What we eat is making us obese and sick — but science shows solutions are within reach
Summary
Tim Spector reviews Food Intelligence by Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall, which builds on Hall’s influential 2019 controlled trial. That study found participants given ultra-processed foods consumed roughly 500 kilocalories more per day and gained weight, whereas those on minimally processed diets lost weight. The book argues that harms from ultra-processed foods (UPFs) cannot be reduced to fat, sugar or salt alone — processing itself can override satiety and drive overeating. It also critiques popular fixes such as protein hype, many supplements, continuous glucose monitoring for people without diabetes, and personalised-genetic diet plans.
The review traces how a lax US regulatory framework (for example DSHEA 1994 and the GRAS route for additives) has allowed additives and supplements to proliferate, contrasting this with stricter regimes in parts of Europe and Latin America. The authors advocate shifting focus from personal responsibility to reshaping the “toxic food environment”: tighter regulation, greater transparency on additives, reformulation, and taxes on UPFs to encourage whole foods. The reviewer finds the message powerful but notes the book’s practical diet advice is unsurprising.
Key Points
- Kevin Hall’s 2019 clinical trial found ultra-processed foods caused ~500 kcal/day extra intake and consequent weight gain.
- Processing can blunt satiety signals — harms of UPFs extend beyond macronutrient content.
- The book challenges fads: excess focus on protein, unproven supplements, CGM for non-diabetics and genetics-based personalised diets.
- US regulation is comparatively lax (DSHEA, GRAS), enabling additives and supplements without stringent premarket checks.
- Proposed solutions include stronger regulation and transparency, reformulation of industrial products, taxes on UPFs and policies to promote fruit, vegetables and whole foods.
Context and relevance
This review synthesises trial evidence and policy context linking modern food systems to obesity and chronic disease. It’s relevant to policy-makers, public-health professionals, clinicians and researchers because it highlights where evidence supports regulatory action and where commonly promoted individual-level strategies fall short.
Author style
Punchy — the reviewer is direct and critical of commercialised fads, emphasising systemic solutions over individual blame. If you care about evidence-based shifts in food policy, the review amplifies why the detail matters.
Why should I read this?
Look, if you want the short, blunt take: junk food isn’t just “bad choices” — it’s engineered to make us eat more. This review saves you time by pulling together the key science and policy arguments: why ultra-processed foods drive overeating, why small recipe tweaks won’t fix the epidemic, and what realistic levers (regulation, transparency, taxes) might actually move the dial. Read it if you want clear ammo for policy or public-health conversations.