30 May I Asked a PhD Why Americans Are So Divided About Food with Dr. Jessica Knurick
Are you living in a nutrition echo chamber? I hadn’t thought about the fact that we likely are—until I asked one innocent question on Instagram that completely shattered my understanding of food safety, wellness trends, and what it really means to help people get healthier.
What started as a simple question about food coloring bans turned into the most eye-opening conversation I’ve had about nutrition science in a while. Let me share what happened when I sat down with Dr. Jessica Knurick, a PhD nutrition scientist who specializes in chronic disease prevention, and how she softened my perspective on some of the biggest wellness controversies of our time.
The Question That Started Everything
I posted what I thought was an innocent question on Instagram: “I’m not really clear why people are upset about the food coloring ban. What am I missing here?”
I genuinely didn’t understand the controversy. But what I got back wasn’t just answers—I got hate. I got people questioning my political affiliations. I got messages telling me I was naive or worse. More importantly, I got tagged repeatedly to follow Dr. Jessica Knurick’s page. When I started reading her content, I realized something: I had been living in exactly the kind of echo chamber I thought I was smart enough to avoid.
Here’s what I learned about echo chambers: We naturally surround ourselves with information that validates what we already believe. We follow people who reinforce our current choices. We consume content that makes us feel smart and right about decisions we’ve already made. And when we encounter opposing viewpoints? We often dismiss them as wrong, corrupt, or even evil—without actually examining the evidence.
The “They Are Banned in Europe” Myth
One of the biggest revelations came when Dr. Knurick addressed something I—and apparently many others—completely believed to be true: that artificial food dyes are banned in Europe while America allows dangerous chemicals.
The reality completely floored me. The truth is: all five of the most commonly used artificial food dyes in America are completely approved and deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). They’re also approved in Australia, New Zealand, and by Health Canada. We’re literally coming out with the same exact safety recommendations as these other countries.
So why do European versions of cereals look different than ours? It’s not about safety regulations—it’s about consumer preference and cultural expectations. Americans, culturally, expect bright, vibrant cereals. Europeans don’t have the same expectation.
This was my first major insight in our chat: The narrative that America allows dangerous ingredients while other countries protect their citizens simply isn’t accurate in this case. It’s actually more that as a culture, we tend to WANT the more “colorful” food options.
Right (And Wrong) About Seed Oils
For years, I’ve recommended olive oil and avocado oil over seed oils like canola and vegetable oil. I’ve talked about this in my books and on countless episodes. I believed seed oils were inflammatory and harmful. While there is definitely truth to that, it’s not the whole picture.
Dr. Knurick’s research revealed a more nuanced truth that both validated some of my instincts while correcting my understanding:
Where I was on the right track: From a nutrient density perspective, olive oil, avocado oil, and coconut oil are definitely superior choices. They contain beneficial compounds and polyphenols that seed oils lack due to processing.
Where I needed a reality check: The epidemiological data—large-scale, long-term studies—doesn’t support the claim that seed oils are harmful to human health. In fact, when you look at fatty acid composition, seed oils are actually “heart-protective”…when they replace saturated fats.
The real issue: The issue is not that we eat seed oils. It’s that we grossly overconsume seed oils due to the fact that they’re abundant in ultra-processed foods and restaurant meals. The problem isn’t the trace amount in a healthy meal or snack—it’s the excessive consumption through fried foods and processed products that we consume more than we are aware of. Consuming them in that way – especially when seed oils are repeatedly heated (like in fast-food fryers) – DOES create inflammation and pose a threat to our health because they oxidize. But using canola oil to sauté vegetables at home? The science doesn’t support avoiding it entirely.
Raw Milk: To Drink or Not To Drink?
This topic hit close to home because I’ve personally experienced less bloating with raw milk compared to pasteurized milk. I believed this was due to intact enzymes that aid digestion. Dr. Knurick acknowledged that many people report this experience—and that these observations are valuable. However, she explained that there’s currently no scientific research to support the enzyme theory. The lactase enzyme that breaks down lactose is produced by our bodies, not found in milk itself. However, I am also very aware that consuming raw milk DOES significantly increase our chances of contracting food borne illnesses.
Here’s what I learned about the difference between individual choice and public health policy:
For individuals who choose to take the risk of drinking raw milk, raw milk might work well. But from a public health perspective, raw milk is 840 times more likely to cause foodborne illness than pasteurized milk. Pasteurization—which is just heating milk to 165°F for just 15 seconds—dramatically reduces this risk without significantly altering the nutritional profile.
The key insight stemming from this part of the conversation: What works for one person doesn’t necessarily translate to safe policy for entire populations.
The FDA Reality Check
I’ll admit, I’ve been critical of the FDA without fully understanding how they operate or the challenges they face. Dr. Knurick opened my eyes to both their legitimate shortcomings and the unfair criticism they receive.
The real problem: The FDA is chronically underfunded, which created a significant issue with something called GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) designations.
Here’s what happened: In 1997, due to massive backlogs and insufficient funding, the FDA allowed food companies to essentially self-affirm that new ingredients were safe. Companies could hire their own scientists, conduct their own safety studies, and add ingredients to the food supply without even informing the FDA.
This created a loophole where ingredients entered our food system without proper FDA oversight—not because of corruption, but because of inadequate funding and a push for deregulation from both political parties.
The solution: Close the GRAS loophole and ensure all food additives go through rigorous FDA approval processes. This is actually something that public health experts and even RFK Jr. agree on.
The Public Health Perspective
Perhaps the most profound shift in my thinking came from understanding the difference between individual health optimization and public health policy.
Individual health optimization is what I focus on—and what many of my listeners are interested in. It’s about finding the best possible strategies for people who have the resources, time, and motivation to implement them.
Public health is about creating policies and systems that improve health outcomes for entire populations, especially those facing the greatest barriers.
Dr. Knurick practices aggressive wellness optimization in her personal life—she lifts weights, eats nutrient-dense foods, tries to manage stress, and prioritizes sleep. But when she looks at America’s health crisis, she recognizes that individual behavior change isn’t enough.
The sobering statistics to put everything in perspective:
- 13.5% of Americans live in food-insecure households, including one in five children
- There’s a 15-year life expectancy gap between the highest and lowest income brackets for men
- Over 90% of Americans don’t meet basic fiber guidelines
- Millions of Americans live in food deserts where accessing fresh produce requires taking multiple buses
What Would Actually Improve America’s Health
Instead of focusing on removing artificial food dyes, Dr. Knurick outlined what would make the biggest impact on public health:
Agricultural Reform: Currently, our subsidies go toward corn, wheat, and soy—the building blocks of ultra-processed foods. Meanwhile, we import much of our produce, making fruits and vegetables expensive and less accessible.
Food System Changes: Strengthening local food systems, incentivizing small farmers to grow diverse crops, and bringing fresh food access to food deserts.
Addressing Social Determinants: Economic instability, lack of walkable communities, inadequate nutrition education, and insufficient access to healthcare all impact health outcomes more than individual food choices.
Early Education: Teaching nutrition from a young age to increase demand for healthier options, which would incentivize companies to produce them.
The Social Media Algorithm Problem
One of the most important insights from our conversation was about how social media shapes nutrition information—and misinformation. Social media algorithms don’t reward nuanced, accurate information. They reward sensational content that provokes strong reactions. Unfortunately, most nutrition science isn’t sensational—it’s complex and requires context. This creates a system where fear-based content performs better than educational content – Dr. Knurick receives daily messages from people who are terrified to feed their families because of conflicting information online.
The result: Well-intentioned wellness influencers often oversimplify complex topics or present individual optimization strategies as universal rules, creating unnecessary fear and confusion.
What This Means for How I’ll Share Going Forward
This conversation fundamentally changed how I want to approach sharing health information:
Being More Precise: Instead of making blanket statements about what everyone should do, I want to be clearer about what I personally do and why, while acknowledging that it might not be appropriate or accessible for everyone.
Acknowledging Nuance: Most nutrition topics are complex and context-dependent. What works for someone with resources and health knowledge might not translate to broader populations.
Focusing on Accuracy Over Engagement: Even if it means less viral content, I want to prioritize sharing accurate information over sensational claims.
Understanding the Difference: Recognizing when I’m speaking about individual optimization versus public health policy, and being clear about which lens I’m using.
The Bigger Picture on Food and Health
After this conversation, I realized that many of the wellness influencers I follow—myself included—actually DO agree on the fundamentals with public health experts like Dr. Knurick:
- Eat mostly whole, nutrient-dense foods
- Limit ultra-processed foods, added sugars, and refined carbohydrates
- Include a variety of vegetables, fruits, quality proteins, and healthy fats
- Focus on overall dietary patterns rather than individual ingredients
The difference isn’t in the core recommendations—it’s in how we talk about exceptions, accessibility, and implementation. Dr. Knurick isn’t “pro” ultra-processed foods or artificial ingredients; she’s pro-accuracy and pro-recognizing that not everyone has the same resources to optimize their health. I admire that.
Questions This Raises for All of Us
This conversation left me with important questions that I think we all need to consider:
- Are we creating unnecessary fear around foods that aren’t actually dangerous?
- How do we balance individual optimization with compassion for those facing different circumstances?
- Are we focusing our attention on the right issues when it comes to improving health outcomes?
- How can we have more nuanced conversations in a media environment that rewards polarization?
Moving Forward with More Wisdom
I’m grateful for this conversation because it reminded me of something crucial: Being willing to have our minds changed is essential for growth and for truly helping others.
I still believe in the power of nutrition to transform health. I still think there’s value in choosing nutrient-dense foods and being mindful about what we consume. But I also now understand that the path to better health for individuals might be different from the path to better health for populations.
The goal isn’t to choose sides in nutrition wars—it’s to seek truth, acknowledge complexity, and approach these topics with both curiosity and humility.
Most importantly: We can optimize our own health while also supporting policies and systems that make healthy choices more accessible for everyone. These aren’t competing goals—they’re complementary ones.
The contents of the Midlife Conversations podcast is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider. Some episodes of Midlife Conversations may be sponsored by products or services discussed during the show. The host may receive compensation for such advertisements or if you purchase products through affiliate links mentioned on this podcast.
