The information provided by this chatbot is generated by AI and intended for general guidance only; it should not replace professional advice. Always consult a qualified expert for specific dietary, medical, or nutritional concerns.
Popular topics
Food is far more than fuel, it's at the heart of our health, our environment, and our society. Yet despite its central role, the UK's relationship with food has become increasingly troubled. Rising obesity rates, environmental degradation, and heightened food insecurity have exposed the critical flaws in our current system. In response, the UK government, along with over 400 voices from across the food system, including farmers, businesses, citizens, and experts, launched an ambitious Food Strategy, promising significant shifts in how we produce, consume, and value our food. But can this new vision deliver meaningful change?
The challenges confronting the UK's food system are stark and deeply interconnected. Health crises, environmental breakdown, and food insecurity reinforce each other, creating a cycle that's difficult, but not impossible, to break.
The Health Crisis:
Obesity is no longer just an individual concern; it's become a national crisis. Today, 64% of adults in England struggle with being overweight or obese, a figure that's doubled since the 1990s. Even more troubling is childhood obesity, which disproportionately affects children in deprived communities. The costs of obesity-related illnesses to the NHS exceed £11 billion annually, with societal costs soaring even higher. This isn't just a health issue—it's a social and economic emergency.
Environmental Damage:
Food production occupies nearly 70% of UK land, profoundly impacting ecosystems and biodiversity. Intensive farming practices are contributing to biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change. Agriculture alone accounts for significant greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution from farming activities affects nearly half of our inland water bodies. This environmental damage not only threatens wildlife but also undermines the long-term sustainability of our food production.
Food Security and Economic Pressure:
In recent years, food prices have skyrocketed by 36%, driven largely by global crises like the Ukraine conflict, pushing more households into food insecurity. Now, more than 4% of the UK population rely on food banks, underscoring how deeply vulnerable many have become. With self-sufficiency in fresh produce alarmingly low, the resilience of our food system is under severe strain.
In response to these challenges, the UK's Food Strategy introduces substantial policy changes designed to transform the entire food landscape:
Promoting Healthier Eating Habits:
The government will enforce clearer food labeling, reduce unhealthy food advertising, especially aimed at children, and encourage the food industry to lower salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats in their products. These measures aim to empower consumers to make healthier choices more easily.
Shifting Towards Sustainable Agriculture:
A significant pivot towards plant-based farming and rewilding (aka nature restoration) aims to drastically reduce environmental impacts. This means fewer emissions, enhanced biodiversity, and a more sustainable food supply that can support future generations.
Improving Public Food Quality:
Public institutions like schools and hospitals will now be required to source at least half of their food sustainably and locally, not just improving meal quality but also supporting local economies.
While the government's proposals are ambitious, critics and experts highlight several potential hurdles. Changing deeply ingrained consumer habits and preferences isn't straightforward, especially when convenience and affordability drive food choices. Additionally, the economic pressures that support intensive agriculture remain significant barriers. Without addressing these, ensuring equitable access to healthier food options for all segments of society could be challenging.
Addressing these systemic barriers will require sustained commitment, significant investment, and active cooperation from both the public and private sectors.
Real change isn't solely in the hands of policymakers—it begins with individual choices:
Ultimately, this strategy is just the starting point of an ongoing, evolving journey. Its success will depend on public engagement, continuous research, and adaptive policies. Achieving this vision means a collective effort from everyone—government, industry, and individuals alike.
Together, we have the chance to rebuild our relationship with food, creating a system that truly serves the health and well-being of all UK citizens.
Eddie Abbew begins his video by arguing that, from a logical standpoint, the only foods humans can safely consume without excessive cooking are meat and fruit. He then takes a bite of raw meat and confidently states, “there’s nothing wrong with eating raw meat.” On the surface, this might seem like a personal dietary choice. But framed as a demonstration of safety, and broadcast to a wide social media audience, this claim is misleading and potentially dangerous.
The evidence on the risks associated with consuming raw meat is extensive, and most people are probably familiar with those risks. So before reviewing this evidence in detail, let’s take a close look at the underlying assumptions that tie this argument together.
In this video, raw meat appears to be the epitome of what Eddie Abbew calls “real” food, food that he claims is designed for human consumption, in contrast with any form of processed products, which he regularly criticises. Within this perspective, the polar opposite would probably be ultra-processed, plant-based meat. Interestingly, in a later video posted just a few days later, Eddie Abbew warns his audience about the dangers of Quorn products, citing the tragic story of a young boy who died after suffering from a severe allergic reaction — which is an immune response, not the same as an infection caused by bacteria in food. The implication is clear: natural, unprocessed food like raw meat is safe; foods made in a factory are not.
But this logic doesn’t hold. If it did, then bringing up the case of one person having died after consuming raw meat would be enough to argue that equally, raw meat isn’t safe. However, from a scientific, logical perspective, this would not be enough: how a single person reacts to a food, whether negatively or not at all, is ONE single piece of a much larger jigsaw puzzle. It matters, but on its own, it cannot tell us whether that food is safe for the broader population.
What can? Scientific evidence looking at patterns, testing, and data.
Decades of research show that raw meat is a common source of pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, all of which are killed during cooking. These bacteria are responsible for many cases of foodborne illness each year, some of which lead to hospitalisation or death.
This doesn’t mean eating raw meat always causes illness, just as not wearing a seatbelt doesn’t always lead to injury. But the risk is there, and it should not be ignored. Following that logic, we should also come to the conclusion that wearing a seatbelt is not necessary, which would be considered dangerous advice. In both cases, the risks are real and well-documented, and so is the effectiveness of solutions. Cooking is one of the simplest and most effective tools we have to eliminate the risks of developing foodborne illnesses when we eat meat.
Fact-Check: ✅ Raw meat consumption carries well-established health risks, including exposure to Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and parasites like Taenia saginata (source, source). These pathogens can lead to severe illness, hospitalisation, or even death, especially in vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with a weakened immune system (source). This information is left out from Eddie Abbew’s video in which he states that meat is one of the only foods humans can safely eat without excessive cooking.
Reports from multiple countries, including the U.S., Ethiopia, Lebanon, and Japan, consistently link raw meat consumption with foodborne illness and support strict safety guidelines and enhanced public education (source, source). For example, a Salmonella outbreak which occurred in Wisconsin in 1994 was traced back to the consumption of raw ground beef. Some patients reported that eating raw ground beef over the winter holidays was a practice brought from their European ancestors (source), highlighting the importance of continuing to raise awareness of raw meat risks, especially when linked to cultural practices.
Indeed foodborne illnesses impose a significant burden (source, source), estimated to cause over 400,000 deaths each year worldwide, 30% of which occurring among children under 5. However, research shows that food safety education, from proper cooking to avoiding cross-contamination, can greatly reduce those risks. This guide offers clear information on this topic.
✅ Improper cooking is directly linked to outbreaks and hospitalisations
Historical outbreak investigations have shown undercooked meat to be a leading cause of foodborne illness. For instance, E. coli outbreaks have led to numerous hospitalisations and can have serious complications especially among vulnerable populations. These are most often linked to undercooked raw meat, especially beef (source).
Many cultures around the world serve traditional dishes made with raw or lightly cured meat: from steak tartare in France, to carpaccio in Italy, to dishes like kibbeh nayyeh in the Middle East, and raw liver or sashimi-style preparations in parts of Asia. Because these foods are part of established culinary traditions, it’s understandable to wonder: If restaurants serve them, surely they must be safe?
However, while these dishes are often prepared with special care, strict hygiene, and high-quality cuts chosen specifically for raw consumption, eating raw meat still carries real risks, including exposure to harmful bacteria and parasites. That is why food safety guidelines typically recommend consuming them only from reputable sources that follow rigorous handling and preparation standards, and generally advise against them, even in countries where raw meat dishes are more popular.
A review of the evidence conducted by Public Health Ontario in 2018 concluded that “[f]or meat intended to be consumed raw, production practices as well as preparation methods may reduce but not eliminate the risk of disease. Warnings about the risks associated with raw meat consumption can help inform decision-making by consumers” (source).
At the end of the day, food choices are personal. Eddie Abbew is free to eat raw meat, seek out information on how to minimise the risks for himself, and share his opinions on the subject. But when suggesting to a wide audience that consuming raw meat is safe, the message becomes more than just a personal choice: it exposes viewers to serious public health risks.
Most people generally know that eating raw meat carries risks. But when a trusted wellness influencer eats it on camera with no immediate consequences, it can create doubt about the accuracy of food safety guidelines. It’s important to remember that illness isn’t inevitable. However, isolated videos showing someone eating raw meat without getting sick can distort risk perception and downplay the bigger picture: just in the UK, millions of people suffer foodborne illnesses every year; that’s thousands every single day (source).
It’s not just about saying “raw meat is okay”, it’s about encouraging distrust in food safety guidelines built on decades of research and real-world outbreaks. It’s about undermining trust in health authorities whose job it is to keep the public safe.
We have contacted Eddie Abbew and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Be skeptical of sensational content: while it attracts views and engagement, evidence should support health-related claims.
On June 10th, influencer Eddie Abbew posted a video on Instagram, in which he claims that “there is nothing wrong with eating raw meat.” He suggests it is designed for human consumption in its raw state. Below, we fact-check these claims against the scientific evidence on raw meat consumption and the health effects of cooking meat.
Full Claim: “If you think about it logically, the only things that human beings can eat without having to cook the **** out of is meat, and fruit [...] but there’s nothing wrong with eating raw meat. There are so many cultures that actually eat raw meat. A bit of salt, there’s nothing wrong with it.”
Eating raw meat carries well-established health risks from harmful bacteria and parasites that cooking can eliminate. Some populations are particularly vulnerable to those risks, including young children, the elderly, pregnant women and those with a weakened immune system. Foodborne illnesses represent a significant health burden and can easily be avoided by following food safety practices.
Bold claims and shocking videos tend to do well on social media because they drive engagement. By eliciting emotional reactions, they also attract more comments - positive or negative. This also means they are more likely to reach wider audiences. When following the shared advice can lead to serious health complications, it needs to be challenged.
Every year, millions of tonnes of nutritious, flavourful produce never reach supermarket shelves. Around 3 million tonnes of edible food is wasted on UK farms each year! Their crime? Being too misshapen, too big, or too small. Strict supermarket cosmetic standards, driven by outdated perceptions of perfection, directly contribute to massive food waste at the farm level. But is it time we questioned these assumptions and embraced the wonky wonders of our food system?
Oddbox, a company dedicated to rescuing surplus produce, identifies supermarket cosmetic criteria as a primary culprit behind farm-level food waste. Produce is often rejected not for taste or quality but simply for disrupting uniformity on supermarket shelves. This rejection creates a hidden crisis: wasted effort, wasted resources, and untold environmental damage.
Consumers tend to imagine fruit and vegetables as perfectly formed, free of bruises and variations to shape and size and colour. Produce that did vary from the norm (or more fairly, was normal, but not what consumers felt was normal) was seen as undesirable and potentially unhealthy or dangerous. Fruits and vegetables that took this form have been unfairly seen as second-rate. However, these outdated associations are shifting as consumers begin prioritizing flavour and freshness over appearance, challenging entrenched narratives around food quality. The shift also reveals an underlying reality: taste and quality often reside beneath an imperfect exterior.
The belief that consumers only desire uniform produce has long driven retailers’ policies. However the team at the Oddbox notes an encouraging shift: consumers increasingly appreciate that taste and freshness matter far more than appearances. Awareness campaigns help consumers proudly embrace oddly shaped apples and carrots, recognizing beauty in imperfection. Education plays a crucial role here, people empowered with knowledge willingly adjust their preferences, thereby reshaping market demands and supermarket practices.
Food waste statistics in the UK paint a grim picture. British households waste approximately 4.5 million tonnes of edible food annually, with potatoes topping the list at nearly half a million tonnes. Bread and milk closely follow. This waste is more than just lost food, it represents squandered resources, including vast amounts of water, energy, and land. Critically, food waste contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 8-10% worldwide, five times the emissions from the aviation sector. When food decomposes in landfills, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Food waste isn’t just an ethical concern; it’s a critical climate issue. Every kilogram of wasted food has embedded within it countless litres of water, significant energy expenditure, and hectares of land use. Reducing waste directly decreases the strain on natural resources and lowers emissions. It’s a tangible, powerful way for individuals to participate actively in climate action.
"We can't just think about food waste in terms of the methane emissions that are released when it breaks down. All of the energy, fertilizer, pesticide, water, land, and other resources that go into producing food that ends up in the bin is also wasted. Not only does this harm the planet, it reduces the value of food, costing both farmers and households money. Reducing food waste is an important step that we can all take to reduce our impact on the planet."
Matthew Unerman (Sustainability Campaigner at foodfacts.org, co-author of WWF's Hidden Waste report)
Misconceptions persist that imperfect produce is inferior in taste, nutrition, or shelf life. However, companies like Oddbox emphasize that these beliefs are wrong. Many factors causing surplus, such as overproduction or last-minute retailer cancellations, are unrelated to the produce's quality. Indeed, imperfect produce often offers superior taste, as flavour isn’t dictated by appearance but by freshness and ripeness.
Practical consumer advice includes selecting loose produce over packaged options, creatively using leftovers, and consciously avoiding overbuying. Shopping mindfully reduces waste and encourages supermarkets to reconsider their stocking strategies. Embracing oddly shaped vegetables and fruits enriches meals, inspires culinary creativity, and nurtures a culture that values resourcefulness and sustainability.
The team at Oddbox quantifies its impact with compelling evidence: since its inception, their community has saved over 51,000 tonnes of produce, with ambitions to reach 150,000 tonnes by 2030. This achievement highlights the significant potential for collective action. Small, regular choices accumulate, delivering substantial environmental benefits and influencing broader societal change.
At its core, embracing imperfect produce invites us to rethink our broader relationship with food. It challenges us to confront our biases and recognize the invisible connections between food choices and global environmental health. Choosing 'wonky' produce isn’t simply about environmental responsibility; it’s about redefining our values and priorities.
Choosing 'wonky' produce goes beyond reducing waste. It's a declaration of consumer values, prioritizing flavour, freshness, and sustainability above superficial perfection. Embracing imperfection empowers consumers, enriches communities, and actively reshapes our food culture, creating a future where sustainability isn't just possible but celebrated.
If you want to save food waste with Oddbox visit them on their website, use the code FOODFACTS to get 25% off your first four weeks.
When you see 'free range' on a carton of eggs or a package of chicken, it’s easy to picture animals roaming outdoors, enjoying the sunshine and fresh air. For many, 'free range' is shorthand for humane, natural, and ethical farming. But does the label live up to the image?
In this article, we explore what 'free range' really means, how it’s regulated, and what conditions animals actually experience in these systems.
What Is the Legal Definition of 'Free Range'?
The definition of 'free range' varies by country, species, and certifying body—and in some cases, it’s barely defined at all.
This means that free range can range from meaningful access to open pasture… to a small, barren yard that animals rarely use.
Not necessarily. “Access to the outdoors” can mean a tiny pop-hole in a crowded barn that leads to a small patch of dirt. Whether animals use that access depends on the following:
In most cases, the indoor environment remains similar to conventional systems—large sheds housing thousands of birds or animals. Key concerns include:
So while the label suggests freedom, the lived experience of many 'free-range' animals is still one of confinement, stress, and premature death.
Marketing and imagery play a major role. Labels featuring green fields, blue skies, or phrases like “farm fresh” or “raised naturally” create strong associations—even if those conditions aren’t legally required or practically delivered.
Consumers understandably want to make compassionate choices. However, research shows that public understanding of labels like 'free-range' is often inaccurate. In one UK survey, over 70% of consumers believed ‘free-range’ hens lived most of their lives outdoors, when in fact the majority spend most of their time indoors.
“Unfortunately, ‘free range’ means very little in terms of animal welfare and is often employed as a marketing ploy. Many free-range hens, for example, spend most of their lives in vast, stinking, overcrowded sheds. Due to the national avian influenza (bird flu) outbreak, eggs from hens kept indoors under a compulsory housing order can still be labelled ‘free range’ even if the birds have never been outside. Eggs aren’t essential for a healthy diet and are linked to heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and food poisoning. Ditching them is best for the animals and could benefit your health and the environment.” - Dr Justine Butler, Head of Research at vegan campaigning charity Viva!
In some cases, yes. ‘Free-range’ systems may offer marginally more space, some natural light, or reduced antibiotic use. But these improvements are often modest and inconsistent.
The gap between consumer perception and actual conditions is wide—and it’s this gap that industry marketing is designed to maintain. While free range sounds like a kinder option, it's not a guarantee of good welfare, and it is not anywhere near natural living.
Free range should not be a feel-good label that obscures reality. It should mean what it implies: that animals can live a part of their lives outdoors. Until labeling standards catch up with consumer expectations, it’s up to all of us to ask more questions, demand better definitions, and support transitions toward food systems that align with transparency, empathy, and sustainability. If you’re not sure about the conditions that the animals were raised in, the best choice you can make is to skip purchasing those eggs, meat, or dairy products. Skipping out on some animal products won’t make your life any worse, but buying these products is more likely than not to cause suffering to animals.
Big industries follow one rule: protect profit. The trillion-dollar animal agriculture sector is no exception. After years of criticism for its impact on the planet, animals, and food systems, meat and dairy giants are now trying to clean up their image. But the real question isn’t if they’ll change, but how, and whether those changes will make a real difference. Enter a series of promising-sounding feed additives. But do they deliver? Let’s take a closer look.
For the first time, 2024 was the first year above the critical 1.5°C global warming threshold, and this March shattered temperature records worldwide. We’re in a climate crisis, and transformative changes are urgently needed, especially from the agricultural sector.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a warming effect that is 86 times stronger than carbon dioxide, and livestock accounts for 32 percent of human-caused methane emissions. These emissions come from cattle, and their burps in particular, due to the microbes in cattle's digestive systems, which help them break down fibrous plants like grass that humans can’t digest. With around 1.5 billion cattle on the planet, their methane adds up pretty quickly. Yet instead of reducing herd sizes or rethinking the industrial farming model, the industry is focusing on feed additives as quick fixes.
One of the most recent hyped feed additives is a type of red kelp (Asparagopsis taxiformis), claimed to reduce methane by up to 99%. But in a major real-world trial - conducted by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA)- results dropped to just 28%, and that’s before factoring in the downsides: cows ate less, produced less milk, and were 15 kilograms underweight at slaughter. Needing an extra 35 days to ‘catch up,’ the methane reduction dropped closer to 19%. Even worse, the active compound in seaweed, bromoform, has been linked to inflammation and toxicity in animals.
Feed additive Bovaer, developed by DSM-Firmenich, is a synthethic organic compound that has been authorized for use in over 65 countries. The active ingredient in Bovaer is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which works by inhibiting an enzyme in the cow’s stomach that helps produce methane during digestion. On average, it is said to reduce methane emissions by 30% in dairy cows, and 45% in beefcattle.
However, Bovaer has gained attention for other reasons. Public mistrust has led to the nickname "Frankenstein's Milk," with consumers, farmers, and influencers criticizing the product. This nickname reflects concerns about unnatural interventions in food production, fear of chemical manipulation, and skepticism of large corporations.
Although Bovaer has passed multiple trials and been approved by various regulatory authorities, questions about its genotoxicity (the potential to cause genetic damage) were not fully clarified. This means its long-term genetic safety is still uncertain. Additionally, it has not been definitively proven that Bovaer is safe for other animal species, or that it poses no risks to those who handle it.
Nitrates, chemical compounds made of nitrogen and oxygen, are also added to cattle feed to reduce methane emissions. It is said to lower methane emissions by up to 14%, yet research shows that it might also lead to increased emissions of nitric oxide (NO). As a result, there are diminishing returns in emission reduction for this feed additive due to the higher NO emissions released by higher levels of nitrates.
The biggest concern is that when nitrates are broken down in the rumen, they first convert to nitrites before becoming ammonia. If the process is too fast or the dose too high, nitrite can build up in the animal’s blood, potentially leading to nitrite toxicity, which can cause serious health problems like methemoglobinemia - a potentially fatal condition where blood loses its ability to carry oxygen.
The list doesn’t stop there. There’s a wide range of other additives like tannins, fats, oils and saponins that are used. It is true that the mentioned additives show potential to reduce methane emissions, but many come with trade-offs and long-term effects on animals and ecosystems are still not clear. Meanwhile, they do nothing to address the scale of animal production, which continues to rise globally. And they can’t touch the massive emissions and ecological damage tied to feed crops, deforestation, manure, or slaughter. Trying to green a fundamentally unsustainable system won’t get us where we need to go.
These efforts represent only a small part of a much larger strategy. The animal agriculture industry has funded research to produce favorable emissions reports, downplayed the importance of individual action, shaped public conversations about dietary changes, and even created a front group, the Food Facts Coalition, to defend the industry against criticism of livestock farming.
If we’re serious about tackling climate breakdown, we need to look beyond quick fixes and rethink the system itself. Studies show again and again that a plant-based diet is our best and most immediate chance to massively cut environmental damage – resulting in 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution, and land use. We need a bold shift toward a food system that values sustainability, justice and life.
Because the climate can’t wait, and neither can we.
Update *14th July 2025* Article thumbnail and header image updated to remove illustrated imagery. Replaced with images that more accuratly represent the feed additives used in industry.
Nutrient levels in fruits like apples do vary based on several factors:
Variety: There are approximately 7000 cultivated varieties of Malus domestica known worldwide, such as Royal Gala, Bravo, Granny Smith, Green Star, Fuji, and Golden Delicious. Nutrient composition, especially polyphenol content, which has positive links to human health, varies among them. For example, Red Delicious has about 207.7 mg of phenolic compounds per portion, while Golden Delicious has around 92.5 mg.
Soil & Climate: Soil health, determined by biological activity, mineral composition, pH, and contamination, can impact nutrient uptake. Climate, irrigation, and orchard management practices (like fertilisation and pruning) also impact nutrient density and fruit quality.
It is important to note that these factors differ not just between countries, but also between regions and even individual farms in both the U.S. and Italy, so blanket statements comparing apples in Italy and in America lack context.
Storage & Processing: Phytonutrients can vary in apples depending on ripeness, season, and especially how the fruit is stored and processed. Cold storage, while essential for preservation and transport, can significantly reduce nutrient levels over time. Research shows that prolonged cold storage may decrease total phenol content by up to 50% in the flesh and 20% in the peel, due to the natural instability of these compounds.
Processing methods also matter. High temperatures, such as those used in drying or pasteurisation, can degrade nutrient compounds. As a result, apples that are stored for long periods or heavily processed may contain fewer beneficial nutrients than freshly harvested ones.
But here's the key: there is no evidence that nutritional variations are significant, let alone 6-fold, as the claim suggests.
Shayna Taylor’s claim that American apples offer only a fraction of the nutrients found in Italian ones relies heavily on the idea that Italian apples are "fresher" and therefore more nutritious. Perceived freshness and healthiness is indeed often cited as significantly determining consumers’ choices. Italian apples may feel fresher to a consumer, but that doesn’t mean they’re significantly more nutritious. Apples in the U.S. can be just as fresh, depending on source and timing. And even apples stored for weeks still offer meaningful health benefits. Italy and the U.S. could equally have apples available at local fruit markets and pre-packaged apples in larger stores.
The claim appeals to the idea that food in Europe is better than in the U.S. A big part of why European fruit and vegetables may taste better to visitors is linked to culture, shopping habits, and spending. In countries like Italy and France, people often shop at small local markets several times a week. These shorter supply chains mean produce may reach the plate faster than supermarket imports. Europeans also tend to spend a higher share of household income on food. While this trend is also growing in the U.S. (source), surveys show that as inflation rises, Italians say they are ready to make other sacrifices in order to keep buying high quality produce. This might mean buying high-quality, locally grown produce on a more regular basis.
Eating behaviours can also change during tourism (source): American tourists or expats in Europe are more likely to buy fresh fruit from local markets or eat seasonal produce at restaurants, a very different experience than grabbing pre-packaged fruit from a chain store back home. This can reinforce the belief that European fruit is always better, when much of the difference is about context, not inherent nutritional superiority.
This is important, because claims like this misrepresent real differences, such as local farming practices or shopping culture, and replace them with a false notion that products are only worth eating when they come from selective sources.
For millions of Americans, affordable, local apples are an important source of nutrients. Many communities already face barriers to fresh food access, with millions living in food deserts. Almost 2 million households in America live far away from a supermarket and are without a vehicle (source), making access to fresh food products extremely difficult. Discouraging people from eating what is available, and perfectly healthy, only fuels confusion and anxiety about food quality.
There’s no credible evidence that you’d need to eat six American apples to equal one Italian apple in nutrients. What matters more is eating fresh produce regularly, from any good source you can access. Wherever you live, choosing an apple, instead of perhaps skipping fruit altogether, remains one of the simplest ways to add fibre, antioxidants, and crunch to your diet.
Claims like this can do more harm than good. Yes, the American food system is in need of improvements. But in a context where 95% of Americans do not consume enough fibre (source), claims that could lead to distrust of ‘even the humble apple’ won’t achieve the type of change that is needed.
We have contacted Gary Brecka and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Look for evidence: Reliable claims should be backed by scientific studies or data.
During a recent episode of The Ultimate Human Podcast, Gary Brecka’s guest Shayna Taylor compared the nutrient density of American and Italian apples, claiming that in America, you would need to eat six apples to get the nutrients from one apple.
Comparisons between the quality of food products in America and European countries, especially Italy, are very popular on social media. In this fact-check, we explore the scientific evidence behind this claim.
Full Claim: "It's like an apple in America, you eat one and you actually only get the nutrients that is like a quarter of an apple and then, so you have to eat six apples in order to get the nutrients of one apple. Whereas when you go to Italy and you eat a tomato or an apple you're like "Whoa this tastes so good." And it's like "Well yeah." And it's nutrient dense." (37:50') [29th April 2025]
While nutrient levels in apples can vary due to variety, soil conditions, and storage methods, there is no scientific evidence supporting such a dramatic difference between U.S. and Italian apples. Apples from both the U.S. and Italy can be nutritious and beneficial to health.
Claims like this not only misrepresent the actual nutritional differences between produce from different countries, they also risk undermining a much more important and well-supported message: eating apples, regardless of where they're grown, is consistently associated with positive health outcomes.
By promoting the idea that only Italian apples are truly "nutrient-dense," the claim may discourage people from eating perfectly healthy, accessible options available locally. It creates unnecessary anxiety about food quality, undermines trust in domestic agriculture, and may lead consumers to overpay for imported goods under the false impression that they are dramatically superior.
Dive into our collection of resources to uncover the facts behind today’s food system. From the environmental impact of food choices to the truth about nutrition claims, we’ve got you covered. Equip yourself to make informed, empowered decisions every day.
Take ActionEvery day, we work to uncover the truth about our food system, empowering informed choices for a healthier planet. Support from people like you helps us research, publish, and advocate for transparent food policies and honest labeling.
Join us in driving meaningful change!
You Have The Power To Make A Difference 3 Times A Day.
Join us in promoting honest nutrition and wellness, whilst challenging misinformation.
.svg)
