (GI) ranks foods by how much they raise blood sugar compared with a reference food. In a study by Fernandes, Velangi and Wolever, a baked U.S. Russet potato had a GI of 77. Boiled red potatoes came in at 89, and instant mashed potatoes at 88. The authors described U.S. Russet potatoes as having “only a moderately high glycemic index” (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005).

The same study found something useful: boiled red potatoes that were cooked ahead and eaten cold had a GI of 56. Precooking and then eating cold or reheated potatoes lowered the blood sugar response in the study. If you live with diabetes or prediabetes, this is a conversation for your doctor or a registered dietitian, since a single food’s GI doesn’t tell the whole story of a meal.

What About Weight Over Time?

Now for the long view. A well-known study in the New England Journal of Medicine followed 120,877 U.S. health professionals for 4-year periods and looked at how changes in food choices related to weight changes. For each extra daily serving, potato chips were linked to about 1.69 pounds of additional weight gain over four years, French fries to about 3.35 pounds, and potatoes (boiled, baked, or mashed) to about 1.28 pounds (Mozaffarian et al., NEJM, June 2011).

Notice what that says: potatoes weren’t off the hook. But French fries and chips were linked to more weight gain than potatoes cooked other ways. This was observational research, so it can’t prove that the food caused the weight gain. People who eat a lot of chips may differ in other ways, too. The honest summary is a pattern, not a proof.

The Toppings Problem

This is where baked potatoes often lose the baked potato vs potato chips fight, and it has nothing to do with the potato. A plain baked potato and a loaded baked potato are two different foods. Heaps of butter, sour cream, cheese, and bacon change the story.

Same detective logic applies to chips. Flavored varieties add seasonings and sometimes colors, which is a separate conversation (see Artificial Food Dyes and Kids). And the back-of-bag label tells you the serving size, which is usually smaller than the bag. If you need a refresher, the 60-second label guide will get you there.

And one more thing, because this isn’t just about willpower. What’s sold in your neighborhood, how much time you have, and what your budget allows all shape which potato ends up on the plate. That’s structural. (Read more in Food Deserts and Health Disparities.)

So What Now? Your Do-This-Week Steps

The baked potato vs potato chips question has a practical answer: it depends on the cooking and the toppings.

• Keep the skin on. A baked potato with the skin is a whole food with fiber, and it’s simple to make.
• Top it smart. Try plain yogurt, salsa, beans, or steamed vegetables in place of piles of butter and cheese.
• Try cook-ahead. If blood sugar is a concern for you, ask your doctor about cooling and reheating potatoes, since that lowered the glycemic response in one study.
• Portion the chips. If chips are your thing, put a serving in a bowl instead of eating from the bag.

Frequently Asked Questions

Baked potato vs potato chips: which is healthier?

A plain baked potato is a whole food and, in satiety research, potatoes scored far higher for fullness than chips. But toppings, portion size, and your own health needs matter. A loaded potato can look very different from a plain one.

What is the glycemic index of a baked potato?

In a 2005 study, a baked U.S. Russet potato had a glycemic index of 77, which the authors described as moderately high. Boiled red potatoes cooked ahead and eaten cold scored 56.

Do potato chips make you gain weight?

A large study of more than 120,000 people linked each extra daily serving of potato chips to about 1.69 pounds of weight gain over four years. Because it was observational, it shows a pattern, not proof of cause.

Which food is more filling, potatoes or chips?

In a 1995 satiety study, boiled potatoes scored 323% against white bread at 100%, while potato crisps scored 91%. That study tested boiled potatoes, not baked.

Are french fries worse than baked potatoes?

In the NEJM study, each daily serving of French fries was linked to about 3.35 pounds of weight gain over four years, versus about 1.28 pounds for potatoes cooked other ways. This was an observational finding and cannot prove cause.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice. I’m an educator and health coach, not a physician. Your doctor or a registered dietitian knows your numbers, your history, and your body. Talk to them before making changes based on anything you read here. The choice is yours.

I’m just sayin’.

Sources and Further Reading

• Holt SH, Miller JC, Petocz P, Farmakalidis E. “A satiety index of common foods.” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995.
• Fernandes G, Velangi A, Wolever TMS. “Glycemic index of potatoes commonly consumed in North America.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
• Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. “Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men.” New England Journal of Medicine, June 2011.

Want the Whole Case File?

Food: The Final Frontier goes deeper on exactly this: what’s really in our food, how it connects to the chronic disease numbers we keep watching climb, and what you can do about it, in plain English. Get it at foodthefinalfrontier.com or on Amazon.

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson is a certified health coach, educator, and the author of Food: The Final Frontier. She has taught more than 3,000 allied health students, led community health classes in churches for more than five years, and hosts the Health News & Views podcast, with more than 140 episodes. She is not a physician. She reads the research, explains it plainly, and sends you back to your own doctor for the personal call. Her mission is clear, trustworthy health information for the communities that mainstream sources too often overlook.

The post Baked Potato vs Potato Chips: Same Plant, Different Story appeared first on Health News & Views.

Key takeaways

• Red No. 3 is being revoked because of cancer in lab rats, not because of behavior research.
• The behavior question is separate. Some children appear more sensitive to dyes than others.
• Federal dye phase-outs announced in 2025 are largely voluntary, so the label is still your best tool.

Your child’s cereal is a shade of red that doesn’t exist in nature. Is that a problem, or just a color? The honest answer on artificial food dyes and kids is that scientists, regulators, and pediatricians don’t fully agree, so let’s lay out what each side actually says.

I’ll give you the findings, the limits, and what’s still unsettled, so you can make the call for your own family.

Where I’m Coming From

I’ve spent more than five years leading health classes in community churches, and I know families want something they can use, not something that scares them. I take that seriously. I’m also an educator, not a physician, so what follows reflects the research, not medical advice for your child.

Have you ever dropped a child off to a birthday party? That excited, engaged child may not be the one you pick up. The child returning home with you may be completely different. If your child has food color & sugar sensitivity, prepare for the ride home. You may experience screaming, crying, combative, and uncontrollable behavior that wasn’t present before. 

Two Different Questions About Artificial Food Dyes and Kids

When people talk about artificial food dyes and kids, two separate stories get tangled together. One is about cancer risk: that is why the FDA moved against Red No. 3. The other is about behavior and attention: that is where the parent worry usually lives. They rest on different studies and different evidence. If you hear someone blend them into one scary headline, that’s your cue to slow down.

What the Behavior Research Says

In April 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the state’s science agency for health risks, reviewed the evidence on synthetic food dyes. It concluded that synthetic food dyes “can result in hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children,” and that children vary in sensitivity. OEHHA also noted that the FDA’s acceptable daily intake limits rest on studies that are 35 to 70 years old, and that juice and soft drinks are among the main sources of dye exposure (OEHHA press release, April 16, 2021).

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a careful position in its 2018 policy statement, “Food Additives and Child Health.” It said that artificial food colors “may be associated with worsened ADHD symptoms,” and it advised families to favor fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables over processed foods (AAP, July 23, 2018). Notice the words: “may be associated.”

Some reviews also say the data is thin. A 2022 review of blue dyes in the journal Cureus found only four studies that met its criteria, called the literature “limited,” and concluded that more research is necessary (Kashyap, Cureus, September 16, 2022). So: real signals, real gaps.

What the FDA Says

The FDA takes a more cautious position. It points out that its 2011 Food Advisory Committee concluded that a causal link between color additives and hyperactivity in children “had not been established,” and that average exposure is below the acceptable daily intake. The agency also reviewed one study that found small-to-medium effects and said it did not recommend eliminating colors as a general treatment for ADHD (FDA review).

Here’s the bottom line on artificial food dyes and kids. Put the three side by side and you get a fair summary: California’s scientists and the pediatricians’ group see enough to be concerned. The FDA says the case isn’t proven. Nobody is saying the question is closed. I’d call that “accumulating,” not “proven.”

What Happened to Red No. 3

Red No. 3 (also called erythrosine) is the dye the FDA is actually revoking. The reason is a legal rule known as the Delaney Clause, which bars any food additive that has been found to cause cancer in people or animals. In this case, the FDA cited studies showing cancer in male laboratory rats through a hormonal mechanism. The agency says there is no evidence that it causes cancer in people (FDA, “FD&C Red No. 3”).

The FDA issued orders on this in January 2025. Food manufacturers have until January 15, 2027, to comply, and makers of ingested drugs until January 18, 2028. So you may still see Red No. 3 on some labels for a while.

The 2025 Phase-Out Plan: Mostly Voluntary

On April 22, 2025, HHS and the FDA announced a plan to revoke authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, and to work with industry to phase out six other petroleum-based dyes, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2, by the end of 2026 (FDA announcement).

Here’s the catch: most of that phase-out depends on companies choosing to do it. Trade press reported in September 2026 that the effort was still largely voluntary, with companies such as General Mills, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé USA pledging changes, and Walmart pointing to a January 2027 timeline (Bakery&Snacks, September 1, 2026). Pledges aren’t the same as shelves. Until your cart looks different, the label is what counts. (Here’s how to read it: How to Read a Nutrition Label.)

So What Now? Your Do-This-Week Steps

Here’s what to do about artificial food dyes and kids without turning snack time into a courtroom.

• Scan for the names. On the ingredient list, look for “Red 40,” “Yellow 5,” “Yellow 6,” “Blue 1,” and “Red 3.”
• Check the drinks first. OEHHA named juice and soft drinks as major sources, so beverages may be the easiest swap.
• Add color the natural way. Fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables are the AAP’s simple suggestion.
• Talk to your pediatrician. If your child has ADHD or you’ve noticed a pattern, don’t change a treatment plan on your own. Bring your observations to the doctor.
• Skip the guilt. Dyes are in thousands of products. Nobody dodges all of them, and this isn’t about willpower. It’s about what’s put on the shelves (here’s the bigger picture).

Dyes are one piece of a bigger picture. If you want that context, start with What Is Ultra-Processed Food?

Frequently Asked Questions

Do artificial food dyes and kids’ hyperactivity go together?

California’s OEHHA concluded in 2021 that synthetic dyes can cause hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children. The FDA says a causal link has not been established. Children vary in sensitivity, and researchers say more studies are needed.

Do food dyes make ADHD worse?

The American Academy of Pediatrics says artificial food colors may be associated with worsened ADHD symptoms. The FDA reviewed one study with small-to-medium effects and does not recommend eliminating colors as a general ADHD treatment. Talk to your child’s doctor before changing a treatment plan.

Why is Red No. 3 being banned?

The FDA is revoking Red No. 3 under the Delaney Clause because it caused cancer in male laboratory rats through a hormonal mechanism. The FDA says there is no evidence it causes cancer in humans. Food makers must comply by January 15, 2027.

Which food dyes is the FDA phasing out?

In April 2025, HHS and the FDA announced plans to revoke Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, and to work with industry to phase out Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2 by the end of 2026. Most of the phase-out is voluntary.

How can I find artificial dyes on a food label?

Check the ingredient list for names such as Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Red 3. Beverages, cereals, candy, and snacks are common places to look.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice. I’m an educator and health coach, not a physician. Your doctor, your child’s pediatrician, or a registered dietitian knows your family’s history and needs. Talk to them before making changes based on anything you read here. The choice is yours.

I’m just sayin’.

Sources and Further Reading

• California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), press release on synthetic food dyes and children’s behavior, April 16, 2021.
• American Academy of Pediatrics, “AAP Says Some Common Food Additives May Pose Health Risks to Children” (policy statement “Food Additives and Child Health,” Trasande et al., Pediatrics, July 23, 2018).
• Kashyap, review of blue food dyes, Cureus, September 16, 2022.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, review of color additives and behavior in children.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “FD&C Red No. 3”.
• HHS and FDA, announcement on phasing out petroleum-based synthetic dyes, April 22, 2025.
• Bakery&Snacks, report on the status of the food dye phase-out, September 1, 2026.

Want the Whole Case File?

Food: The Final Frontier goes deeper on exactly this: what’s really in our food, how it connects to the chronic disease numbers we keep watching climb, and what you can do about it, in plain English. Get it at foodthefinalfrontier.com or on Amazon.

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson is a certified health coach, educator, and the author of Food: The Final Frontier. She has taught more than 3,000 allied health students, led community health classes in churches for more than five years, and hosts the Health News & Views podcast, with more than 120 episodes. She is not a physician. She reads the research, explains it plainly, and sends you back to your own doctor for the personal call. Her mission is clear, trustworthy health information for the communities that mainstream sources too often overlook.

Publishing details (not part of the post)

Open items before publishing

• Lynn: replace the highlighted [LYNN: …] note with 2 to 4 sentences from your own experience, then delete the note.
• Confirm the credentials in the About Lynn box, including whether to list degrees.
• Recommended: have a registered dietitian or physician review the health claims before publishing. No medical reviewer is named in this draft.
• Confirm the internal link slugs above match the live site, and publish the five posts so the cross-links work.
• The regulatory status moves fast (Red No. 3 deadlines, voluntary company pledges). Re-check the FDA pages linked in Sources on the day you publish.

The post Artificial Food Dyes and Kids: What the Research Says appeared first on Health News & Views.

Key takeaways

• Food insecurity is more than twice as common among Black households as among White households, according to USDA data for 2024.
• Reviews of dozens of studies find that low-income, minority, and rural neighborhoods are most often affected by poor access to healthy food.
• Advertising is part of the environment, too: most of the ad spending aimed at Black audiences promotes candy, sugary drinks, snacks, and cereals.

“Just make better choices.” It sounds simple until you ask who put better choices within reach. Food deserts and health disparities are one story told in two parts: what’s available where you live, and what happens to bodies over time. That story doesn’t start with willpower.

I’m just the messenger. I’ll share what the research found, name the sources, and tell you where the evidence runs out.

Where I’m Coming From

My mission is clear: trustworthy health information for Black and brown communities, because too often the mainstream sources skip us or talk down to us. I’ve taught allied health students for more than ten years and led community health classes in churches for more than five. Teaching keeps me focused on one question: not whether people care about their health, but what is within reach when they try.

When you have to make a decision based on availability, price, and quality, there’s little time for debate over ‘could have or should have’. Why does a pound of hamburger cost $9, and for $5 I can get (4) chicken nuggets, fries, a burger, and a drink? This scenario goes from academic to mathematical acuity. Disinvestment in inner cities exacerbates the problem. Stores closed because, (as I was once told in my retail food sales days) delivery trucks work on a cash basis; EBT card payments don’t pay the bills. The suppliers want cash. 

Food Desert, or Food Apartheid?

“Food desert” is the term you’ll see in government reports. It sounds like a natural event, like something that just happened. Activist and farmer Karen Washington has pushed for another term, “food apartheid,” because it points to the whole system: race, geography, and economics that shape who has access to good food and who doesn’t (Washington, Guernica, May 7, 2018). I use both terms in this post so you can follow the research and the conversation.

In USDA’s research, the working definition is more technical. The Food Access Research Atlas flags “low-income, low-access” census tracts, areas where many residents have lower incomes and live far from a supermarket. The distance thresholds are 0.5 or 1 mile in urban areas and 10 or 20 miles in rural areas. In 2010 data, about 2.1 million people lived in low-income tracts more than 10 miles from a supermarket (USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas).

Food Deserts and Health Disparities: What the Numbers Show

Start with food insecurity, meaning households that lacked consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. In 2024, USDA’s Economic Research Service found it was 13.7% overall. But the gaps were wide: 24.4% for Black non-Hispanic households, 20.2% for Hispanic households, and 10.1% for White non-Hispanic households (USDA ERS, Household Food Security in the United States in 2024, ERR-358).

One more thing you should know. In September 2025, USDA announced it would discontinue this annual report, according to the Alliance to End Hunger and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That means the 2024 report may be the last of its kind, and fewer numbers means fewer chances to see who’s being left out.

Access: What’s on the Block

A 2009 review in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine pulled together 54 studies on neighborhood food environments. Its finding: low-income, minority, and rural neighborhoods were most often the ones affected by poor access to supermarkets and healthy food, and fast food outlets were concentrated in those same areas (Larson, Story & Nelson, 2009, summarized by Healthy Eating Research).

Now do the detective math. If the nearest full grocery store is a long bus ride away, and the corner store sells mostly packaged food, what’s the “choice”? That’s why I keep saying: this isn’t willpower. This is structural. And it’s one reason why ultra-processed food is such a big share of what many families eat.

Marketing: Who Is Being Sold To

The food environment isn’t only about stores. It’s also about the screen. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut analyzed 2021 advertising data and reported that 73% of the ad spending on Black-targeted and Spanish-language TV went to candy, sugary drinks, snacks, and cereals. Black youth and adults saw 9% to 21% more food and beverage TV ads than their White peers, and the unhealthy share of targeted ads rose from about 50% in 2017 to 75% in 2021. Nineteen companies accounted for 82% of the food ads on Black-targeted TV (UConn Today, November 2022).

I’m not saying every ad is a plot. I’m saying the pattern is documented, and it’s worth knowing who’s talking to your family and what they’re selling. The same goes for the products themselves, from cereal to the dyes that color it (see Artificial Food Dyes and Kids).

What It Means for Health

Here’s where food deserts and health disparities meet the body. A March 2026 study from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), published in JACC Advances and led by Dr. Amier Haidar, followed 6,814 adults ages 45 to 84. People who ate more than 9 servings of ultra-processed food a day had a 67% higher risk of a major cardiac event than people who ate about 1 serving. Each additional daily serving was linked to roughly 5% or more in added risk. The link looked stronger among Black participants: 6.1% higher risk per serving, compared with 3.2% in non-Black participants (American College of Cardiology press release, March 2026).

The honest limits: this study is observational, and the diet data were self-reported. It can show a pattern, not prove that food alone caused the events.

The disparities show up in other places, too. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Black Americans are more than four times as likely to develop kidney failure as White Americans (NIDDK). Food isn’t the only reason, and I’d never say it is. But diabetes and high blood pressure drive much of that risk, and both are shaped by the food environment and access to care.

What the Research Can’t Tell Us

I owe you the limits. “Food desert” maps don’t capture everything: people shop by car, by ride-share, online, and across neighborhoods. Access alone may not fully explain what people eat. Income, time, culture, and advertising all matter. That’s why I call it a food environment, not a single cause. The claim here isn’t that one thing is to blame. It’s that the system has many parts, and none of them are about your character.

So What Now? Your Do-This-Week Steps

Truth Seekers, you can’t fix food deserts and health disparities alone at the kitchen table. But you can work with what you have, and push for what you need.

• Work with the store you have. Frozen vegetables, canned beans, and plain oats are often easier to find and keep. Learn to read the label (here’s how) and compare two versions of the same item.
• Look for added options. Ask about farmers’ markets, community gardens, church or neighborhood pantries, and SNAP or WIC benefits you may qualify for.
• Use the facts at the table. Share one thing from this post with someone who says it’s “just a choice.”
• Speak up locally. Ask your city council, school board, or church about food access in your area. Change here happens block by block.
• Bring it to your doctor. If you have diabetes, high blood pressure, or kidney concerns, tell your care team about your food access, too. It’s part of your health picture.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a food desert?

A food desert is a low-income area where residents have limited access to a supermarket or other source of affordable, healthy food. In USDA’s Food Access Research Atlas, low-access is measured by distance, using 0.5 or 1 mile in urban areas and 10 or 20 miles in rural areas.

What is the difference between a food desert and food apartheid?

Food desert is the common government term. Activist Karen Washington prefers food apartheid because it looks at the whole food system, including race, geography, and economics, rather than suggesting the problem is natural.

How does food insecurity differ by race in the U.S.?

According to USDA, food insecurity in 2024 was 24.4% among Black non-Hispanic households, 20.2% among Hispanic households, and 10.1% among White non-Hispanic households, compared with 13.7% overall.

Are unhealthy food ads targeted at Black and Hispanic communities?

The Rudd Center found that 73% of ad spending on Black-targeted and Spanish-language TV went to candy, sugary drinks, snacks, and cereals, and Black youth and adults saw 9% to 21% more food and beverage TV ads than their White peers.

Do food deserts and health disparities affect chronic disease?

Research links poor food access and a heavily ultra-processed diet to higher risk of conditions like heart disease, but most studies are observational and cannot prove cause. Income, time, advertising, and access to health care also play a role.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice. I’m an educator and health coach, not a physician. Your doctor or a registered dietitian knows your numbers, your history, and your body. Talk to them before making changes based on anything you read here. The choice is yours.

I’m just sayin’.

Sources and Further Reading

• Rabbitt MP, et al. Household Food Security in the United States in 2024 (ERR-358). USDA Economic Research Service, December 2025.
• USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (low-income, low-access tract definitions and 2010 data).
• Alliance to End Hunger and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reports on USDA’s September 2025 announcement that it would discontinue the household food security report.
• Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. “Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2009. Summary: Healthy Eating Research.
• UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, “New study shows unhealthy food advertising continues to disproportionately target consumers of color”, UConn Today, November 2022.
• Haidar A, et al. Ultra-processed food intake and cardiovascular events in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. JACC Advances, 2026. American College of Cardiology press release, March 2026.
• Washington K. Guernica, May 7, 2018, on “food apartheid.”
• National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, “Kidney Disease Statistics for the United States”.

Want the Whole Case File?

Food: The Final Frontier goes deeper on exactly this: what’s really in our food, how it connects to the chronic disease numbers we keep watching climb, and what you can do about it, in plain English. Get it at foodthefinalfrontier.com or on Amazon.

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson is a certified health coach, educator, and the author of Food: The Final Frontier. She has taught more than 3,000 allied health students, led community health classes in churches for more than five years, and hosts the Health News & Views podcast, with more than 120 episodes. She is not a physician. She reads the research, explains it plainly, and sends you back to your own doctor for the personal call. Her mission is clear, trustworthy health information for the communities that mainstream sources too often overlook.

The post Food Deserts and Health Disparities: It’s Not Willpower appeared first on Health News & Views.

Key takeaways

• Every number on the label depends on the serving size, so start there.
• The 5/20 rule: 5% Daily Value or less is low, 20% or more is high.
• Ingredients are listed from most to least by weight, so the first three tell you the most.

The front of the box says “wholesome,” “made with real fruit,” and “good source of fiber.” The back of the box has to prove it. Knowing how to read a nutrition label is how you tell a marketing claim from a fact, and you can do it in about 60 seconds, in the aisle, with a kid asking for the cereal.

I’m just the messenger. Every number below comes from the FDA, and I’ll show you exactly where to check me.

Where I’m Coming From

I’ve spent more than a decade teaching allied health students, more than 3,000 of them, in body structure, medical terminology, pharmacology, and medical law and ethics. I’ve also spent more than five years leading health classes in community churches. Teaching has taught me one thing: if people understand why something matters, they remember what to do.

We have become victims of high-end marketing and bio-engineered foods. There used to be a gold standard that retailers abided by. Now, corporations make the decisions. Most ingredients on the label can’t be found in our own kitchens, and the 3- to 5-syllable words affixed to cans, bags, and packages are neither familiar nor useful for determining value or nutrition. What is the point of listing an inch of wording that the consumer can’t pronounce or define?

Front of the Box vs. Back of the Box: Who’s Talking?

The front of the package is marketing. Some front-of-box claims have specific rules behind them. Others do not. Take “natural.” The FDA has not formally defined that word through rulemaking. Its informal policy says “natural” means nothing artificial or synthetic, including color additives, has been added that would not normally be expected in that food. The policy does not address how the food was grown or processed, and it does not say whether “natural” means healthy (FDA, “Use of the Term Natural on Food Labeling”).

My own rule of thumb: if the packaging has to tell you it’s all natural, chances are it’s probably not. That’s a rule of thumb, not a regulation. The label on the back is different. The Nutrition Facts panel and the ingredient list follow a standard format, so you can compare any two products on the same terms.

How to Read a Nutrition Label in 5 Steps

Set a timer if you like. Give each step about 10 seconds.

Step 1: Start with the serving size

The FDA says all the nutrient amounts on the label, including calories, refer to the serving size. If a label says one serving is 2/3 cup and you pour two cups, you are eating three servings, so multiply every number by three. This is the single most common way a “100-calorie” snack turns into 300 (FDA, “How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label”).

Step 2: Use the 5/20 rule for % Daily Value

The % Daily Value (%DV) tells you how much a nutrient in one serving contributes to a whole day’s eating. The FDA uses 2,000 calories a day as a general baseline, though your needs may differ. Here is the shortcut the FDA gives: 5% DV or less of a nutrient per serving is low, and 20% DV or more is high.

Aim low for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. Aim high for fiber, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and potassium.

Step 3: Check added sugars and sodium

Added sugars are not the same as the natural sugars in milk or fruit. The FDA defines added sugars as sugars added during processing (such as sucrose or dextrose), foods packaged as sweeteners such as table sugar, sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices (FDA, “Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label”).

The FDA’s Daily Value for added sugars is 50 grams a day, about 10 percent of calories on a 2,000-calorie diet. So if one serving lists 20 grams of added sugars, that’s 40% of the daily value, which is high on the 5/20 rule. Do the same check on sodium.

Step 4: Look for what you want more of

Most people stop at the “bad” list. Flip it. Look at fiber, potassium, calcium, iron, and vitamin D. If fiber hits 20% DV or more in a serving, that’s a win worth noticing.

Step 5: Read the ingredient list (the detective step)

Federal rules require ingredients to be listed by common name in descending order of predominance by weight (21 CFR 101.4). Translation: the first ingredient is the most of what’s in the box, and the last is the least. The first three tell you the most.

If a sugar or syrup is first, or if sweeteners appear several times under different names, that’s a pattern worth noticing. And if the list is long and full of names you can’t picture, pause. That’s not a verdict. It’s a cue to look one up. (Curious what’s behind some of those names? Read What Is Ultra-Processed Food? and Artificial Food Dyes and Kids.)

The 60-Second Cheat Sheet

So What Now? Your Do-This-Week Steps

• Run the routine on three items in your cart. Pick things you buy every week. You’ll start noticing patterns fast.
• Compare two versions of the same food. Two cereals, two yogurts, two sauces. Look at added sugars and sodium per serving, and check that the serving sizes are really the same.
• Teach one person. A teenager, a parent, a neighbor. Showing someone else is the fastest way to make it stick.

You don’t have to read every label forever. Do it for a few weeks and your eyes start doing it for you.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you read a nutrition label step by step?

Start with the serving size, then use the 5/20 rule on the % Daily Value, check added sugars and sodium, look for fiber and minerals you want more of, and finish with the ingredient list, which is ordered by weight.

What does 5% Daily Value mean on a nutrition label?

The FDA says 5% Daily Value or less of a nutrient per serving is low, and 20% Daily Value or more is high. Aim low for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, and high for fiber, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and potassium.

Are ingredients listed in order of weight?

Yes. Federal labeling rules require ingredients to be listed in descending order of predominance by weight, so the first ingredient is the largest part of the food.

What is the difference between total sugars and added sugars?

Added sugars are sugars added during processing, plus table sugar, syrups, honey, and concentrated fruit or vegetable juices. Total sugars include those and the sugars that occur naturally in foods like milk and fruit.

Does natural on a food label mean healthy?

No. The FDA has not formally defined natural through rulemaking. Its informal policy does not address how food was produced and does not consider whether natural means a food has health benefits.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice. I’m an educator and health coach, not a physician. Your doctor or a registered dietitian knows your numbers, your history, and your body. Talk to them before making changes based on anything you read here. The choice is yours.

I’m just sayin’.

Sources and Further Reading

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label” (last updated March 5, 2024).
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label” (page dated March 4, 2026).
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Use of the Term Natural on Food Labeling” (content current as of October 22, 2018).
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101.4, “Food; designation of ingredients” (2024 edition).

Want the Whole Case File?

Food: The Final Frontier goes deeper on exactly this: what’s really in our food, how it connects to the chronic disease numbers we keep watching climb, and what you can do about it, in plain English. Get it at foodthefinalfrontier.com or on Amazon.

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson is a certified health coach, educator, and the author of Food: The Final Frontier. She has taught more than 3,000 allied health students, led community health classes in churches for more than five years, and hosts the Health News & Views podcast, with more than 120 episodes. She is not a physician. She reads the research, explains it plainly, and sends you back to your own doctor for the personal call. Her mission is clear, trustworthy health information for the communities that mainstream sources too often overlook.

The post How to Read a Nutrition Label: 5 Simple Steps in 60 Seconds appeared first on Health News & Views.

This article, HFCS, Ultra-Processed Foods, and Our Health, is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. If you have concerns about diabetes, blood pressure, your liver, or your diet, please consult a qualified healthcare professional before making changes.

Let me tell you why this one isn’t academic for me.

I have watched diabetes and high blood pressure move through my family like a quiet storm. Two of my sisters have been diagnosed. A nephew we lost far too young. A granddaughter facing dialysis before her 35th birthday. These aren’t statistics to me. They are names. They are birthdays. In some cases, they are empty chairs at the table.

So if you hear passion in my voice, understand where it comes from. Not anger. Not conspiracy. Love, and a desire to ask hard questions about the food environment we all inherited. This conversation isn’t about blame. It’s about awareness, because awareness gives us back a choice.

And here’s the thing that should bother all of us: two of the biggest changes to what we eat, high fructose corn syrup and ultra-processed foods, were never something the public asked for. Nobody stood up and demanded an alternative to real food. It was handed to us. Let’s talk about who did the handing, and what it’s doing to our bodies.

First, what even counts as “ultra-processed”?

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods, then loaded with additives and ingredients you would never find in a home kitchen. They go through heavy chemical and physical transformation, extrusion, molding, pre-frying, until almost nothing about them resembles the whole food they started as. That definition comes from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Now sit with the scale of it. Johns Hopkins estimates that nearly 75% of the U.S. food supply is ultra-processed. More than half the calories the average American adult eats come from these foods. In children, it climbs past 60%. And the research ties them to a long list of outcomes: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiometabolic disease, several cancers, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, anxiety, depression, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Look at that list closely. It reads almost exactly like the CDC’s roster of leading chronic diseases. That is not a coincidence I’m willing to ignore.

Not sure if you’re eating them? Try this test

I started questioning my own plate, so I came up with a simple gut check. Could you make it in your own kitchen?

Cheese curls. Could you make those at home? Bologna. What exactly is in it, and could you make it yourself? Chicken nuggets, Doritos, Pringles, turkey ham. If you can’t reasonably recreate a food in your kitchen with ingredients you recognize, that’s your answer. That’s ultra-processed.

I’m not being cute about it. That question cuts through the marketing faster than any label claim. If a food required a chemical plant to exist, it probably belongs in a different category than the beans and rice your grandmother cooked.

You don’t need a boutique budget to eat better

Here’s where I want to be careful, because “just eat healthy” advice too often ignores real budgets, real neighborhoods, and the food deserts a lot of us are actually navigating. Getting off ultra-processed foods does not require an expensive organic market. It requires a strategy.

Prioritize frozen over canned. Frozen vegetables and fruit are picked at peak ripeness, usually carry no added sugar or corn syrup, and cost less than out-of-season fresh produce.

Buy whole grains in bulk. Dried beans, lentils, oats, and brown rice run pennies per serving and skip the industrial processing entirely. Walk into an African or Asian market and you’ll see rice sold in 20 and 50-pound bags for a reason. You portion it yourself, store it in your pantry, and you’re set for a long time.

Batch-cook your proteins. Prepare a large quantity of plain chicken, eggs, or ground beef, portion it, and freeze it. That one habit replaces a whole shelf of microwave dinners and deli meats.

Small moves. Real money saved. Better food on the table.

The syrup you can’t even buy

Now let’s talk about high fructose corn syrup. The average person takes in about 12 teaspoons of it every single day, and it isn’t just soda. It’s in ketchup, salad dressing, crackers. Teenagers consume roughly 80% more than the national average, which pushes them past 21 teaspoons a day. Compare that to the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association guidance of about 6 teaspoons of added sugar for women and 9 for men. We are not in the same ballpark. We’re not even in the same city.

So I asked an obvious question. If this stuff is fine, why can’t I buy a bag of it at the store and set it next to the sugar? The answer tells you everything. High fructose corn syrup is a sticky industrial liquid shipped in tanker trucks. It’s produced through complex enzymatic processing of cornstarch in chemical plants. It was custom-engineered for corporate manufacturers because it blends into liquids, preserves color, and stabilizes shelf life. There was never any retail demand for it. It was built for factories, not for families.

Then I asked why the exact amount never shows up on the label. Turns out the FDA lets companies group chemically similar sugars together and report “total sugars” and “added sugars” in grams, rather than breaking out how much comes from corn syrup versus cane sugar. Part of the reason is that disclosing the precise recipe would expose a brand’s formula to competitors. So their proprietary secrets stay protected, often to our detriment.

But you do have one tool. Federal rules require ingredients to be listed in descending order by weight. If high fructose corn syrup sits near the top of the list, that product is heavily saturated with it. Check your breads and buns, your condiments and sauces, your yogurts and cereals. That’s where it hides.

What it actually does inside you

This is not harmless sweetness. High fructose corn syrup delivers a large, unnatural dose of free fructose straight into your system, and fructose is a problem because only your liver can process it. Glucose, every cell can burn. Fructose, the liver handles alone. Overload it day after day and the liver starts converting the excess directly into fat. That’s non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD.

It doesn’t stop there. The rapid breakdown of fructose in the liver spikes uric acid. High uric acid crystallizes in your joints like grains of rock salt and causes the inflammation known as gout. Ask anyone who’s had it, usually in the big toe, sometimes a knee or an elbow. According to the Mayo Clinic, the same condition is aggravated by high-purine organ meats, excess red meat, certain shellfish and fish, and alcohol, with beer as the worst offender. High fructose corn syrup keeps that company.

And maybe the sneakiest effect of all: research summarized by Britannica suggests high fructose corn syrup disrupts leptin, the hormone that signals your brain that you’re full. When that signal breaks, your appetite stays switched on. There’s no internal voice telling you that you’ve had enough. So you keep eating, and the system that sold you the food keeps selling.

Follow the money

None of this happened by accident, so let’s ask why. In the 1970s, two government moves reshaped the sweetener market. First, heavy corn subsidies created a massive, cheap surplus of domestic corn. Second, tariffs and import quotas on foreign cane sugar made real sugar artificially expensive here at home.

Cheap corn on one side, expensive sugar on the other. Food scientists saw the opening and perfected a way to turn that corn surplus into a liquid sweetener that mimicked sugar at a fraction of the cost. Soft drink makers switched over and saved billions. They did it quietly, without changing the marketing, and without giving consumers any real say. The American public got handed a dietary shift dictated by agricultural politics and corporate profit margins. That’s it. That’s the whole story.

The system rewards shelf life and repeat sales. Highly engineered foods are designed to be hard to stop eating. We deserve more transparency than that.

Awareness gives us back the choice

You don’t have to overhaul your whole life this week. You have to start asking why. Why is corn syrup in the crackers? Why is a food impossible to make at home? Why isn’t the amount on the label? Those questions put a little power back in your hands, and in a food environment like ours, that matters.

If you want a head start, I put together a free Food Truth Starter Guide. Plain English, no filler, no fluff. It walks you through reading labels, spotting hidden sugars and corn syrup, and making real-food swaps that fit a real budget.

Download the free Food Truth Starter Guide →

This is also the heart of the work I’ve been building toward for years. My book, Food: The Final Frontier — The Plain Truth About Food, Chronic Disease & Health in Black & Brown Communities, comes out September 2026. Same voice you trust here, now something you can hold in your hand and pass to your mother, your sister, your church group, your book club.

Ask the why questions. Share this with someone you love. Stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.

Make it a powerful day. Peace.

Sources & Further Reading

• Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — What Are Ultra-Processed Foods? (2025): publichealth.jhu.edu
• Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — Ultraprocessed Foods Account for More than Half of Calories Consumed at Home (2024): publichealth.jhu.edu
• Mayo Clinic — Gout Diet: What’s Allowed, What’s Not: mayoclinic.org
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration — Added Sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label: fda.gov
• Encyclopaedia Britannica — High-Fructose Corn Syrup: britannica.com
• CDC — National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson (“Lynn Pete”) is an instructor, writer, researcher, and health and nutrition blogger who describes herself as “just the messenger.” She hosts the Health News & Views: Food the Final Frontier podcast, dedicated to bringing clarity to the health disparities in Black and brown communities. She holds a B.A. in English/Communications and M.S. and D.Sc. degrees in Education, and is a Certified Post-Secondary Instructor and Certified Health Coach. Her book, Food: The Final Frontier — The Plain Truth About Food, Chronic Disease & Health in Black & Brown Communities, arrives September 2026.

Food: The Final Frontier.

The post HFCS, Ultra-Processed Foods, and Our Health appeared first on Health News & Views.

This article, about “artificial sweeteners” is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. If you have concerns about diabetes, blood sugar, or your diet, please consult a qualified healthcare professional before making changes.

Let me tell you about the day a peach let me down.

I bit into a fresh, ripe peach — the kind that should make you close your eyes and smile — and it barely registered. Not sweet enough. And I remember thinking, when did a peach stop being sweet? The peach hadn’t changed. I had. I’d been reaching for the little pink packet for longer than I care to admit, and somewhere along the way my standard for “sweet” had climbed so high that nature couldn’t keep up.

That’s where this starts. Not with a study — with a peach. But the science caught up to my kitchen table, so let’s talk about it.

No sugar, no calories, no guilt — or so we’re told

Artificial sweeteners came along promising the impossible: all the sweet, none of the consequences. Zero sugar. Zero calories. Zero guilt. I believed it. I thought I’d found the holy grail.

Here’s a number that stopped me cold. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, these are not “a little sweeter” than sugar — they are engineered sweet. Aspartame (the blue packet) and acesulfame potassium are about 200 times sweeter than table sugar. Saccharin (the pink packet) runs 200 to 700 times sweeter. Sucralose (the yellow packet) is around 600 times. Neotame lands somewhere between 7,000 and 13,000 times. And a newer one, advantame, is roughly 20,000 times sweeter than sugar.

Twenty thousand times. Sit with that. Manufacturers use only a tiny speck, sure — but it leaves me with a question I can’t shake: why does anything need to be 20,000 times sweeter than sugar? And what happens to us when our brains and taste buds get trained on a sweetness that nature never once offered?

What the research actually says (and doesn’t)

I first covered this four years ago, and I went back to see what had changed. Short version: the science is asking better questions now — beyond just calories.

On weight. In 2023, the World Health Organization reviewed the evidence and recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners as a long-term strategy for weight control. Reviewers found no lasting benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. Now — that doesn’t mean a packet automatically makes you gain weight. It means swapping sugar for a zero-calorie sweetener doesn’t touch the cravings, habits, and patterns that got us here in the first place. I’m living proof. I changed the packet. I never changed my relationship with sweetness. And I never lost a pound — if anything, I ate more.

On your gut. In a 2022 randomized trial published in the journal Cell, researchers gave 120 healthy adults saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, or stevia. All four produced measurable changes in participants’ gut microbiomes. Saccharin and sucralose also worsened the blood-sugar response — in some people. Notice I said some. The effect depended on the person and the community of microbes already living in their gut. So no, I’m not telling you every sweetener wrecks everybody’s gut. I’m telling you these products may not be the biologically “inactive” ingredients we assumed they were.

On your heart. Large population studies have reported associations between frequent sweetener consumption and cardiovascular disease. But hear me clearly: association is not proof of cause. Someone reaching for diet products may already be managing diabetes, weight, or other risks. This is exactly the kind of place we have to be honest about both the concern and the uncertainty. No panic. No hype. Just the truth as it stands today.

The FDA still considers approved sweeteners safe within established limits. But “safe” answers one question — how much can you consume before it’s toxic? It does not answer the questions I actually care about: Will this help me lose weight? Will it restore my taste for real food? Will it move me toward lifelong health? Those are not the same question.

The real trap wasn’t the packet

Here’s what took me years to see. The trap wasn’t the pink packet. The trap was believing I could keep everything intensely sweet and somehow change the outcome. I wanted my cake and to eat it too — but I never stopped wanting the cake.

Some things are made from a plant. And some things are made in a plant. Get it? That little difference changed how I think about everything on my plate.

And this isn’t only an artificial-sweetener problem. It’s high-fructose corn syrup. It’s cane sugar poured into everything. Sometimes it’s just too much — too doggone sweet. We’ve been trained to expect a level of sweetness that real food was never built to match. Nature already gave us peaches, strawberries, blueberries, apples, sweet potatoes, carrots. Maybe the goal isn’t to find something sweeter than sugar. Maybe it’s to fall back in love with the sweetness that’s already here.

I’ll add one more thing, because it matters in the neighborhoods I care about most. “Just eat healthy” advice too often ignores real budgets, real food deserts, and the communities actually navigating them. Retraining your taste buds is one of the few tools that costs nothing and belongs to you. That’s why I keep talking about it.

So what do we do? (Read the label, question the marketing)

• Turn the package over. If a product’s biggest selling point is “no sugar, no calories, no carbs,” ask the next question: then what IS in it?
• Watch the “stevia” that isn’t really stevia. Many powder stevia products are mostly fillers — dextrose, maltodextrin, erythritol — with a little stevia along for the ride. That’s often what’s behind that bitter aftertaste. If you see those fillers on the label, leave it on the shelf. Personally, for hot and cold drinks, I stick with liquid stevia.
• Retrain your palate, slowly. Give real fruit a fair shot again. It may take time for a peach to taste like a peach — that’s the point.
• Ask the honest question before you reach for the packet: Am I reducing sugar, or am I just finding another way to feed my sweet tooth?
• Talk to your doctor before making changes, especially if you’re managing diabetes or heart concerns.

Four years ago, I thought artificial sweeteners were the answer. Today I see them differently. For me, they were never the solution — just another way to keep chasing sweetness.

When a perfectly ripe peach isn’t sweet enough anymore, maybe the problem isn’t the peach.

I’m just sayin’.

Ready to read your plate like a pro?

You don’t have to figure this out alone in the grocery aisle. I put together a free Food Truth Starter Guide — plain English, no filler, no fluff — to help you read labels, spot hidden sweeteners and sugars, and choose real food that fits real budgets.

Get the free Food Truth Starter Guide →

Read the label. Question the marketing. Make it a powerful day.

Sources & Further Reading

• World Health Organization — Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners: WHO Guideline (2023): who.int · News release
• Suez J. et al. — “Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance,” Cell (2022): cell.com · PubMed
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration — Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food: fda.gov
• Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health — Unpacking the WHO Guidelines on Non-Sugar Sweeteners: nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu

About Lynn

Lynn Peterson (“Lynn Pete”) is an instructor, writer, researcher, and health and nutrition blogger who describes herself as “just the messenger.” She hosts the Health News & Views: Food the Final Frontier podcast, dedicated to bringing clarity to the health disparities in Black and brown communities. She holds a B.A. in English/Communications and M.S. and D.Sc. degrees in Education, and is a Certified Post-Secondary Instructor and Certified Health Coach.

Food: The Final Frontier.

The post The Truth About Artificial Sweeteners appeared first on Health News & Views.

Ultra-processed foods and chronic disease are now inseparably linked in the scientific literature — and understanding that connection may be the most important thing you can do for your long-term health.

Introduction: The Question Nobody Was Asking

For decades, the conversation around food and health focused on calories, fat grams, and portion sizes. We were told to eat less and move more. And yet, by every measurable metric, Americans got sicker.

Today, six in ten U.S. adults live with at least one chronic disease, and four in ten have two or more (CDC, 2023). Heart disease remains the leading cause of death. Type 2 diabetes affects more than 38 million Americans. Obesity rates have more than doubled since the 1980s.

So what changed? One answer that researchers are increasingly pointing to: the dramatic rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) — and what they are doing to our bodies over time.

This is not a fringe theory. It is the subject of peer-reviewed studies in journals like The BMJ, Cell Metabolism, and JAMA Internal Medicine. The evidence is building, and it is worth understanding.

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

The term “ultra-processed” was developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro and colleagues as part of the NOVA food classification system, which groups foods by the extent and purpose of their processing — not just their nutrient content.

Here is a simplified breakdown of the four NOVA categories:

Ultra-processed foods (Group 4) are not simply foods with added sugar or salt. They are industrial formulations — typically manufactured using ingredients and additives rarely found in home kitchens: hydrolyzed proteins, modified starches, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, synthetic dyes, and preservatives.

The goal of ultra-processing is not primarily nutrition. It is shelf stability, palatability, and profit.

How Much Ultra-Processed Food Are We Eating?

The answer is: a lot. More than most people realize.

According to a 2021 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, ultra-processed foods now account for approximately 57–60% of daily caloric intake for the average American adult — and as much as 67% of daily calories for American children and adolescents (Juul et al., 2021).

That means for many people, more than half of everything they eat every day falls into the ultra-processed category.

This is not an accident. It is the result of decades of deliberate food engineering, aggressive marketing, and a food environment shaped more by industry economics than by human health. (For a deeper look at how the food industry uses GRAS — Generally Recognized As Safe — designations to introduce additives with minimal oversight, see our related article on [Processed Foods and GRAS Ingredients].)

The Research: What Ultra-Processed Foods Do to the Body

Metabolic Disruption and Weight Gain

In 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a landmark randomized controlled trial — the gold standard of clinical research — conducted by Dr. Kevin Hall and colleagues at the NIH Clinical Center. Participants were randomly assigned to either an ultra-processed diet or an unprocessed diet for two weeks, then switched to the other diet for two weeks. Both diets were matched for total calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients offered.

The result: When participants were on the ultra-processed diet, they ate an average of 500 more calories per day and gained weight. On the unprocessed diet, they ate less and lost weight — without being told to restrict intake. The difference was driven not by willpower but by the food itself (Hall et al., 2019, Cell Metabolism).

This finding is critical. It suggests that ultra-processed foods may override the body’s natural satiety signals — its ability to know when it has had enough.

(For more on how dietary fats and food processing affect metabolism and weight, see our related article on [Dietary Fats and Cooking Oils].)

Cardiovascular Disease

A 2019 prospective cohort study following more than 105,000 French adults (the NutriNet-Santé study), published in The BMJ, found that a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a 12% increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease (Srour et al., 2019).

Cardiovascular disease kills approximately 695,000 Americans per year, making it the nation’s leading cause of death (CDC, 2023).

Type 2 Diabetes

A 2020 meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine analyzed data from more than 183,000 adults across multiple countries and found that higher ultra-processed food consumption was significantly associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, independent of obesity status (Fiolet et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020).

This is important because it suggests that the risk is not simply mediated by weight gain. Something in ultra-processed foods — potentially the emulsifiers, the disruption to the gut microbiome, the glycemic load, or the inflammatory compounds formed during high-heat industrial processing — appears to affect insulin sensitivity directly.

(Our article on [Sugar and High-Fructose Corn Syrup] covers the specific role of added sweeteners in insulin resistance and metabolic disease.)

Colorectal Cancer

A 2022 study published in The BMJ followed more than 197,000 participants in the United Kingdom and found that high ultra-processed food intake was associated with a 29% increased risk of colorectal cancer — specifically for men — and increased risk for a range of other cancers as well (Hang et al., 2022).

Depression and Mental Health

Emerging research is linking ultra-processed food consumption to mental health outcomes. A 2022 study in Nutritional Neuroscience found associations between high UPF intake and increased risk of depression, anxiety, and cognitive decline — a field of research now sometimes called nutritional psychiatry (Lane et al., 2022).

The gut-brain axis — the bidirectional communication network between your digestive system and your central nervous system — appears to be a key mechanism, with ultra-processed foods disrupting the gut microbiome in ways that affect neurotransmitter production and neuroinflammation.

Why Are Ultra-Processed Foods So Hard to Stop Eating?

This is not a matter of weak willpower. Food scientists are paid to engineer products that override satiety and maximize consumption — what industry insiders have called the “bliss point.”

Key mechanisms include:

• Hyperpalatability: Precise combinations of sugar, fat, and salt that stimulate the brain’s reward pathways more intensely than whole foods.
• Rapid digestion: Ultra-processed foods are typically pre-digested by industrial processing, leading to fast glucose spikes and crashes that drive hunger.
• Disrupted satiety hormones: Research suggests that emulsifiers and other additives may interfere with the secretion of leptin and GLP-1, the hormones that tell the brain the body is full.
• Addictive food design: A growing body of research supports the concept of food addiction as a real neurological phenomenon, particularly as it relates to ultra-processed foods (Schulte et al., 2015, PLOS ONE).

(For more on how food additives may be contributing to weight gain at a biological level, see our article on [Food Additives and Weight Gain].)

The GRAS Problem and Food Safety Gaps

One of the most underreported aspects of ultra-processed foods is the regulatory gap around the thousands of additives they contain.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows food manufacturers to self-certify that new additives are “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) — without mandatory pre-market FDA review. As of 2023, there are an estimated 10,000+ additives permitted in the U.S. food supply, many of which have never been independently reviewed for long-term safety, particularly their effects on the gut microbiome.

This regulatory framework was created in 1958, before the modern era of food science, microbiome research, or our current understanding of metabolic disease.

(For a detailed breakdown of the GRAS designation system, see our article on [Processed Foods and GRAS Ingredients].)

Practical Steps: Moving Away from Ultra-Processed Foods

Reducing ultra-processed food consumption does not require a perfect diet or a complete overhaul overnight. Research suggests that even modest reductions in UPF intake are associated with measurable health improvements.

Here are evidence-based starting points:

1. Read the Ingredient List — Not Just the Nutrition Label

If a product contains ingredients you would not find in a home kitchen — such as carrageenan, polysorbate 80, DATEM, or “artificial flavors” — it is likely ultra-processed. The length of the ingredient list is often a quick proxy: the longer the list, the more processed the product tends to be.

2. Cook More Whole Foods at Home

This does not mean gourmet cooking. It means building meals around recognizable ingredients: vegetables, legumes, whole grains, eggs, plain meats, fruit, nuts, and seeds. Batch cooking on weekends can make weeknight whole-food meals far more accessible.

3. Rethink Beverages

Soft drinks, flavored coffees, energy drinks, and many fruit juices are ultra-processed and represent a significant source of added sugar and artificial ingredients for many Americans. Water, unsweetened herbal teas, and plain coffee or tea are straightforward substitutions.

4. Crowd Out, Don’t Just Cut Out

Instead of focusing only on what to eliminate, focus on adding more whole foods to each meal. Over time, nutrient-dense foods tend to naturally crowd out ultra-processed options by improving satiety.

5. Be Patient With Your Palate

Research shows that taste preferences change with dietary habits. People who reduce ultra-processed foods over several weeks often report that whole foods taste significantly better and that previously appealing processed foods taste overly sweet, salty, or artificial.

Connecting the Dots: Chronic Disease as a System

This article is part of a broader conversation we’ve been having on this blog about the relationship between what we eat and the diseases that are overwhelming our healthcare system.

Ultra-processed foods are one major piece — but they don’t exist in isolation. They connect to:

• Liver disease: Ultra-processed foods, particularly those high in fructose, are a major driver of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD/MASLD). (See our article on [NAFLD and Liver Disease].)
• Cardiovascular disease: The fats, sodium, and inflammatory compounds in UPFs compound cardiovascular risk. (See our article on [The Human Body: Health Facts You Should Know].)
• Metabolic syndrome: The combination of obesity, insulin resistance, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia — all strongly associated with UPF consumption — is now present in an estimated one in three American adults (CDC, 2023).

The body is a system. What we eat affects everything: our liver, our heart, our brain, our hormones, and our microbiome. That is the core message of this blog, and it is a message the science increasingly supports.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Are all processed foods bad for you? A: No. The NOVA classification distinguishes between processing levels. Minimally processed foods like plain yogurt, frozen vegetables, canned beans, and oats are nutritious and practical. The concern is specifically with ultra-processed foods (NOVA Group 4), which contain industrial additives and have been significantly altered from their original form.

Q: Can I eat ultra-processed foods occasionally? A: The research looks at patterns of consumption over time, not individual meals. An occasional ultra-processed food in an otherwise whole-food diet is unlikely to cause measurable harm. The issue is when UPFs make up the majority of daily intake — which is currently the norm in the United States.

Q: Are “healthy” ultra-processed foods like protein bars and low-calorie snacks okay? A: Many products marketed as healthy — protein bars, low-calorie snacks, plant-based meat alternatives — are still ultra-processed by the NOVA definition. Their health impact depends on the specific ingredients and how they fit into an overall dietary pattern. Reading ingredient lists is more informative than front-of-package health claims.

Q: What is the single most impactful dietary change I can make? A: Research consistently points to cooking more meals from whole, recognizable ingredients as the highest-impact dietary change for long-term health. This reduces ultra-processed food exposure across all meals simultaneously.

Q: Where can I learn more? A: The NOVA classification system and related research are available through the University of São Paulo’s research group. The NIH ultra-processed food trial by Hall et al. (2019) is freely available through PubMed. Consult your physician or a registered dietitian for personalized guidance.

References and Sources

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). Chronic Diseases in America. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease
• Hall, K.D., et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
• Srour, B., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ, 365, l1451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451
• Hang, D., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. BMJ, 378, e068921.
• Juul, F., et al. (2021). Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 115(1), 211–221.
• Lane, M.M., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed food consumption and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutritional Neuroscience, 25(11), 2275–2285.
• Monteiro, C.A., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941.
• Schulte, E.M., et al. (2015). Which Foods May Be Addictive? The Roles of Processing, Fat Content, and Glycemic Load. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0117959.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2023). Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras
• Are Carbs Bad for You? The Carb Killer Mystery Explained

© 2026 Health News & Views for Truth Seekers | healthnewsviews.info Content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.

The post Ultra-Processed Foods and Chronic Disease: What the Science Really Says appeared first on Health News & Views.

Artificial food dyes are everywhere—from candy to cereal—but what are they really doing to our bodies?

Oh, I like the red one. No, give me the green one — I’ll have the pink one, and I’ll have the blue one. They are all so beautifully decorated, and the children will love these!

Colored candy, cereal, cupcakes, and water ice (a Philly thing) lure us in with child-like anticipation. As humans, we are drawn to color. The more brilliant, the more irresistible. Color affects our mood and motivation, our sense of warmth or energy, even our appetite. Blues feel calming. Reds and oranges feel exciting. Green evokes nature and health. This isn’t just poetry — it’s psychology, and the food industry has known it and used it for decades.

But my question has always been: What is the health impact on the human body? How much testing was done to determine the long-term effects of dyes that are constantly ingested — especially by children, who are the biggest consumers? Are we poisoning ourselves? And what are the alternatives?

Food Coloring or Food Poison?

When I first wrote this piece in 2019, these were questions many parents and researchers were raising but regulatory agencies were largely dismissing. A lot has changed since then.

According to Healthline, consumption of artificial food dyes increased by 500% over the 50 years leading up to this decade, with children as the primary consumers. Food dyes are chemical substances made to enhance the appearance of food by giving it artificial color — and today they are made from petroleum.

The first artificial food colorings were developed in 1856 from coal tar. Hundreds have been created over the decades. Most have since been found to be toxic and removed from use. The purple dye once used by the USDA to stamp meat? Poisonous — and eventually banned. What remains is a small handful of synthetic dyes still widely used in our food, our beverages, our cereals, our medications — and even our children’s toothpaste.

What the Regulatory Agencies Said — and What’s Changed

For years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) maintained that approved dyes did not pose significant health risks, based on animal toxicity studies conducted at the time of approval. That position is now shifting in significant ways.

In January 2025, the FDA banned Red Dye No. 3 (Erythrosine) from food and ingested drugs due to its link to thyroid tumors in laboratory studies — a finding that had been documented since the 1980s.

Then, in April 2025, the FDA announced a sweeping plan to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the U.S. food supply. According to the FDA announcement, the plan includes:

• Establishing a national timeline for the food industry to transition to natural color alternatives
• Revoking authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B
• Working with the food industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes — Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2 — from the food supply
• Authorizing new natural color additives as replacements
• Partnering with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to research how food additives impact children’s health and development

For those of us who have been raising these concerns for years: the science is catching up with the conversation.

The Dyes Still in Use — And Their Known Concerns

The following information draws from multiple sources, including the original infographic from Special-Education-Degree.net, Healthline’s food dye review (updated January 2026), and peer-reviewed studies. These are the synthetic dyes currently or recently approved for use in U.S. food:

Red No. 3 (Erythrosine) — Commonly found in baked goods, candy, sausage, and maraschino cherries. Linked to thyroid tumors in animal studies. The FDA issued a partial ban in 1990 and a full ban in January 2025.

Red No. 40 (Allura Red) — The most widely used food dye in the U.S., present in roughly 14% of all products sold by top manufacturers as of a 2025 study. Found in sports drinks, candy, cereal, condiments, and cosmetics. Research has found a suspected link to immune system effects and hyperactivity in some children.

Yellow No. 5 (Tartrazine) — Found in candy, soft drinks, chips, cereals, and baked goods. May cause allergy-like reactions and mild to severe hypersensitivity in some individuals, particularly those with aspirin sensitivity.

Yellow No. 6 (Sunset Yellow) — Found in baked goods, sausage, cereal, sauces, and cosmetics. Animal studies have found a link to adrenal gland tumors. May contribute to hyperactivity in some children.

Blue No. 1 (Brilliant Blue) — Found in baked goods, beverages, candy, cereal, ice cream, and packaged soups. Associated with kidney tumors in mice; may trigger allergic reactions in individuals with pre-existing asthma. A 2022 peer-reviewed study found an association with ADHD symptoms in children.

Blue No. 2 (Indigo Carmine) — Found in beverages, candy, dog food, cereal, and ice cream. Animal studies have observed a significant occurrence of brain gliomas in male rats.

Green No. 3 (Fast Green) — Found in beverages, candy, ice cream, and cosmetics. Approved by the FDA but prohibited in the EU. Animal studies found significant increases in bladder tumors in male rats.

Citrus Red No. 2 — Found in the skin of Florida oranges (to enhance color). Classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). FDA revocation of its authorization is in progress.

Please note: The presence of a dye on this list does not mean every person consuming it will experience harm. Individual sensitivity varies significantly, and the science in this area is evolving. If you have health concerns, consult your physician before making dietary changes.

Dr. Rebecca Bevans: The Voice That Got Ahead of the Science

When I first included Dr. Rebecca Bevans in this article in 2019, she was a relatively under-the-radar researcher whose TEDx talk had been gaining quiet traction. Since then, her work has reached a global audience.

Dr. Bevans, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Western Nevada College. She holds a doctorate in Cognitive Neuroscience and a master’s degree in Human Development from the University of Nevada, Reno. She is also the president of Brain Matterz, a Nevada nonprofit focused on brain disorder research and education.

Her TEDxCarsonCity talk, “The Effects of Artificial Food Dyes”, now has nearly 500,000 YouTube views, and her story has been featured in Forbes, KQED, and a 2025 documentary, To Dye For, available on Prime Video, Apple TV, Vimeo, and Fandango. In 2025, she co-authored a book — Everything You Need to Know About Synthetic Food Dyes — synthesizing more than 170 scientific studies on the topic.

Her initial research, and what made the TEDx talk so compelling, was intensely personal. Her son Alex was seven years old when he looked at her and asked for a knife — saying he didn’t want to live like that anymore. The family doctor had no answers. Dr. Bevans, armed with her background in cognitive neuroscience, turned to the research — and eventually traced the source: synthetic food dyes.

In her talk, she describes the behavioral patterns she documented in her son for each dye color:

• Red — Hyperactivity, migraines, impulsiveness, “brain buzzing.” Similar to ADHD symptoms. Effects last 1–2 days.
• Green — Mania, hyperactivity, a feeling of euphoria. Similar to bipolar symptoms. Effects last approximately 12 hours.
• Yellow — Defiant behavior, violent outbursts, aggression, anxiety, suicidal ideation. Similar to Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder. Effects can last up to five days.
• Blue — Irritability, moodiness, fatigue. Effects last approximately 24 hours.

Dr. Bevans is careful to note that not all children respond to dyes in the same way — and the peer-reviewed research supports this nuance. A 2022 review published in Environmental Health found that food dyes may be associated with changes to attention and activity in children, and a separate 2022 review found a specific association between Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2 and ADHD symptoms. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in a 2018 policy statement that artificial food colors “may be associated with exacerbation of ADHD symptoms.”

None of this is settled science. But it is accumulating science — and the FDA’s 2025 phase-out announcement suggests that the regulatory tide is turning.

So What Do We Do Now?

Unless a product’s label clearly states that its colors are derived from plant-based sources, it is reasonable to assume they are artificial. And it’s worth noting: the same applies to many medications. An estimated 80–90% of medicines contain food dyes.

The most practical steps remain the same ones I suggested in 2019:

• Read labels. If you see a color listed by number (Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1), it is artificial and petroleum-based.
• Choose whole foods. The biggest sources of artificial dyes are ultra-processed foods that carry other health concerns anyway. Eliminating them addresses multiple problems at once.
• Look for natural alternatives. Beets and raspberries make beautiful pink smoothies. Turmeric gives a golden yellow. Companies can and do make petroleum-free color options — the demand is growing.
• Check your medications. If your child is taking a prescription, ask your pharmacist whether the formulation contains synthetic dyes and whether a dye-free version is available.
• Talk to your doctor. If your child shows signs of hyperactivity, behavioral changes, or sensitivity reactions, bring it up with their pediatrician. The conversation around food dyes and children’s neurobehavioral health is now mainstream enough to warrant a direct discussion.

The choice is ultimately ours. Reds, greens, yellows, oranges, purples, blues — those are the colors of the rainbow. Nature gave us an extraordinary array of whole foods already bursting with them. Let’s begin to make the choices we know are better for our health and our families.

I’m just sayin’.

Watch, Read & Learn

Dr. Rebecca Bevans — TEDxCarsonCity: The Effects of Artificial Food Dyes (YouTube)

Documentary: To Dye For — Available on Prime Video, Apple TV, Vimeo, and Fandango

Book: Everything You Need to Know About Synthetic Food Dyes — Dr. Rebecca Bevans & Dr. Lorne Hofseth (2025)

Sources & Further Reading

• FDA — HHS Announcement: Phase-Out of Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes (April 2025): fda.gov
• FDA — Red No. 3 Ban (January 2025): fda.gov
• Healthline — Food Dyes: Harmless or Harmful? (Updated January 2026): healthline.com
• Special-Education-Degree.net — “Colors to Die For: The Dangerous Impact of Food Coloring” (Infographic): special-education-degree.net
• Western Nevada College — Dr. Bevans Feature (2025): wnc.edu
• KQED — “What You Need to Know About the Food Dye in Holiday Treats”: kqed.org
• WebMD — ADHD and Food Additives: webmd.com

This article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. If you have specific concerns about food sensitivities, allergies, or your child’s behavior, please consult a qualified healthcare professional.

The post Color Struck! Artificial Food Dyes: What’s Really Happening Behind the Colors We Eat appeared first on Health News & Views.

Are carbs bad for you, or is the real problem something we’ve been overlooking all along?

What a tragedy. Who could have done such a thing? Are there any suspects? He didn’t have to go out like that! The [family] is going to be fried! Just another senseless crime perpetrated on our carbohydrate friends — and I heard some of them got (s)mashed when they saw the pictures

What do you mean, no carbs? Low carbs? I like potatoes, bread, rice, and pasta!

As the trend toward low- and no-carb eating has continued to grow, it’s worth taking a step back and understanding what carbohydrates actually do — and what they don’t — before declaring them public enemy number one. Like most things in nutrition, the truth is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

Where I’m Coming From

Like many Americans, I grew up in a family that wanted to make sure we had enough to eat. A square meal was a starch, a vegetable, and a meat. A big pot of spaghetti appeared at least once a week — and we are not Italian. Nor are we Irish or Asian, but potatoes and rice were the staples that made the meal. The point being: the American dinner table has always been multicultural, and carbohydrates have always had a seat at it.

Meals were cooked at home. Fast food was last night’s leftovers. Nobody talked about “macros.” Having two starches at the same meal might have earned you a raised eyebrow and a gentle warning about shopping in the “chubby” section — but carbohydrates themselves were never the villain.

So what changed? Is the no-carb movement a fad, a trend, or a genuine lifestyle shift? Let’s bring in the suspects.

The Lineup: Three Popular Approaches to Low-Carb Eating

Atkins

The Atkins diet was developed by physician Dr. Robert C. Atkins, who popularized it in a bestselling 1972 book. At the time, it was controversial — even dismissed by parts of the health community — largely because of its emphasis on higher saturated fat and protein intake.

Since then, research has shown a more balanced picture. Studies have found that low-carbohydrate diets like Atkins may support weight loss and show improvements in blood sugar, HDL (“good”) cholesterol, and triglycerides in some individuals, according to a review published by Healthline. Notably, these diets do not appear, on average, to raise LDL (“bad”) cholesterol — though individual responses vary and should be monitored with your doctor’s guidance.

Atkins is structured in four phases, gradually reintroducing carbohydrates:

• Phase 1 (Induction): Fewer than 20 grams of carbs per day for two weeks, with a focus on leafy greens, high-protein, and high-fat foods.
• Phase 2 (Balancing): Slowly adding nuts, low-carb vegetables, and small amounts of fruit.
• Phase 3 (Fine-Tuning): Adding more carbs as you approach your goal weight.
• Phase 4 (Maintenance): Eating as many healthy carbs as your body can tolerate while maintaining your weight.

Paleo

The Paleo diet takes its inspiration from the eating patterns of our Paleolithic ancestors — hunter-gatherers who lived roughly 10,000 years or more ago. The idea, according to Mayo Clinic, is that our bodies may be better adapted to foods we could hunt or gather than to those introduced with agriculture.

The Paleo approach emphasizes lean meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds, while eliminating grains, legumes, dairy, refined sugar, and most processed foods. White potatoes are also typically excluded, though some versions allow sweet potatoes.

Mayo Clinic notes that the Paleo diet shares many features with other recognized healthy eating patterns — particularly its emphasis on whole foods and elimination of processed items. However, researchers point out that removing whole grains, legumes, and dairy can mean missing out on fiber, protein, calcium, and other key nutrients. Long-term studies on Paleo are still limited, and the diet can also be more expensive and less accessible than more varied approaches.

If Paleo interests you, it’s worth discussing with your healthcare provider whether it suits your specific health profile and lifestyle.

Keto (Ketogenic)

Keto is currently one of the most talked-about dietary approaches, and for good reason — many people have experienced meaningful weight loss following it, myself included.

The ketogenic diet typically limits carbohydrates to 50 grams or less per day (roughly 5% of total calories), with fat making up 60–80% of the diet and protein accounting for 15–35%. This low level of carbohydrate intake pushes the body into ketosis — a metabolic state in which fat, rather than glucose, becomes the primary fuel source.

It works. For many people, the initial results are significant. But here’s what I found personally, and what registered dietitians have noted: carbohydrates store water in the body, which means early weight loss on keto is largely water weight. And once the desired goal is reached, the diet can be difficult to sustain. The limited variety — and the fairly strict elimination of fruit, starchy vegetables, and legumes — can lead to boredom and nutritional gaps over time.

Edwina Clark, R.D., has pointed to deprivation, flavor fatigue, potential nutritional deficiencies, and a “boomerang effect” as real concerns with long-term keto. For me personally, it just wasn’t sustainable. I love bananas, apples, yams, potatoes, butternut squash — and lately chickpeas as a tuna substitute. Yum.

The Real Suspects: A Closer Look at Carbohydrates

Here’s the thing about carbohydrates — they are not all the same, and the research makes clear that the type and source matter enormously. Rather than eliminating the entire category, it helps to understand the difference.

Simple carbohydrates — the ones most likely to cause problems — are found in refined sugars and highly processed foods. These digest quickly, spike blood sugar rapidly, and offer little nutritional value. Think potato chips, sugar cookies, soda, artificial juice drinks, muffins, bagels, pretzels, cake, and pies. These were, admittedly, some of my personal favorites — and they remain the most legitimate “suspects” in the carb crime scene.

Complex carbohydrates — from whole, unprocessed sources — are a different story. Foods like quinoa, oats, barley, lentils, beans, beets, yams, pumpkin, and whole grain bread contain fiber that slows digestion, allowing for more gradual absorption and better nutrient uptake. They don’t race through the bloodstream the way candy or soda does.

Lower-carb vegetables — including broccoli, asparagus, spinach, kale, cauliflower, zucchini, peppers, cucumbers, mushrooms, and salad greens — contain carbohydrates as well, but at very low levels and with significant fiber and micronutrient value.

The bottom line: a can of potato chips loaded with trans fat, monosodium glutamate, maltodextrin, and cottonseed oil simply cannot provide what the body needs. Most fruits and vegetables can.

So What Now?

Many Americans are scaling back from several decades of the low-fat, high-carbohydrate approach that dominated nutrition guidance from the 1980s onward. We’re reading labels more carefully, asking harder questions, and recognizing that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates all have essential roles to play.

If you’re considering a significant dietary shift, it’s worth keeping a few things in mind:

• The Atkins, Paleo, and Keto approaches all rely heavily on meat. If you’re reducing or eliminating meat, these plans may need significant modification to work for you.
• Sustainability matters. A plan that produces short-term results but isn’t maintainable long-term may not serve you well overall.
• Your personal health history, medications, and goals matter enormously. What works well for one person may not be appropriate for another.

Please consult your physician or a registered dietitian before making significant dietary changes, particularly if you have existing health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or kidney concerns.

I’m just sayin’.

What’s your opinion on this topic? Please leave a comment below.

Sources & Further Reading

• Mayo Clinic — The Paleo Diet: mayoclinic.org
• USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2020–2025): dietaryguidelines.gov
• Healthline — Low-Carb Diets and Cholesterol: healthline.com
• Medical News Today — Carbohydrates: Why we need them: medicalnewstoday.com
• NutritionFacts.org — Carbohydrate & Whole Food Resources: nutritionfacts.org
• Artificial Food Dyes: What’s Really Happening Behind the Colors We Eat

Note: The information in this article is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute medical or dietary advice. Before making significant changes to your diet, please consult a qualified healthcare professional or registered dietitian who can evaluate your individual health needs.

Food: The Final Frontier.

The post Are Carbs Bad for You? The Carb Killer Mystery Explained appeared first on Health News & Views.

The connection between food additives and weight gain may help explain why so many people struggle to lose weight despite eating what seems like the same diet.

Sound Familiar?

“How much do I weigh? That’s impossible — I don’t eat that much.”

“I eat the same food I always have. What happened?”

“I used to be able to just cut back for a week and drop five pounds. Now nothing works.”

If any of that resonates, you are not alone — and more importantly, you are not entirely to blame. What changed is not just your habits. What changed is the food.

We Are Busier, Yes. But That’s Not the Whole Story.

As Americans, we do eat more than previous generations. Portion sizes have grown. Food is available everywhere, around the clock, at almost any price point. We celebrate, grieve, socialize, and decompress around food. Birthdays, graduations, game days, anniversaries, funerals — there is always a reason, and there is always a table.

And yes, we are busier. New jobs, spouses, children, aging parents — life stacks up, and meal planning is often the first casualty.

But here is what the “eat less, move more” conversation consistently leaves out: the food most of us are eating today is not the same food our parents and grandparents ate. It looks similar. It is packaged similarly. But what is inside has changed — quietly, incrementally, and with significant consequences for appetite, metabolism, and weight.

What the Food Industry Added (Without Much Fanfare)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has, since the 1970s, permitted food producers to use additives to enhance flavor, extend shelf life, and improve the visual appearance of food. The regulatory classification — GRAS, or “Generally Recognized as Safe” — allows many of these ingredients to enter the food supply with limited independent safety review. (For a deeper look at how GRAS works, see our companion article: The Truth About Processed Foods: Additives, GRAS Ingredients, and What They’re Doing to Your Health.)

As consumption of packaged and processed food increased, so did the use of these additives. The core commercial logic is straightforward: if the food tastes better, consumers buy more and eat more. What was not advertised is what some of these additives do to hunger signals, blood sugar, and the body’s ability to recognize fullness.

How Food Additives Undermine Your Body’s Own Appetite Controls

Your body has a sophisticated system for regulating hunger and satiety. Several common food additives and processing methods are now understood to interfere with that system:

• High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Unlike glucose, fructose does not trigger an adequate insulin or leptin response — two hormones critical to signaling fullness to the brain. Research published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (Stanhope et al., 2009, updated in subsequent reviews) found that high fructose consumption was associated with increased appetite and visceral fat accumulation compared to equivalent glucose intake.
• Artificial Sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharin): Counter-intuitively, research suggests that artificial sweeteners may increase cravings for sweet foods by triggering an insulin response without delivering actual calories — leaving the appetite system unsatisfied. A large-scale review in CMAJ (2017) found that regular consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners was associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk over time.
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) and Related Flavor Enhancers (autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, inosinate, guanylate): These compounds stimulate the palate in ways that can override natural satiety signals and encourage continued eating. Some animal studies have linked chronic MSG exposure to leptin resistance, though human data remains an active area of research.
• Emulsifiers (carboxymethylcellulose, polysorbate 80): Emerging research, including studies published in Nature (Chassaing et al., 2015), suggests that certain emulsifiers may disrupt the gut microbiome and intestinal lining, potentially affecting metabolic function and inflammatory responses linked to obesity.
• Refined Carbohydrates and Added Sugars: Stripped of fiber and processed for rapid digestion, these cause rapid blood sugar spikes followed by crashes that reliably trigger renewed hunger — often within an hour or two of eating.

This is not a character flaw. This is biochemistry.

What the Data Shows: Where We Are Now

The population-level results of decades of processed food consumption are measurable:

• More than 40% of American adults are now classified as obese (CDC, 2023) — up from 34.9% in 2011–2012 and continuing to rise
• 38% of American adults have pre-diabetes or Type 2 Diabetes (CDC, 2024), with rates increasing among younger adults and adolescents
• The CDC estimates that 90% of Americans exceed recommended daily sodium intake, largely from processed and packaged foods
• Ultra-processed foods now account for approximately 57% of total caloric intake among American adults (Martínez Steele et al., BMJ Open, 2020)

These are not individual failures. They are the predictable outcome of a food environment engineered to maximize consumption.

Then vs. Now: What Changed in the Ingredient List

Your grandmother seasoned food with ingredients she could grow, buy whole, or name from memory:

Salt, pepper, vinegar, garlic, dill, cloves, nutmeg, lemon, cinnamon, bay leaf, onion, coriander, peppers.

Compare that to a modern ingredient panel for a comparable packaged product. The difference is not just complexity — it is the biological effect of those added compounds on your hunger, your hormones, and your waistline.

How Food Additives Affect Weight Gain

What You Can Do Right Now

You do not need to overhaul everything overnight. Start here:

1. Read the ingredient list — not just the nutrition label. Calories tell part of the story. Ingredients tell the rest.
2. If you can’t pronounce it or wouldn’t find it in a kitchen, research it before making it a daily habit.
3. Look at your cart. If it contains more boxes, bags, and bottles than whole foods, that ratio is worth shifting — even incrementally.
4. Replace one processed item per week with a whole-food equivalent. Progress over perfection.
5. Be skeptical of “diet,” “sugar-free,” and “low-fat” labels — these often substitute one problematic ingredient for another.
6. Talk to your doctor about your metabolic markers — fasting glucose, triglycerides, and liver enzymes can reveal the impact of diet on your health before symptoms appear.

The food industry will not change until consumers demand it — with their questions, their purchasing choices, and their voices. You are not powerless here.

It’s not entirely your fault. But now you have the memo.

About the Author

Lynn Peterson, B.A. (English/Communications), M.S. & D.Sc. (Education), is a Certified Post-Secondary Instructor and Certified Health Coach, writer, and health advocate.

Please note: Lynn is a Certified Health Coach, not a licensed physician. This content reflects her research and educational background and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified healthcare provider.

Her mission: “We are developing and dying from preventable, chronic diseases.” Her goal is to demystify medicine, illuminate the diet–disease connection, and help people make informed choices about what they eat. Food: The Final Frontier.

References & Further Reading

1. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. (2023). Obesity and Overweight. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm
2. CDC. (2024). National Diabetes Statistics Report. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html
3. Stanhope, K.L., et al. (2009). Consuming fructose-sweetened beverages increases visceral adiposity. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 119(5), 1322–1334. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI37385
4. Azad, M.B., et al. (2017). Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. CMAJ, 189(28), E929–E939. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.161390
5. Chassaing, B., et al. (2015). Dietary emulsifiers impact the gut microbiota. Nature, 519, 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14232
6. Martínez Steele, E., et al. (2020). Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet. BMJ Open. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e009892
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Additives & Ingredients. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging
8. Healthline. (2023). 12 Common Food Additives — Should You Avoid Them? https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/common-food-additives

MEDICAL DISCLAIMER

This article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice and should not replace consultation with a licensed physician or qualified healthcare provider. The author is a Certified Health Coach, not a licensed medical doctor. Always consult your doctor before making changes to your diet, lifestyle, or weight management plan.

The post Why Food Additives and Weight Gain Are Linked (And What You Can Do) appeared first on Health News & Views.