Navigating the Complex World of Nutrition Policy

As growing public health challenges related to diet and nutrition come into the spotlight, effective nutrition policy has become increasingly critical to improving population health. The NIH-FDA Nutrition Regulatory Science Workshop, which took place December 17–18, 2024, brought together leading researchers, policymakers, and experts to tackle some of the most pressing questions in food policy.

As someone who works at the intersection of food science and policy, I was energized by discussions that have the potential to fundamentally transform the American food landscape and public health for years to come. Below are some key insights from these critical discussions, where experts grappled with balancing scientific rigor, practical implementation, and public health impact.

The Need for Multidisciplinary Solutions

One of the workshop’s main themes was clear: Effective nutrition policy requires more than just health science. While nutritional research provides the foundation, successful policies must account for human behavior, economic impacts, and social equity.?

• Consumer psychology meets policy. A presentation by William Hallman, distinguished professor of human ecology at Rutgers University, revealed how consumers make food choices in ways that often surprise policymakers and nutritionists. Rather than carefully reading nutrition labels, many rely on simple visual cues or buzzwords like “plant-based” or “non-GMO” to make quick health decisions about products, despite these labels having no direct relationship to nutritional value. These findings emphasize the fact that for nutrition policies to be effective, we must understand how consumers interpret and act on nutritional information, as misalignment between policy intent and consumer interpretation could undermine even the most scientifically sound regulations.
• The economics of healthy eating. The economic implications of nutrition policies emerged as a crucial consideration at the workshop, as reformulations to adjust to regulations can affect food prices and accessibility. Jayson Lusk, vice president and dean of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources?at Oklahoma State University, shared a consumer simulation study where lowering fruit prices and raising unhealthy food prices disproportionately impacted low-income consumers. Higher-income consumers, already eating healthier diets, were less affected, while lower-income consumers were more driven by habit than price.
• Effective collaborations. The workshop highlighted the Tobacco Regulatory Science Program as a model of a successful multidisciplinary research collaboration. This interagency partnership demonstrated how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) can work together to create evidence-based policies that actually change behavior. Similar approaches in nutrition could help bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and effective implementation.?

Overall, there was a shared recognition among the speakers that effective nutrition policies can only be designed well when these multiple disciplines work together.?

Science in the Balance: When to Act?

A recurring question throughout the workshop was at what point does scientific evidence become strong enough to warrant regulatory action? The successful removal of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) from the U.S. food supply in 2020 stands as model case where clear scientific evidence enabled decisive regulatory action. However, other areas require more nuanced approaches.

The discussion around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) highlighted this complexity perfectly and sparked some lively discussion. While research increasingly links UPF consumption with adverse health outcomes, several speakers noted that the complexity of the category makes simple regulation challenging. Recent studies suggest the relationship between UPFs and health outcomes is more complex than initially thought, with recently published science suggesting that not all UPFs are associated with adverse health outcomes. Additionally, concerns were raised about how a strong focus on UPFs might unintentionally stigmatize foods that serve important roles in public health, such as fortified breads and cereals. Overall, there was a shared acknowledgment of the need for more targeted data on UPFs to support regulatory action, including their nutrient composition and broader impacts on diet quality and consumption patterns.

Looking Ahead: Technology’s Promise and Challenges

One of the most exciting parts of the workshop, for me, was the discussion of new technologies shaping nutrition and regulatory science. From AI-powered dietary assessments to metabolomics, the possibilities seemed endless. Here are a few that stood out:

• AI dietary assessments. Image-based dietary assessment tools are revolutionizing data collection, allowing researchers to capture not just what people eat, but also portion sizes, eating contexts, and even food waste patterns. While these AI-powered tools show immense promise, researchers acknowledged that significant work remains to address challenges with varying food presentations, lighting conditions, and cultural diversity in food choices.
• Metabolomics. Metabolomics, which uses small-molecule metabolites to link diet with health outcomes, emerged as another frontier technology, offering unprecedented insights into how different foods affect our bodies at the molecular level. This field could revolutionize our understanding of diet-health relationships, though current high costs limit its widespread application.
• Personalized Nutrition. The All of Us Research Program is an ambitious initiative that aims to enroll over a million participants to build a diverse and comprehensive dataset for understanding how genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors influence health. Integrating technologies such as advanced dietary assessments, wearable devices, and biospecimen analysis, this research could be transformative to move beyond one-size-fits-all dietary recommendations.?

What struck me most in the discussion of new technology was how messy nutrition data can be. Real world data can have many inaccuracies, such as over and under-reporting and inconsistencies in definitions and measurements. The success of AI and machine learning tools in nutrition research depends on high-quality, consistent data, and eliminating the noise in nutrition data will be essential to leverage these tools to their full potential.?

Next Steps

The workshop concluded with a sense of both urgency and optimism. Dr. Robin McKinnon from FDA and Dr. Andrew Bremer from NIH emphasized that while challenges remain, concrete progress is on the horizon. Upcoming initiatives, including new front-of-package labeling regulations and an updated definition of “healthy,” signal momentum in nutrition policy development. These advances reflect a growing recognition that while perfect evidence might not always be available, thoughtful, science-based policies can still move forward. The key lies in balancing the need for in-depth research with the urgency of public health challenges.?

The way forward will require continued collaboration across disciplines, innovative research approaches, and careful consideration of real-world impacts. I look forward to seeing these initiatives unfold and reshape how Americans understand and interact with their food choices, potentially transforming public health outcomes for generations to come.?

Lisa Sanders, PhD, RD, is a nutrition consultant for IFT.

Additional IFT Resources:

• Omnivore podcast, Ep. 53
• Ultra-Processed Foods Content Collection
• Journal of Food Science Ultra-Processed Foods special collection