Marion Nestle became a public figure late in life, but her influence on how we think about food, health, and power has been wide-reaching. In this conversation, we discuss what it means to eat well in a food system designed to encourage overconsumption, and how a life shaped by difficulty can still unfold in unexpected ways.
Nestle is Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, and the author of Food Politics, What to Eat, What to Eat Now, and several other books on food, as well as her memoir, Slow Cooked. Our conversation ranges from ultra-processed foods and weight-loss drugs to personal responsibility, public policy, and her own reflections on whether she has lived well.
Below are highlights from our conversation, lightly edited for clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred platform.
Does eating well matter over a lifetime?
PETER SINGER:
Do you think that taking your own advice about what to eat has contributed to your long and productive life?
MARION NESTLE:
I suppose it has. I certainly didn’t inherit very good genetics. My father died of a heart attack at forty-seven. I’ve had reasonably healthy personal habits. I never smoked. I don’t drink very much. I get plenty of sleep. And I follow my own dietary advice because that’s the way I like to eat. That’s very lucky.
What does that advice amount to?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
So what do you actually eat?
MARION NESTLE:
I eat according to advice that’s so simple that Michael Pollan can do it in seven words: eat food, not too much, mostly plants. And I took seven hundred pages to say basically the same thing. I don’t eat a lot of junk food, or what’s now called ultra-processed food. I never have. I don’t like it very much. One of my food rules is never eat anything artificial. I’m also fortunate in not having a weight problem, and that probably has something to do with genetics.
What counts as ultra-processed food?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
What do you mean by artificial food?
MARION NESTLE:
Artificial sweeteners, foods constructed with extracted ingredients rather than whole foods. Ultra-processed foods are industrially produced and formulated to be irresistibly delicious. Their purpose is profit for stockholders, not public health. You can’t make them in your home kitchen.
There’s now a great deal of research showing that people who eat a lot of their calories from ultra-processed foods have poorer health outcomes. They gain weight, are more likely to have type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other conditions. These are observational studies, so they can’t prove causation, but there are now well-controlled clinical trials showing that people eating diets based on ultra-processed foods consume hundreds more calories a day without realising it. That alone is reason enough to suggest eating less of these things
Why does processing itself matter?
PETER SINGER:
What is it about being ultra-processed that causes harm?
MARION NESTLE:
The leading hypothesis is the destruction of what’s called the food matrix. The simplest example is an orange. You have to peel it, chew it, swallow it, and the sugars are absorbed slowly, along with fibre and nutrients. If you drink orange juice, you’re drinking the equivalent of several oranges at once, and the sugar is absorbed much more quickly.
That applies to plant-based meats as well. These products are made from isolated ingredients, starting with pea protein. Pea protein is different from peas. It’s probably healthier to eat peas than pea protein. The explanation isn’t fully established yet, but that’s the best one we have.
Should we be eating less meat?
PETER SINGER:
Is there a tension between criticising processed foods and encouraging people to eat less meat?
MARION NESTLE:
Eating less meat is a strong recommendation of the Eat-Lancet Commission, especially in industrialised countries. Meat isn’t essential. If you don’t want to eat meat, you don’t have to. From my standpoint, you don’t need an ultra-processed substitute for it. If you don’t want meat, just don’t eat it.
These are difficult questions where health authorities are reluctant, for political reasons, to recommend reducing meat consumption at all. We’ll see what the forthcoming US dietary guidelines eventually say.
Do we need animal protein to thrive?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
Do we need animal-based protein in order to flourish?
MARION NESTLE:
No. The only nutrient you really need to pay attention to is vitamin B12, and you can get that from eggs, dairy, fish, or supplements. Whole civilisations have flourished on plant-based diets. In countries like Australia or the United States, not eating meat is nutritionally a non-issue. There are special circumstances, such as desperately poor populations, where meat can be beneficial, but those are exceptions.
What about the obsession with protein?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
Do people need more protein as they get older?
MARION NESTLE:
This is nutritionally odd. If you’re eating enough calories and a reasonable variety of foods, it’s almost impossible not to get enough protein. Most Americans get about twice as much protein as they need. The idea that protein needs to be added to everything, even beer, is a marketing phenomenon.
Some of this has to do with weight-loss drugs, because people lose muscle along with weight. That’s led to the idea that people need even more protein, even though there’s very little evidence that eating more than you already do helps. It’s something food companies can sell, and they’re very good at selling it.
How are weight-loss drugs changing eating habits?
PETER SINGER:
Are drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy changing the food system?
MARION NESTLE:
There’s no question about it. People lose weight because they eat less. Eating less is very bad for business. People on these drugs are spending less on food, particularly ultra-processed foods. They’re eating fewer snacks and soft drinks and looking for more nutrient-dense foods.
What fascinates me is that people say the “food noise” stops. They stop obsessing about food. They don’t want junk food anymore. The drugs make it difficult to eat large amounts, and people who’ve never been able to lose weight are often willing to tolerate unpleasant side effects because the benefits are so significant. What happens in the long term, we don’t yet know.
How much responsibility can individuals really carry?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
What role does personal responsibility play in eating well?
MARION NESTLE:
If you’re trying to eat healthfully today, you’re up against an entire food system on your own, and that system is worth trillions of dollars. Supermarkets are designed to get you to buy more. Food companies promote consumption in ways that go far beyond advertising, through store design, social media, schools, and marketing to children.
Even a well-informed individual has to work very hard to resist this. If we want people to eat better, we have to make it easier for them.
Looking back on a life
PETER SINGER:
When you look back over your life, do you feel that you’ve lived well?
MARION NESTLE:
You have the life you’re born into, and you don’t have much choice about that. The life I was born into was quite difficult for me. But I’m stunned by what’s happening now. I’m eighty-nine, and the invitations are pouring in. I travel, I lecture, I meet extraordinary people doing extraordinary things. I worked very hard to get to this point, and it feels miraculous that it’s paying off. I’m having a really good time now.
Are there still simple pleasures?
KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK:
Are there still everyday pleasures that matter to you?
MARION NESTLE:
Oh yes. Food is still a great pleasure. I grow some of my own vegetables on my terrace in Manhattan. Not enough to live on, but enough to enjoy. It takes no time at all to pick something and make a salad. That still matters to me.
Everything made so much sense. Thank you. Being from India I always wish to share more of the immense variety we have in vegetarian cooking back in my country. I hope it shall spread.