Subscribe to The Tonic Hormones get blamed for just about everything in the weight loss struggle. If the scale won’t budge, it must be cortisol.  If body fat is sticking around, insulin resistance is surely the problem.  And while it’s true that hormones have a significant influence on appetite, metabolism, and fat storage, the conversation around them is often oversimplified—or worse, used as an excuse. Here’s the reality: no hormone can override the fundamental principle of weight loss—calories in versus calories out (controversial hot take, I know). But here is the nuance—hormones can absolutely impact how easy or difficult it is to maintain that calorie balance. Take insulin, for example. It’s been unfairly demonized in diet culture, with claims that it “locks” fat away and prevents weight loss. In reality, insulin is essential for blood sugar regulation and muscle growth. It also plays a role in satiety—meaning, it can actually help keep hunger in check.  Yes, people with insulin resistance may have a harder time processing carbs, but that doesn’t mean cutting them entirely is the answer. Improving insulin sensitivity through exercise, balanced meals, and weight loss itself is a far more effective approach. Then there’s cortisol, the so-called “stress hormone.” In short bursts, it’s actually helpful—it mobilizes energy and helps the body respond to challenges. But when cortisol levels stay chronically high due to poor sleep, overtraining, or constant stress, it can drive up hunger, slow metabolism, and even lead to muscle breakdown. Managing stress through better recovery, proper nutrition, and sleep is critical—not just for weight loss, but for overall health. Ghrelin and leptin are the real power players when it comes to hunger and cravings. Ghrelin tells your brain to eat; leptin signals when you’re full.  When you diet aggressively, ghrelin levels spike, making food cravings nearly impossible to ignore. At the same time, leptin drops, meaning your body is slower to recognize when it’s had enough.  This is why extreme calorie deficits often backfire—your body fights back, making it harder to stay consistent. The key takeaway? Hormones influence weight loss, but they don’t rewrite the basic rules of energy balance. If you’re stuck in a plateau, the answer isn’t to go down a rabbit hole of insulin hacks or cortisol-blocking supplements—it’s to focus on the basics that actually move the needle. That means: Prioritizing protein to regulate appetite and preserve muscle Not slashing calories too aggressively, which can worsen hormonal imbalances Managing stress and getting enough sleep to keep cortisol in check Eating fiber-rich, whole foods to improve insulin sensitivity and support satiety Understanding that weight loss isn’t linear—hormonal fluctuations are part of the process So, yes—hormones play a role, but they don’t make the rules—your habits do. Instead of chasing “hormone reset” diets or getting lost in biohacking trends, dial in the fundamentals. Weight loss isn’t about tricking your body into shedding pounds; it’s about working with it in a way that’s sustainable. Yes, it can really be that simple.  Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Two years ago, the term “ultra-processed food” barely registered in wellness conversations. Now, it’s everywhere, with UPFs blamed for obesity, heart disease, diabetes, depression, and more.  They’ve even sparked rare political unity, with advocates on both sides of the aisle calling for tighter regulation of their marketing and sales. But before you toss every snack bar and frozen entrée in your kitchen, let’s take a closer look at the evidence. First, what makes a food “ultra-processed”? Think long ingredient lists full of refined oils, modified starches, preservatives, and flavor enhancers. These aren’t just junk foods—they’re carefully engineered to be affordable, convenient, and, yes, nearly irresistible. A groundbreaking 2019 study by NIH researcher Kevin Hall ( View Study ) brought some rigor to the debate. His randomized controlled trial showed that participants on a diet high in UPFs consumed about 500 more calories per day than those eating minimally processed foods, despite the two diets being matched for sugar, fat, and fiber. This calorie surplus led to predictable weight gain. No bueno.  Fast forward to the present day, and Hall is back with fresh data, and the results are even more striking. In a new study with four distinct diet groups, participants on an energy-dense, hyper-palatable UPF diet consumed 1,000 more calories daily than those on a minimally processed diet.  That’s not a typo: one thousand extra calories. Here’s where it gets interesting: not all UPFs are created equal. Another group in Hall’s study ate ultra-processed foods that were less calorie-dense and less engineered for irresistibility. Their calorie intake and weight loss mirrored the minimally processed group.  Interestingly, this suggests that the core problem may not be “processing” itself but the combination of calorie density and hyper-palatability engineered into so many modern foods. Of course, these findings come with caveats. The study is small (18 participants), and the full data won’t be available until mid-2025. Still, Hall’s work reinforces what many of us already suspect: foods designed to be addictive are harder to regulate and easier to overeat. The key takeaway? While it’s tempting to vilify UPFs outright, the nuance matters. Not all UPFs are equal offenders, and their impact on health seems to hinge on their calorie content and how engineered they are to keep you reaching for more.  As this conversation unfolds, one thing remains clear: focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods—whether they’re technically processed or not—is a safe bet for your health in 2025. And for those unavoidable snack cravings? Maybe reach for something that won’t keep you coming back for seconds…or thirds. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Seed oils like canola, sunflower, and soybean oil are everywhere, from your favorite salad dressing to that bag of chips you shouldn’t have opened while watching your favorite show. They’re convenient, cheap, and, until now, seemingly innocuous—but some argue they’re THE hidden dietary villain behind many of the chronic conditions fueling our health crisis.  So what’s the deal? What is true, and what is just classic food fear mongering from shirtless health influencers filming content at their local Whole Foods? Well, the criticism stems from two primary concerns: their fatty acid composition and the way they’re processed.  Seed oils are high in omega-6 fatty acids, which, while essential in small amounts, are believed to promote inflammation when consumed excessively. Combine that with their industrial extraction process, which often involves high heat and chemical solvents, and you’ve got a recipe for skepticism. Some studies suggest a correlation between rising seed oil consumption and increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, and chronic diseases like Alzheimer’s. Critics point out that these oils weren’t a staple of the human diet until relatively recently. They argue that our bodies haven’t adapted to this modern influx of omega-6 fats and that we’d be better off sticking to traditional fats like butter or olive oil. But here’s the thing: while these claims have a gut-level appeal, the science is far from settled.  Researchers at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health argue that the data actually support the heart-health benefits of seed oils. Omega-6s, in particular, have been shown to lower LDL cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease when they replace saturated fats. I can already feel some of you reading and getting upset.  Deep breath.  Okay, but who’s right? Context matters. If cutting out seed oils leads you to eat fewer processed foods and fast food—where these oils are most prevalent—that’s likely a win for your overall health.  But swapping canola oil for butter or coconut oil? That’s a lateral move at best. The real issue isn’t the occasional splash of seed oil in your salad dressing. It’s the overwhelming presence of these oils in ultra-processed foods, which are often calorie-dense, nutritionally poor, and engineered to be over-consumed.  The problem lies in the bigger picture: a diet dominated by processed foods, not the oils themselves. The key takeaway? Seed oils probably aren’t the supervillains they’re made out to be, but they’re also not without faults. If you’re cooking at home, high-quality olive oil or avocado oil is a solid choice for most meals.  Let me be clear—this is not defending seed oils or claiming they are healthy. It’s just simply that the data isn’t that black and white.  Ultimately, your energy is better spent focusing on the overall quality of your diet rather than obsessing over specific ingredients. The internet loves a good villain, but when it comes to seed oils, the truth is far more nuanced. That might seem unsatisfying, but it is the truth as far as the most current data is concerned.  Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Red dye 3 has been in the crosshairs of health advocates for years, flagged for potential links to hyperactivity in children and cancer in animal studies. On paper, banning it seems like progress—a long-overdue move toward making our food supply healthier.  But when you step back, this moment feels less like a triumph and more like a glaring reminder of just how broken our system is. For starters, it’s hard to ignore how long this took. The FDA has known about the potential risks of red dye 3 for decades, yet it’s only now being removed from our food supply. Instead of being viewed as a proactive step toward public health, the ban has invited criticism about the agency’s notoriously glacial pace.  For many, this feels like a "too little, too late" moment, reinforcing the belief that our health agencies are more reactive than proactive. To make matters worse, this saga feeds into a larger narrative of mistrust in health agencies. Even with the nuance that much of the cancer concern comes from high-dose studies in rats, the ban doesn’t feel like a sweeping victory. Instead, it highlights the absurdity of a regulatory system that seems more concerned with optics than real, impactful reform. Let’s also consider the broader context. Red dye 3 is just one ingredient in a much larger problem. Removing it won’t suddenly make ultra-processed foods healthy. Even if your Fruit Loops aren’t as bright red anymore, they are still Fruit Loops. Red dye 3 or not, sugary cereals are still NOT a part of a well-balanced breakfast, regardless of what those 1990s commercials led you to believe.   The American diet remains overwhelmingly dominated by cheap, calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods—products that thrive in a system built to prioritize profit over public health. In many ways, banning a single dye feels like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Even more ironically, many of the “cleaner” food alternatives that will emerge in the wake of this ban are owned by the same companies that brought us the problematic products in the first place.  It’s a reshuffling of the same playbook, not a revolution. Meanwhile, systemic issues like poor access to fresh food in low-income areas, lackluster school lunch programs, and a healthcare system that barely touches on nutrition remain unaddressed. The key takeaway? Yes, removing red dye 3 is a step in the right direction. But let’s not pretend it’s a solution. The real work lies in tackling the root causes of our health crisis: a food system that thrives on cheap ingredients and a public health framework that struggles to keep pace. We need bolder moves—better policies, better education, and better infrastructure—to create a healthier future. So, while it’s good to see progress, let’s keep our eyes on the bigger picture. To me, the food dye conversation is a distraction from the systemic changes we really need. But maybe it is just a small of many bigger steps to come! Here’s to a year of clarity, focus, and meaningful progress—one ingredient and one policy at a time. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Last week, RFK Jr. spent more than six hours in two back-to-back Senate confirmation hearings, answering tough questions from both parties.  His nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary, once seen as a likely bet, now seems a little shakier. The biggest sticking point? His past claims linking vaccines to autism. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician and chair of the Senate HELP Committee, pressed Kennedy hard on this issue, giving him multiple opportunities to correct the record. Kennedy refused, which led Cassidy to say he’s now “struggling” with whether to vote for the nomination. That’s a big deal, given that Cassidy sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which will ultimately decide whether Kennedy moves forward. While Democrats were predictably opposed to Kennedy’s nomination, the real drama came from within the GOP. Some Republican lawmakers have privately expressed concerns about Kennedy’s nomination, and after last week’s performance, there’s no guarantee he has the votes to make it through. I’m sure many of you have strong opinions on vaccines and whether RFK Jr.’s past comments should disqualify him from this role. I’m not here to debate that. As a parent, I see no downside to more transparency around pharmaceuticals and their safety—but that’s a conversation for another time. Here’s where things get interesting. While his vaccine stance remains polarizing, Kennedy’s views on food and nutrition were met with surprising support from—checks notes—both sides of the aisle.  For the first time in a long time, we’re seeing a shift in how lawmakers talk about the food system. There was broad agreement that ultra-processed foods, diet-related diseases, and lax food regulations are real problems that need real solutions. Even Cassidy, who sparred with Kennedy on vaccines, acknowledged their alignment on nutrition policy. “We are completely aligned on ultra-processed foods, obesity—these are issues we need to address,” he said in his closing statement. Kennedy didn’t hold back, either. He repeatedly criticized the food industry, arguing that we’ve allowed corporations to “mass poison American children” in pursuit of profit. That kind of rhetoric might have been dismissed in Washington just a few years ago, but now, it’s resonating across party lines. Even more telling? There wasn’t a single lawmaker who jumped in to defend the food industry. Usually, we’d expect at least some pushback, particularly from pro-agriculture Republicans or centrist Democrats.  But this time? Silence. Kennedy also clarified that his focus on food won’t be limited to HHS. Despite agriculture policy falling largely under the USDA, he repeatedly mentioned the need to move farmers away from “chemically intensive” practices. “We have to offer farmers an off-ramp,” he said, citing increased rates of Parkinson’s and chronic illness in agricultural communities. The key takeaway? Right now, Kennedy’s nomination is in limbo. If he loses key Republican support, his path to confirmation gets much harder. Sen. Cassidy holds a lot of influence here, and his final decision could make or break this nomination. But regardless of what happens, one thing is certain: food policy is finally getting the attention it deserves. For decades, politicians have avoided discussing diet-related diseases, school lunches, and the role of ultra-processed foods in our health crisis. Now, we’re seeing real discussions at the highest levels of government. Whether you agree with RFK Jr. or not, that’s a win. Big Food’s influence isn’t going away overnight, and systemic change won’t happen in one election cycle. But for the first time in a long time, we have bipartisan momentum around fixing how America eats. That’s something worth paying attention to. We’ll be keeping a close eye on what happens next. Stay tuned. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Last week, Kansas lawmakers introduced legislation that would prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from using their benefits to purchase soda and candy. If passed, the bill would direct state officials to request a federal waiver allowing the restriction—a move that has failed in the past, including under the past Trump administration. But this is a new Trump administration.  With RFK Jr. leading the charge at HHS and the “Make America Healthy Again” movement gaining traction, some believe this could finally be the moment for stricter nutrition regulations within SNAP.  The argument for these regulations? Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to fund unhealthy dietary habits, especially when diet-related diseases are skyrocketing. Makes sense to me.  Supporters of the bill, like Sen. Renee Erickson, say it’s a common-sense reform: “You can still buy pop and candy—you just can’t use taxpayer money to do it.” It’s a clean, direct message that resonates with many. But here’s where things get messy. SNAP restrictions like these have been proposed before, and they consistently run into the same problem: Are we really addressing the root causes of poor nutrition or just penalizing low-income families for struggling within a broken system? For starters, the USDA’s own research has shown that food stamp recipients don’t buy drastically different foods than non-recipients. In fact, a 2016 USDA report found that both groups spend most of their grocery budget on meat, poultry, and seafood, with sweetened beverages ranking second.  SNAP recipients spent just one percentage point more on soda than non-SNAP households (5% vs. 4%). So, if the goal is to dramatically improve public health, banning soda and candy from food stamp purchases isn’t going to move the needle much. Meanwhile, the real drivers of poor nutrition—food deserts, the rising cost of fresh produce, and a healthcare system that barely addresses diet—remain largely unaddressed. Then there’s the issue of enforcement.  If this bill passes, grocery stores would have to navigate a complicated web of rules determining which products are eligible. For example, Kit Kats and Twix (which contain flour) would still be allowed under the bill's definition, while a Snickers bar would not.  Some sugary juices would be banned, while others, depending on their fruit juice content, would still qualify. If this sounds arbitrary and convoluted, that’s because it is. Imagine trying to make heads or tails of this stuff as a grocery store clerk.  “Excuse me—can I get a manager on checkout line 1?”  This raises a fundamental question: Do we really want the government micromanaging people’s grocery choices, or should we focus on policies that make healthier food more accessible and affordable? Critics of the Kansas bill argue that we should invest in solutions that empower, not restrict—expanding incentives for fresh produce, improving food education, and fixing systemic issues in our agricultural and healthcare systems. The key takeaway? At the end of the day, we all want the same thing—healthier Americans and a food system that doesn’t fuel chronic disease. However, history shows that outright bans and restrictions rarely achieve their intended goals. Instead of removing choices, maybe we should work on giving people better ones. This bill is still in committee, and whether it moves forward remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: this debate isn’t ending anytime soon. The fight over food policy is just getting started, and how lawmakers navigate it will be telling. We’ll be keeping an eye on where this goes next. Stay tuned. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic After weeks of debate and a confirmation process that could generously be described as “messy,” RFK Jr. was officially sworn in as Secretary of Health and Human Services last Thursday. The final vote? 52-48, with every Democrat opposed and just one Republican—Sen. Mitch McConnell—breaking ranks to vote against him. For those who followed the confirmation hearings, this outcome wasn’t exactly a given. Kennedy’s long history of vaccine skepticism made his nomination controversial from the start, and his lack of expertise on Medicare and Medicaid raised red flags even among some conservatives. But in the end, his growing support within the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and Trump’s full backing sealed the deal. So, what now? Trump has promised to let RFK Jr. "go wild" on health, but the question remains: how much power does he actually have? His biggest focus so far has been America’s food system, particularly cracking down on food additives and ultra-processed foods—issues that, for once, have bipartisan support. Here’s why this matters. For decades, food safety advocates have warned that the FDA’s approach to food additives is fundamentally broken. Thanks to a 1958 law, the agency was supposed to oversee what chemicals entered the food supply. However, a loophole—the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) exemption—has allowed food companies to self-regulate, deciding for themselves which additives are safe. Even worse, since 1997, companies haven’t been required to notify the FDA about new additives. That means no one—not even the FDA—fully knows what’s in the food supply. In fact, a 2022 analysis found that 99% of new food chemicals introduced since 2000 were approved by the food industry, not regulators . What are we doing here?  Now that Kennedy is in charge of HHS, he actually has the authority to do something about this. He could push for new regulations requiring food companies to publicly disclose and submit their additives for review. He could also pressure Congress to reform the 1958 law, closing the GRAS loophole entirely. And then there’s the Make America Healthy Again Commission, a new advisory group created by Trump and chaired by RFK Jr. Its mission? To investigate the root causes of chronic disease, starting with childhood health. The commission has been given 100 days to deliver a report summarizing what’s known about the crisis and 180 days to propose a strategy for change. The big unknown is whether Kennedy can actually get anything done. His aggressive stance on food regulation stands in stark contrast to the typical anti-regulation bent of the Trump administration. While MAHA voters might want stricter food safety rules, the broader GOP—including many of Kennedy’s new colleagues—has historically been aligned with Big Food and Big Ag. Then there’s the question of how Kennedy will work with newly confirmed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose job largely overlaps with his food policy ambitions. Rollins has already signaled that she’ll be a firewall against any policies that hurt the agriculture industry, which could make RFK Jr.’s reform agenda a tough sell. The key takeaway? One thing is clear: Kennedy has completely shifted the conversation around food policy in a way that no HHS Secretary before him has. Whether you love him, hate him, or just find him fascinating, the fact that we’re finally having real discussions about food additives, diet-related diseases, and the role of government in nutrition is a massive shift. Whether his tenure ends in sweeping reform or political gridlock, we’ll be keeping a close watch. Stay tuned. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic For all the talk about fixing America’s health crisis, real change has to start somewhere—and Texas is stepping up. A new bill making its way through the state legislature takes direct inspiration from the MAHA movement, aiming to combat rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease. On paper, this makes a lot of sense. Texas isn’t exactly topping the charts when it comes to public health. The state has some of the highest obesity and diabetes rates in the country, with over 35% of adults classified as obese and one in ten living with diabetes. Throw in poor access to healthcare in rural areas, rising food insecurity, and an overreliance on ultra-processed foods, and you’ve got a serious problem. The proposed bill would introduce a range of policy shifts, including: Tighter food regulations to phase out certain additives linked to metabolic disease. Expanding nutrition education in schools to prioritize real food over processed junk. New incentives for local farmers to make fresh produce more accessible. Medicaid and state health program adjustments to focus on prevention rather than just treatment. While these measures may seem like common sense, they represent a dramatic shift in how state governments approach public health. Historically, health policy at the state level has been reactionary—dealing with the consequences of poor diet and lifestyle choices rather than trying to prevent them in the first place. And this is where things get interesting. With RFK Jr. now officially leading Health and Human Services, and the newly created Make America Healthy Again Commission pushing for reform at the federal level, individual states are beginning to take the initiative. Texas is the first to attempt a state-level rollout of MAHA-style policies, but it likely won’t be the last. Of course, not everyone is on board. Critics argue that these changes could lead to government overreach, potentially restricting consumer choice or placing new burdens on businesses. And given Texas’ reputation for resisting federal influence, the idea of pushing public health regulations might seem at odds with the state’s usual hands-off approach. But at the same time, something has to give. Obesity-related healthcare costs in Texas are projected to hit $39 billion annually by 2030, and current policies clearly aren’t moving the needle. If this bill passes, it could serve as a blueprint for other states looking to take control of their public health crises—without waiting on Washington to act. The key takeaway? Regardless of how you feel about MAHA or government-led health initiatives, one thing is clear: health is finally taking its place in the spotlight. After decades of being an afterthought in policy discussions, food, nutrition, and chronic disease prevention are now front and center. This isn’t just another “feel-good” bill that fades into the background. If Texas succeeds in implementing these reforms, expect to see other states following suit—each putting their own spin on how to improve public health at a local level. For those of us who have been asking for serious conversations about food and health for years, this is a moment worth paying attention to. Real change won’t happen overnight, but seeing states take action is a step in the right direction. We’ll be watching closely to see where this goes next. Stay tuned. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s pick for agriculture secretary, is about to take on one of the most influential roles in shaping America’s food and nutrition landscape.  If confirmed, she’ll oversee a department with a $200 billion budget that touches nearly every aspect of food production, from managing crop insurance to regulating school lunches and SNAP benefits. Last week’s confirmation hearing shed light on her priorities, but just like anything else in Washington, the answers left many people with plenty of questions unresolved.  On the surface, Rollins’ views align with traditional conservative approaches.  When pressed on SNAP, the federal nutrition program supporting 40 million Americans, she danced around direct commitments to maintain funding or reject stricter work requirements. Instead, she emphasized ensuring the program’s “efficiency and effectiveness.”  Translation? There is likely room for cuts or restrictions. Maybe?  The real curveball came with her nod to the MAHA movement, championed by RFK Jr. During the hearing, Rollins made an unprompted reference to rising childhood chronic diseases and pledged to address them alongside Bobby Kennedy. It was a subtle yet significant acknowledgment of MAHA’s influence—and a hint at the tightrope she’ll have to walk, balancing traditional ag interests with MAHA’s nutrition-focused agenda. Interesting. One of the standout moments of the hearing came when Sen. Cory Booker asked Rollins to commit to reducing ultra-processed foods in school lunches. Without hesitation, she agreed—a stance that could signal a pretty significant shift in USDA policy.  However, the devil is in the details. School meals rely heavily on processed options due to tight budgets and logistical challenges. While her response was encouraging, implementing such changes will require significant investment and structural overhauls. And it would probably cost a lot of money—something that will always appear at odds with the conservative side of the aisle. Rollins’ balancing act doesn’t stop at school lunches. Her role will require navigating competing priorities: supporting farmers and ranchers, managing the expectations of a health-conscious MAHA base, and dealing with criticism from skeptics on all sides. How fun.  Adding fuel to the fire is the appointment of Kailee Tkacz Buller, a former seed oil industry executive, as USDA chief of staff—a move MAHA advocates have already criticized. Then there’s the looming question of SNAP purchase restrictions, a proposal backed by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders to ban “junk food” from the program. Rollins expressed openness to letting states pilot such ideas, framing them as experiments in federalism. Whether this signals a broader push for stricter SNAP policies remains to be seen. Rollins’ confirmation hearing highlighted the complexities of her upcoming role. And honestly, this is just the tip of the iceberg.  On the one hand, she’s signaling openness to bold ideas like reducing ultra-processed foods and addressing chronic diseases. Awesome news.  On the other, her conservative policy background suggests a cautious approach to expanding federal nutrition programs.  With RFK Jr.’s confirmation hearing this week and growing MAHA momentum, the intersection of politics, food policy, and public health is shaping up to be one of the most fascinating storylines of the year. Will these new players bring meaningful change, or will competing agendas and entrenched interests stall progress?  Here’s to hoping for clarity—and action—in 2025. We will keep you updated on how it all plays out! Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Let’s talk fluoride.  For over 70 years, fluoride has been added to public drinking water in the U.S. to prevent cavities. At first glance, this seems like a public health no-brainer: fewer trips to the dentist, less tooth decay, and better smiles for everyone. But as time has gone on, questions about its effectiveness and safety have grown louder, and the answers are raising some serious concerns. A recent long-term study from the NIH ( Link Here ) has revealed unsettling findings, including potential links between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children, impaired brain function, and disruptions to the endocrine system.  These aren’t minor risks. They’re the kind of revelations that make you wonder how this practice has lasted so long without more scrutiny. Again—I'm not jumping to conclusions here, but why aren’t we asking more questions?  Even more troubling, fluoride’s cavity-fighting reputation may not be as bulletproof as we’ve been led to believe. Research has found little evidence that fluoridated water significantly reduces cavities. Yes, there are studies suggesting small declines in tooth decay, but these modest benefits seem dwarfed by the mounting risks.  And here’s a key fact: rates of tooth decay have been steadily falling across the developed world, regardless of whether a country adds fluoride to its water. Despite these red flags, the majority of Americans—about 67%—still drink fluoridated water every day. Changing this isn’t easy, either. Efforts to revisit fluoride’s safety have faced stiff resistance, and it took nearly a decade of legal battles just to get the EPA to consider reexamining its risks.  It’s a frustratingly familiar story: a chemical introduced with good intentions turns out to have unintended consequences, but inertia and bureaucracy make meaningful reform almost impossible. This isn’t just about fluoride; it’s a recurring theme in public health. We’ve seen it with trans fats, PFAS, glyphosate, and countless other chemicals that were introduced before their long-term impacts were fully understood.  The result? A public health system that often seems more reactive than proactive, leaving individuals to fend for themselves. So, where does that leave us? While systemic change is sorely needed, there are immediate actions you can take to minimize exposure. Consider filtering your water to remove unwanted contaminants. Think twice about the products you consume that rely on tap water.  And if you’re still using fluoride toothpaste, it might be time to explore alternative options. Fluoride in drinking water may have started as a well-intentioned idea, but it’s clear that the risks and benefits need to be reassessed. As we head into the new year, let this serve as a reminder to question what we’re told and take ownership of our health where possible. Here’s to 2025—a year for smarter choices and healthier habits. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic Let’s start with the obvious: the old rules regulating the word “healthy” on food packaging were comically outdated.  Foods like salmon and avocados—nutritional powerhouses by most standards—couldn’t sport the “healthy” label under the original guidelines. Meanwhile, fortified sugary cereals and white bread? They made the cut.  Thankfully, the FDA’s new definition brings some sanity back into the equation, allowing nutrient-dense options like nuts, eggs, and lentils to claim their rightful place in the “healthy” club. Progress, right? Ehh. Well, sort of. While it’s nice to see a few decades of nutrition science finally acknowledged, the FDA’s shiny new rules aren’t exactly revolutionary.” Yes, the updated standards are more sensible. Yes, they might nudge a few consumers toward better choices, but let’s keep things in perspective. The “healthy” label currently appears on only about 5% of packaged foods. The FDA’s own estimates suggest this revision will influence the shopping habits of, at most, 0.4% of Americans. Compare that to the nearly 70% of U.S. adults who are either obese or overweight, and yeah… that’s...not great. The real kicker? The agency projects this change will bring an annual public health benefit of $46 million—a drop in the ocean compared to the $1 trillion we spend each year managing diet-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease.  That’s not to say it’s worthless, but calling this a meaningful step in the fight against chronic illness feels overly generous. While clearer labels are helpful, they are not a substitute for real systemic change. America’s diet-related health crisis won’t be solved by tweaking marketing claims on a handful of products. We need bolder moves: mandatory front-of-package labeling, limits on harmful additives, subsidies for healthy foods, and better access to nutrition education. Critics are also quick to point out that the new rules could actually backfire for some families. Stricter caps on added sugars mean many flavored yogurts and milks—a go-to for kids—will no longer qualify as “healthy.” And with products needing to reformulate or rebrand to meet the updated standards, there’s a risk of fewer affordable, nutrient-dense options on grocery store shelves. So, where does this leave us? The FDA’s update isn’t nothing, but it’s far from enough.  It’s like finally fixing a leaky faucet in a house with a flooded basement. Sure, it’s better than ignoring the problem altogether, but it doesn’t address the scope of the crisis we’re facing. The key takeaway? Real progress will take more than a new label definition. While the FDA pats itself on the back, we must keep pushing for meaningful change—changes that make healthy eating accessible for everyone, not just the few who can afford to navigate the maze of modern food marketing. Is there hope that things will change? With RFK Jr. and others like Casey and Callie Means bringing the conversation to the forefront of public discourse, there might just be a chance over the coming years. Only time will tell! Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.

Subscribe to The Tonic When you think of agricultural subsidies, your mind probably doesn’t jump to rising obesity rates or the climate crisis.  Yet, here we are, facing down the harsh reality that our food and agricultural policies may be doing just that—ruining our climate and our health. For anyone who has been with us for some time, this isn’t news, but it is worth revisiting some of the details.  Currently, U.S. agricultural subsidies are geared toward commodity crops like corn and soybeans, which largely end up as processed foods or animal feed rather than the fruits and vegetables most dietary experts recommend. These choices, believe it or not, don’t just impact our waistlines—they impact our planet, too.  America’s life expectancy is falling behind other developed countries, and ultra-processed food is a major culprit. It’s no secret that diets high in processed foods contribute to chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.  Unfortunately, the current Farm Bill subsidies incentivize the production of the very crops that are likely to end up in those processed foods. This isn’t just a food issue; it’s a health crisis in the making. But it’s not just our health on the line. The environmental costs are staggering. A study by Harvard found that U.S. agriculture contributes one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. Those same agricultural practices degrade soil, pollute air and water, and increase antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These environmental impacts make it even tougher to grow enough food for a population that keeps climbing.  As Congress negotiates a new Farm Bill, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This bill could shift subsidies to support crops that benefit both our bodies and the planet. That means more support for nutrient-dense options like beans, lentils, and leafy greens, and less for carbon-heavy, processed food ingredients.  Imagine a world where the healthiest foods aren’t the most expensive options on the menu—that’s the potential power of a reformed Farm Bill. The reality is, this bill is about more than just what ends up on your dinner plate. Experts argue that to fight both climate change and the obesity epidemic, the bill needs to support sustainable practices. By funding conservation programs and climate-smart agricultural policies like regenerative agriculture, Congress could give farmers the tools to reduce their environmental impact while still producing affordable, high-quality food. But as with any major policy overhaul, there’s pushback. Critics claim that reducing subsidies for large-scale, commodity-crop farms will harm rural economies. However, data shows that it’s the largest farms—and wealthiest corporations—benefiting the most under the current system. Shifting some of that support to smaller, independent farmers could democratize agricultural subsidies and help promote a healthier food system. The key takeaway? Doctors and climate scientists have been warning us for decades, but the onus has been placed on individuals to “eat healthier” and “be eco-friendly.” This Farm Bill gives Congress a rare opportunity to move the needle toward systemic change.  Will we take it? Or will we find ourselves looking back in 2029 (the Farm Bill is typically negotiated every 5 years), wondering why we missed the chance? The choice is clear, but only time will tell if we’re brave enough to make it. Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.