Good Food is Vital for Brain Health So We Must Change the Food Industry
By Harris A. Eyre, Michael Berk, Rym Ayadi, Sarah Dunlop, Suzanne L. Dickson, Eric A. Storch, Melissa M. Lane, Lisa C. Brown, Kelly O’Brien, Mohamed Salama, Erin Smith, Ha Le, Agustín Ibáñez, Kavitha Kolappa, Jo-An Occhipinti, Felice Jacka, and Roger A.H. Adan
The world is increasingly relying on “brain capital,” where a premium is put on brain skills and brain health. Building brain capital is fundamental for meeting modern societal challenges and driving innovation. It also provides a framing to understand the negative impacts of the corporate-industrial food industry on our communities and offers insights as to how to mitigate them. In this paper, we argue that today’s food environments and food systems around the world are dominated by the corporate-industrial food industry, and that this is undermining brain capital and therefore sustainable human development and public health on a global scale. Respecting the intertwined relationships between brain capital, health, and sustainable environments is essential for the future of humanity.
This paper outlines a range of policy recommendations to reform the corporate-industrial food industry in the interest of protecting brain capital. Recommendations span from transforming the food system through public policy and reforming clinical care, to defending against misinformation driven by the food industry, engaging the brain health field in a “Global Plastics Treaty,” and converging planetary and brain health. The most impactful solutions to build brain capital at scale do not lie at the level of the individual or health services, but in public policy. These solutions have the capacity to directly address a major driver of the many non-communicable conditions — both physical and mental — that are major health burdens globally. In addition, tackling the corporate-industrial food industry will also optimize planetary health, which is essential to human longevity and well-being.
Brain health was recently defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as:
“the state of brain functioning across cognitive, sensory, social-emotional, behavioral and motor domains, allowing a person to realize their full potential over their life course, irrespective of the presence or absence of disorders. Many determinants are known to impact brain health and continuous interactions between these determinants plus an individual’s context lead to lifelong adaptation of brain structure and functioning.”
Improving brain health and developing sustainable environments are crucial goals for the future of humankind. These goals are tightly interlinked. Brain health is influenced by numerous, overlapping determinants including physical health, environmental health, safety and security, learning and social connection, and access to quality services. A wide array of environmental factors can impact brain health across the life course, such as nutrition (including breastfeeding in early life), exposures to toxins or pollutants in food, medications, or through the built and natural environment — including in water and ambient or household air. The relatively new term “planetary health” encapsulates these factors: It has been defined as “the health of human civilization and the natural systems on which it depends.”
The global corporate-industrial food industry has enabled the supply and affordability of diverse and nutritious foods, allowing food production to keep pace with rapid population growth and reducing famines. However, it is also responsible for up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, 70% of all freshwater withdrawals, major single-use plastic production and pollution, agricultural chemical toxins, and is the main driver of global deforestation and biodiversity loss. Recent modeling estimates the costs of the current global food system at US$20 trillion per year, with 11 trillion arising from the downstream impacts on human health, and 7 trillion from the environmental impacts. Indeed, because these “substantial hidden costs in food systems” are currently externalized, food is one third less expensive than it would be if these costs were adequately accounted for.
Global population growth, environmental externalities, and climate change threaten the sustainability of the current system. Resulting food insecurity will have devastating effects on communities, increasing vulnerability to disease and mental health issues while decreasing their ability to engage in education, build their livelihoods, and take care of vulnerable community members.
The Concept of Brain Capital
Brain capital is a novel concept that recognizes brain health and brain skills are indispensable drivers of the modern knowledge economy, economic productivity, and sustainable human development. It is an economic policy innovation that aims to reform global economics to factor in key and otherwise unconsidered elements (brain health and brain skills). This understanding provides a unified framework to define elements of brain health, disorder, and skills; quantify them; and track them in order to develop new ways to enhance them. The Brain Capital Grand Strategy, published in 2021, articulated the need for a Brain Capital Dashboard, Brain Capital In-All-Policies, and a Brain Capital Investment Plan. The Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) also launched the Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative to promote and refine the concept of brain capital. Following the success of that initiative, the Brain Capital Alliance has now been formed as its multi-organizational extension. Brain capital is affected by the corporate-industrial food industry but also provides a platform to consider ways to lessen the negative effects that the industry has on communities.
The next sections outline the rise of ultra-processed foods driven by the corporate-industrial food industry and the effects of diet and nutrition on the gut, as well as the brain and gut-brain axis. We also challenge the corporate prioritization of commercial milk formula over breastfeeding and give an overview of brain-harming toxins used for food production and packaging. Finally, we make a range of policy recommendations to reform the industrialized food industry in the interest of protecting brain capital.
The Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods
Globally, people are consuming an ever-increasing proportion of their diets in the form of inexpensive, convenient, heavily marketed and easily available ultra-processed foods. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that ultra-processed foods account for between 17% to 56% of total daily energy intake across 28 countries. Ultra-processed food and Western dietary patterns are associated with an increased risk for a large number of non-communicable diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and common mental health conditions like anxiety and depression, as well as their intermediate risk factors. Although ultra-processed foods are classified according to their intensive level of food processing, while Western dietary patterns are largely based on the nutrient profiles of foods, both typically comprise foods high in salt, sugar, and saturated fat. Below we will outline research on the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods on the gut, brain, and gut-brain axis.
The Effects of Diet and Nutrition on the Gut-Brain Axis
Non-communicable diseases and common mental health conditions together form the bulk of the current disease burden, with the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating that chronic diseases account for more than 70% of premature deaths globally. Mental health conditions are one of the top 10 leading causes of disease burden worldwide. The links between nutrition and brain health are becoming increasingly clear.
In recent years, the “gut-brain axis” has been an emerging area of research, given the early involvement of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) in neurodegenerative diseases: There is evidence that gastro-intestinal manifestations can even precede the common symptoms and signs of such disease. Gut dysbiosis may play a role in the process of neurodegeneration — in particular, bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and bacteriophages have been implicated in several brain diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and multiple sclerosis). Multiple factors, including the types of diets, the ratios of different dietary constituents, and the levels of industrialized components could affect the structure of gut microbiota, resulting in long-term impacts on brain health.
Effects of Different Diets. One type of diet may preserve brain health while another may contribute to the development of brain disorders. Western dietary patterns and their components are consistently related to greater dementia risk, as well as negative emotional and neurocognitive outcomes in children, whereas Mediterranean diets have been shown to preserve brain health. One study evaluated the macrolevel effect of dietary changes and food production sustainability across the world over 70 years and found correlations with microbiome changes and an increase in neurological and mental disorders.
Recent studies help clarify how Western dietary patterns may have negative structural effects on the human brain, particularly in relation to the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a key brain region that is closely involved in learning and memory as well as brain health and is where structural changes are observed in early stages of Alzheimer’s disease and other cognitive dementias. This brain region is recently understood to be highly “plastic” in response to environmental exposures including diet. In observational studies, healthier diets are related to larger hippocampi and other brain volumes, while unhealthy diets are closely associated with smaller hippocampi. Indeed, emerging human experimental evidence suggests that Western dietary patterns can have negative effects on hippocampal-dependent learning and memory, as well as appetite control, within a very short time frame, even in healthy young adults.
Additionally, ultra-processed and Western dietary patterns play a role in the prevalence, development, and symptom severity of mental disorders through various pathways, including inflammation, oxidative stress, reduction in neurogenesis and brain plasticity, and a disrupted microbiota-gut brain axis. That is why the gut microbiome is increasingly recognized as a key factor unifying environmental and human health. There are extensive reciprocal associations between the gut microbiome and major homeostatic body systems including the nervous, endocrine, metabolic, and immune systems. Loss of diversity in the human gut microbiome owing to dietary intake is associated with worse health outcomes in cancer, immune, and metabolic diseases, as well as emotional health in children and depression and cognitive ability in aging. Dysbiosis triggered by the environment can alter bacterial metabolites including metabolites that mimic human molecules. As one example, the metabolite spermidine triggered by the state of gut dysbiosis is linked to cognitive dysfunction and autism spectrum disorder.
In brief, the gut-brain axis, influenced by diet, plays an important role in brain health and disease. Western dietary patterns, which are associated with negative brain health outcomes, can impact the gut microbiome, disrupt homeostatic body systems, and impact brain structures, contributing to the prevalence and severity of these disorders.
In the next section, we will explore the toxins used in the production and packaging of ultra-processed foods.
Toxins in Food Production and Packaging Harm the Brain
Industrial farming practices, with intensive cropping and use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers, result in a substantial loss of microbial diversity in the soil and a loss of nutrients in both plant and animal foods. These practices also result in the increase of endocrine disruptors — they are present in containers, foods, and farming materials and cause microbiome disruption and neurotoxicity.
All of these have been implicated in deleterious effects on gut microbiota and microbiome-host interactions:
- Micro- and nanoplastics arising from packaging.
- Insufficient micronutrients in foods arising from industrialized soil.
- Antibiotics used in intensive livestock production.
- Agricultural pesticides and persistent organic pollutants.
- Advanced glycation end products, artificial sugars, and emulsifiers in industrial foods.
The extensive evidence linking the health of the gut microbiome, as well as industrialized foods, to mental and brain health across the life course points to the critical need to consider the health and biodiversity of the environment and humans as one — and to urgently improve global food systems.
Microplastics are released from food and drink packaging, and there are multiple plastic packaging-associated chemicals that, because they are not covalently bonded to the polymer, leach from packaging. Perinatal exposure to compounds used in the production of plastic food and drink containers and packages (e.g., BisphenolA), may disrupt stress-sensitive and endocrine systems that translate to anxious and depressive states along the life course. Of 906 chemicals likely associated with plastic packaging, 63 have high hazard rankings, although publicly available safety data often lacks transparency and completeness. Indeed, many chemicals that have been detected in food-contact materials have not been listed for this use.
In addition, human exposure to air pollutants like nitrogen oxide and particulate matter alter the microbiome. Exposure during pregnancy to air pollutants and pesticides that cause microbiome disruption has been associated with higher risks of autism spectrum disorder in children.
The next section outlines how the corporate-industrial food industry is undermining early childhood brain capital formation via the commercial milk formula industry and associated predatory marketing to pregnant women and mothers.
The Need to Re-Prioritize Breastfeeding Over Commercial Milk Formula
Formula is a type of ultra-processed food. Breastfeeding has clear advantages over commercial milk formulas and is critical and advantageous for healthy brain development. Unfortunately, fewer than 50% of babies worldwide are breastfed as recommended by WHO, and a recent Lancet series suggests this in part is due to “underhand marketing strategies, designed to prey on parents’ fears and concerns, to turn the feeding of infants and young children into a multibillion-dollar business.” Likewise, more work is needed to address the structural and social factors that shape societal preferences in favor of commercial milk formulas, despite many women and families wanting to continue to breastfeed (for example, non-existent or insufficient parental leave). To this end, Smith et al. recently published the Mothers’ Milk Tool, a method to quantify the economic value of women’s milk production: It can and should be measured to ensure this contribution is visible and properly valued.
Below we provide key recommendations to reduce the harmful effects of the corporate-industrial food industry on global brain capital.
Food System Public Policy Transformation
Current food policy frameworks and regulatory approaches typically reform or adjust isolated components of food systems (as well as sustaining the perceived benefits of competitive markets and other capitalist values and practices). This means that existing approaches are likely insufficiently equipped to tackle the transformative food system changes needed to promote brain health and planetary health. Instead, we need an ecological approach to regulation — one that calls for the reorientation of policymakers so they can consider the economic, environmental, and political dimensions within and between complex food systems and better deal with these important challenges.
Policy Actions to Reduce Cardiometabolic Diseases. Comprehensive and multilevel policy actions have recently been put forward in the context of the ultra-processed food problem and cardiometabolic diseases. These proposed policy actions may mutually benefit mental health conditions and neurological disorders that often co-occur with cardiometabolic diseases and may be plausibly transferred to diet-related chronic diseases in general. Proposed policy actions include:
- Targeting ultra-processed foods in dietary guidelines and policies.
- Limiting the impact on policy development of the food industry with vested interests by instituting strong conflict of interest policies.
- Developing food assistance programs to promote diets rich in unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods.
- Requiring front-of-package labeling that warns against the health implications of ultra-processed foods, and implementing food labeling regulations that restrict claims on packaging that imbue products with “health halos.”
- Setting public procurement criteria that limit the abundance and types of ultra-processed foods that are made available in public institutions.
- Implementing fiscal policies like monetary support/subsidization for unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods, as well as taxation of industrial formulations that have little to no nutritional value and where better alternatives exist (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages).
- Implementing “zoning,” which refers to limiting the number of fast-food outlets near medical and educational institutions.
Food Prescription Initiatives. A recent assessment of over 6,000 public health food prescription initiatives suggests they improve fruit and vegetable consumption and reduce food insecurity. However, they typically lack the funding needed to foster long-term, sustainable change, and they often fail to track data that shows the relationship between increased produce consumption and improved health. Initiatives like the Montana Product Prescription Collaborative (MTPRx) are working to track the impact of such programs on blood sugar, lipids, and cholesterol. Broadscale public policy engagement will be essential to increase the reach of these programs.
Need for Ongoing Evaluation of Food Policy. To respond to the rise of ultra-processed foods and related harms to brain health and planetary health, ongoing evaluation of food policy actions on ultra-processed food markets and ultra-processed and Western dietary patterns is required. Examples of evaluations include assessments of synergies of food availability, choices, and consumption compared with the cost of agricultural crops, coupled with investigations into the effects of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on consumption and sale trends.
How to Focus Health Messaging and Conversations. Focusing health messages about food on brain health — using the gut as a concrete and accessible mechanism for understanding the myriad impacts of food — results in changes to dietary behaviors even in challenging populations, including young men and pregnant women. Focusing public and clinical conversations on the concept of increasing diet quality to improve mental, brain, and gut health, rather than on weight loss, may yield improvements to dietary habits and choices — particularly when the potential for cost savings is emphasized.
White House Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. The new White House National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health will pursue action across five pillars:
- improving food access and affordability,
- integrating nutrition and health,
- empowering all consumers to make and have access to healthy choices,
- supporting physical activity for all, and
- enhancing nutrition and food security research.
Further research is required to reinforce the importance of brain capital development within this strategy.
Importance of School-Based Programs. It is important to continue to advance school-based nutrition, farming, and cooking programs. These programs are critical to educate the citizens of tomorrow and will likely prevent or mitigate the consumption of excessive amounts of ultra-processed foods later in life. A recent systematic review by Collado-Soler et al. (reviewing 16 programs in kindergarten and primary education) found these programs had positive effects on improving knowledge and behaviors about healthy habits and, consequently, reducing body mass index. However, they noted major variability in results based on geography and the socio-economic status of families.
Commercial Determinants of Health. Studying the commercial determinants of health is a new area of study in relation to the corporate-industrial food industry and its effects on the brain. In this context, a recent Lancet paper noted the need to protect the diversified food systems of Brazil against corporate oligopolies. Complex systems modelling and simulation also has an important role to play in understanding which combination of policies and initiatives would deliver the greatest improvements in the corporate-industrial food industry to better support brain capital.
Promote Nutritional Brain Health Science, Clinical Care Innovation, and Public Health Policy
Evidence of Dietary Link to Depression. The field of nutritional psychiatry is relatively young. The first studies linking diet quality to clinical psychiatric disorders were published in 2010, and the first clinical trial to show that dietary improvement can reduce even severe major depressive disorder was published in 2017. The field has grown rapidly since then with multiple meta-analyses linking diet quality to depression risk and dietary treatments to reductions in depressive symptoms. In addition, several more clinical trials confirming the utility of diet as a treatment strategy for clinical depression (e.g., the “AMMEND: A Mediterranean Diet in MEN with Depression” study ) have now been published.
Changes in Clinical Practice. This evidence base is being integrated into clinical practice, with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ clinical practice guidelines — for the first time — listing diet along with other lifestyle behaviors as foundational and non-negotiable treatment targets for mood disorders. The first set of international clinical guidelines for lifestyle-focused care in mental health treatment was published in the last two years.
More Work is Needed. Unhealthy diets are now recognized as a risk factor for mental health conditions by many global organizations including the World Health Organization. However, the fact that two of the leading causes of global disease burden — Western dietary patterns and mental illness — are linked, and that these associations and effects appear to be independent of body weight, has not yet been widely recognized. Moreover, the potential to leverage public policy and changes to clinical practice to both prevent and treat mental disorders via changes to dietary intake has not, as yet, been fully explored. Lessons may be learned from non-linear and practice-based modeling from actors in the community-based obesity prevention sphere.
Defend Against Misinformation Driven by the Food Industry
A vast array of foods are marketed with misleading health claims. Junk food in the form of sugared beverages is routinely paired with sports and recreational activity, and spurious claims are made about the health benefits of ultra-processed foods. Many claims made on the packaging of commercial milk formulas are backed by little, or even no, supporting scientific evidence, essentially making these products a major source of misinformation that affects parental decision-making about feeding infants or young children. Under the Convention of the Rights of the Child, governments have a duty to tackle commercial milk formula-related misinformation — and they also need to fully implement provisions of the World Health Assembly’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent resolutions — to ensure that manufacturers making misleading claims about their products are held accountable.
The Brain Health Field Must Engage In and Support a Legally Binding Global Plastics Treaty
We call on trusted professionals to use their privileged position in society to educate government leaders and policymakers about plastic’s clear and present dangers on the human brain and to demand sweeping changes in regulation and control of chemicals and plastics. The Global Plastics Treaty being negotiated in and around the United Nations Environment Assembly may be an ideal pathway for this effort. We note the leading work of the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health.
Integration of Brain Health Metrics into Existing Food Monitoring Systems and Dashboard
Data-driven approaches to this topic are critical. We note a number of recent advances in brain health monitoring from the Brain Health Atlas, Countdown Global Mental Health 2030, and the Brain Capital Dashboard.
A recent paper from Mozaffarian et al. provides an overview of novel monitoring tools to encompass both food and nutrition security factors. Such a data-driven approach could be integrated with existing food and brain health monitoring approaches.
Initiatives to inform the Global Burden of Disease Study modelling, and support the estimation of the proportion of burden of mental disorder risk that could be averted by improving population dietary intakes, are currently underway.
Incorporation of Brain Capital and Nutrition Metrics into Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) Assessments
Some observers believe the food and beverage industry, in particular, lags in environmental, social and governance (ESG) rigor. We argue that all ESG frameworks should include evidence-based nutrition and brain health metrics, and that the time is especially ripe for increased objectivity and accountability in the food industry. Lessons can be learned from the movement to insert human capital into ESG.
Advance Planetary Health Science and Education Within the Field of Brain Health
Preparing for climate-related health repercussions requires educational institutions to disseminate planetary health knowledge in a systematic way. We support the broad review of Moloo et al. to evaluate the extent to which planetary health is included in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to guide curricular development. A plan to advance this type of education is prudent.
Emphasize the Need for Interdisciplinary Collaboration Between Nutritionists, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Environmental Health, and Public Health Professionals
Advocacy for the integration of nutritional education in medical and mental health curricula will raise awareness of the connection between diet and mental health among professionals. Also, encouraging large-scale, longitudinal research and dietary intervention studies will help further establish the causal relationship between diet and mental health, and will help in identifying the most effective dietary interventions. Interdisciplinary collaboration in the development and implementation of public health policies to increase access to healthy foods, reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods, and provide educational resources on the link between diet and brain health is a critical need. Similarly, the promotion of community-based programs and campaigns will help to educate the public about the impact of diet on mental health and well-being, targeting both prevention and treatment strategies.
Conclusion and Future Directions
We believe the most impactful solutions to build brain capital at scale do not lie at the level of the individual or health service, but in public policy. These solutions have the capacity to directly address a major driver of the many non-communicable conditions — both physical and mental — that are major health burdens globally. In addition, tackling the corporate-industrial food industry will also optimize planetary health, which is essential to human longevity and well-being.
Moving forward, it will be key to engineer a forum for open, honest conversations around this topic. Creating new networks, collaborations, and partnerships between academics and policymakers is also critical. Furthermore, researchers should focus on synthesizing available evidence on this topic in a robust and accessible format and providing timely access to relevant evidence.
Disclosures and Acknowledgment
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Harris A. Eyre is an employee of the Baker Institute for Public Policy and a consultant with the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, the Euro-Mediterranean Economists Association and Kooth LLC. He has received travel support and honoraria from Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk and the OECD.
Lisa C. Brown is an employee of Aimmune Therapeutics, a Nestle Health Science Company.
Agustín Ibáñez is supported by Takeda Grant CW2680521 and has consulting roles with Roche, Lilly and Cumulus.
Felice Jacka has received industry support for research from Meat and Livestock Australia, Woolworths Limited, the A2 Milk Company, Be Fit Foods and Bega Dairy, and travel support and speakers’ honoraria from Sanofi-Synthelabo, Janssen Cilag, Servier, Pfizer, Network Nutrition, Angelini Farmaceutica, Eli Lilly, Metagenics, and The Beauty Chef. She has written two books for commercial publication.
Sarah Dunlop is employed by the Minderoo Foundation, an independent not-for-profit philanthropic organization.
Jo-An Occhipinti is both Head of Systems Modelling, Simulation & Data Science, and Co-Director of the Mental Wealth Initiative at the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre. She is also Managing Director of Computer Simulation & Advanced Research Technologies (CSART) and acts as Advisor to the OECD Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative and the Brain Capital Alliance.
Melissa M. Lane has received research funding support from Be Fit Foods.
Michael Berk is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (1059660) and has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, Medical Benefits Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Futures Fund, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, A2 milk company, Meat and Livestock Board, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Lundbeck Merck, Pfizer and Servier. Michael Berk is a co-inventor of 2 provisional patents regarding the use of NAC and related compounds for psychiatric indications, which, while assigned to the Mental Health Research Institute, could lead to personal remuneration upon a commercialization event.
Eric A. Storch reports receiving research funding to his institution from the Ream Foundation, International OCD Foundation, and NIH. He is a consultant for Brainsway and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. He owns stock less than $5000 in NView. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, American Psychological Association, Guildford, Springer, Routledge, and Jessica Kingsley.
Mohamed Salama, Kelly O’Brien, Rym Ayadi, Suzanne L. Dickson, Erin Smith, Kavitha Kolappa, Ha Le, and Roger A.H. Adan report no relevant conflicts of interest.
We would like to thank Shekhar Saxena, M.D., for his review of this manuscript.
Harris A. Eyre M.D., Ph.D. — Brain Capital Alliance, San Francisco, California, USA; Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative (NIPI), New Approaches to Economic Challenges, Office of the Chief Economist, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France; Center for Health and Biosciences, The Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas; Euro-Mediterranean Economists Association, Barcelona, Spain; Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA; Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Mental Wealth Initiative, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
Michael Berk M.D., Ph.D. — Brain Capital Alliance, San Francisco, California, USA; Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative (NIPI), New Approaches to Economic Challenges, Office of the Chief Economist, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France; Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Rym Ayadi, Ph.D. — Euro-Mediterranean Economists Association, Barcelona, Spain
Sarah Dunlop, Ph.D. — Plastics and Human Health, Minderoo Foundation, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Suzanne L. Dickson, Ph.D. — Department of Physiology and Endocrinology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; European Brain Council, Brussels, Belgium
Eric A. Storch, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
Melissa M. Lane, Ph.D. — Food & Mood Centre, IMPACT, Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Lisa C. Brown, Ph.D. — Great Scott! Consulting, New York, NY USA
Kelly O’Brien — UsAgainstAlzheimer’s, Washington, DC
Mohamed Salama M.D., Ph.D. — Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Institute of Global Health and Human Ecology (IGHHE), the American University in Cairo (AUC), Cairo, Egypt
Erin Smith — Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
Ha Le, Ph.D. — Deakin Health Economics, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Agustín Ibáñez — director of the Latin American Institute for Brain Health (BrainLat), Universidad Adolfo Ibanez, Santiago, Chile; Researcher at the Cognitive Neuroscience Center (CNC), Universidad de San Andrés, and National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Argentina; and associate professor at the Global Brain Health Institute (GBHI), Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland.Melissa M. Lane, Ph.D. — Food & Mood Centre, IMPACT, Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Kavitha Kolappa, M.D. — adjunct with The Chester M. Pierce, M.D. Division of Global Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Jo-An Occhipinti, Ph.D. — Mental Wealth Initiative, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia; Brain and Mind Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia; Computer Simulation & Advanced Research Technologies (CSART), Sydney, Australia
Felice Jacka, Ph.D. — Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Food & Mood Centre, IMPACT, Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, VIC; Australia; College of Public Health, Medical & Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, QLD; Australia
Roger A. H. Adan — a professor in the department of Translational Neuroscience at UMC Utrecht Brain Center
 WHO Editor, Optimizing brain health across the life course: WHO position paper, WHO Brain Health Unit, August 9, 2022: Geneva, https://www.who.int/news/item/09-08-2022-launch-of-first-who-position-paper-on-optimizing-brain-health-across-life.
 WHO, Optimizing brain health.
 See https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Planetary-Health.aspx. The term was first used in a 2014 commentary in The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960409-8/fulltext.
 Ramya Ambikapathi et al., “Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity,” Nature Food 3 (2022): 764–779, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00588-7.
 Ambikapathi, “Global food systems transitions.”
 Ambikapathi, “Global food systems transitions,” 764–779; UNFSS, “Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021,” UN Food Systems Summit 2021, accessed April 10, 2023, https://sc-fss2021.org/; UNEP, “10 things you should know about industrial farming,” UN Environment Programme, 2020, accessed April 10, 2023, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/10-things-you-should-know-about-industrial-farming; Matthew Canfield, Molly D. Anderson, and Philip McMichael, “UN Food Systems Summit 2021: Dismantling Democracy and Resetting Corporate Control of Food Systems,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.661552.
 Canfield, “UN Food Systems Summit 2021.”
 An externality is a positive or negative outcome of an economic activity that affects a third party that is not directly related to that activity: https://www.iisd.org/savi/faq/what-is-an-externality/.
 Amy Molotoks, Pete Smith, and Terence P. Dawson, “Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security,” Food and Energy Security 10(1) (February 2021): e261, https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.261; Editorial, “Food insecurity,” Nature Climate Change 12 (2022): 963, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01530-2.
 Martha I. Huizar, Ross Arena, and Deepika R. Laddu, “The global food syndemic: The impact of food insecurity, Malnutrition and obesity on the healthspan amid the COVID-19 pandemic,” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 64 (2021): 105–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.07.002; Michael S. Martin et al., “Food insecurity and mental illness: disproportionate impacts in the context of perceived stress and social isolation,” Public Health 132 (2016): 86–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.11.014; Godwin Ashiabi, “Household food insecurity and children's school engagement,” Journal of Children and Poverty 11 (2007): 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/1079612042000333027.
 Erin Smith et al., “A Brain Capital Grand Strategy: toward economic reimagination,” Molecular Psychiatry 26(1) (2021): 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00918-w; Harris A. Eyre et al., “Building brain capital,” Neuron 109(9) (2021): 1430–1432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.04.007.
 OECD, “Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, accessed April 10, 2023, https://www.oecd.org/naec/brain-capital/.
 Smith, “A Brain Capital Grand Strategy.”
 OECD, “Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative.”
 BCA, “Brain Capital Alliance,” accessed April 10, 2023, https://braincapital-platform.net/.
 “Ultra-processed foods are defined “as industrially manufactured, ready-to-eat/heat formulations that are made with multiple additives and largely devoid of whole foods:” Filippa Juul et al., “Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 115(1) (2022): 211–221, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab305.
Ultra-processed foods are made mostly from substances extracted from foods, such as fats, starches, added sugars, and hydrogenated fats. They may also contain additives like artificial colors and flavors or stabilizers. Examples of these foods are frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs and cold cuts, fast food, packaged cookies, cakes, and salty snacks.
 “Meta-analysis is a research process used to systematically synthesize or merge the findings of single, independent studies, using statistical methods to calculate an overall effect”: https://ebn.bmj.com/content/16/1/3.
 Melissa M. Lane et al., “Ultraprocessed food and chronic noncommunicable diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies,” Obesity Reviews 22(3) (2021): e13146, http://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13146.
 Melissa M. Lane et al., “Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” Nutrients 14(13) (2022): 2568, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132568; Ye Li et al., “Dietary patterns and depression risk: A meta-analysis,” Psychiatry Research 253 (2017): 373–382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.04.020; Melissa M. Lane et al., “Higher Ultra-Processed Food Consumption Is Associated with Greater High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein Concentration in Adults: Cross-Sectional Results from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study,” Nutrients 14(16) (2022): 3309, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14163309.
 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Global Health Data Exchange 2023, accessed April 10, 2023, https://ghdx.healthdata.org/; Collaborators, G.B.D.M.D., “Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019,” Lancet Psychiatry 9(2) (2022): 137–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3.
 The gut-brain axis is a two-way communication network that links the intestinal and central nervous systems. This network is not only anatomical, but it extends to include endocrine, humoral, metabolic, and immune routes of communication as well: Jeremy Appleton, “The Gut-Brain Axis: Influence of Microbiota on Mood and Mental Health” Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) 17(4) (2018): 28–32, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/.
 David P. Breen, Glenda M. Halliday, and Anthony E. Lang, “Gut-brain axis and the spread of alpha-synuclein pathology: Vagal highway or dead end?” Movement Disorders 34(3) (2019): 307–316, https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27556.
 Dysbiosis is defined by an imbalance in bacterial composition, changes in bacterial metabolic activities, or changes in bacterial distribution within the gut: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4838534.
 “Bacteriophage” is a virus that infects bacteria: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bacteriophage.
 Carmen D. Rietdijk et al., “Exploring Braak's Hypothesis of Parkinson's Disease,” Frontiers in Neurology 8 (2017): 37, https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00037; Angelica Varesi et al., “The Potential Role of Gut Microbiota in Alzheimer's Disease: From Diagnosis to Treatment,” Nutrients 14(3) (2022): 668; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030668; Giorgia Intili et al., “From Dysbiosis to Neurodegenerative Diseases through Different Communication Pathways: An Overview,” Biology (Basel) 12(2) (2023): 195, https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020195.
 Halle J. Kincaid, Ravinder Nagpal, and Hariom Yadav, “Diet-Microbiota-Brain Axis in Alzheimer's Disease,” Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 77 Suppl 2 (2021): 21–27, https://doi.org/10.1159/000515700.
 Edward Hill et al., “Diet and biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Neurobiology of Aging 76 (2019): 45–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.12.008; Puja Agarwal et al., “Association of Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay and Mediterranean Diets with Alzheimer Disease Pathology,” Neurology March 8, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207176.
 Tiril C. Borge et al., “The associations between maternal and child diet quality and child ADHD – findings from a large Norwegian pregnancy cohort study,” BMC Psychiatry 21(1) (2021): 139, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03130-4; Tiril C. Borge et al., “The importance of maternal diet quality during pregnancy on cognitive and behavioural outcomes in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMJ Open 7(9) (2017): e016777, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016777.
 Agarwal, “Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay.”
 Shan Liang et al., “The different trends in the burden of neurological and mental disorders following dietary transition in China, the USA, and the world: An extension analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019,” Frontiers in Nutrition 9 (2022): 957688, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.957688.
 Chunmei Zhao, Wei Deng, and Fred H. Gage, “Mechanisms and functional implications of adult neurogenesis,” Cell 132(4) (2008): 645–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.033.
 Dan Mungas et al., “MRI predictors of cognition in subcortical ischemic vascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Neurology 57(12) (2001): 2229–35, https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.57.12.2229.
 A useful layperson’s definition is found in the sense of “plasticity” being “the capacity for continuous alteration of the neural pathways and synapses of the living brain and nervous system in response to experience or injury” : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plasticity.
 Raffaella Molteni et al., “A high-fat, refined sugar diet reduces hippocampal brain-derived neurotrophic factor, neuronal plasticity, and learning,” Neuroscience 112(4) (2002): 803–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(02)00123-9; Scott E. Kanoski and Terry L. Davidson, “Western diet consumption and cognitive impairment: links to hippocampal dysfunction and obesity,” Physiology & Behavior, 103(1) (2011): 59–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.12.003.
 Tasnime Akbaraly et al., "Association of Long-Term Diet Quality with Hippocampal Volume: Longitudinal Cohort Study," American Journal of Medicine 131(11) (2018): 1372–1381 e4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.07.001; Pauline H. Croll et al., “Better diet quality relates to larger brain tissue volumes: The Rotterdam Study,” Neurology 90(24) (2018): e2166–e2173, https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005691.
 Felice N. Jacka et al., “Western diet is associated with a smaller hippocampus: a longitudinal investigation,” BMC Medicine 13 (2015): 215, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0461-x.
 Tuki Attuquayefio et al., “A four-day Western-style dietary intervention causes reductions in hippocampal-dependent learning and memory and interoceptive sensitivity,” PLoS One 12(2) (2017): e0172645, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172645; Richard J. Stevenson et al., “Hippocampal-dependent appetitive control is impaired by experimental exposure to a Western-style diet,” Royal Society Open Science 7(2) (2020): 191338, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191338.
 Wolfgang Marx et al., “Diet and depression: exploring the biological mechanisms of action,” Molecular Psychiatry 26(1) (2021): 134–150, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00925-x.
 Vancheswaran Gopalakrishna et al., “The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy,” Cancer Cell 33(4) (2018): 570–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.015.
 Yueping Jin et al., “The Diversity of Gut Microbiome is Associated with Favorable Responses to Anti-Programmed Death 1 Immunotherapy in Chinese Patients With NSCLC,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology 14(8) (2019): 1378–1389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.04.007.
 Pajau Vangay et al., “US Immigration Westernizes the Human Gut Microbiome,” Cell 175(4) (2018): 962–972 e10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.029.
 Samantha L. Dawson et al., “Maternal prenatal gut microbiota composition predicts child behaviour,” EBioMedicine 68 (2021): 103400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103400.
 Marcus J. Claesson et al., “Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly,” Nature 488(7410) (2012): 178–84, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11319.
 Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, “Gut Dysbiosis in Animals Due to Environmental Chemical Exposures,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 7 (2017): 396, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00396.
 Rosenfeld, “Gut Dysbiosis in Animals.”
 David R. Montgomery, “The Revolutionary Potential of the Hidden Half of Nature in Agriculture and Medicine,” in Microbes: The Foundation Stone of the Biosphere, ed. Christon J. Hurst (London: Springer, 2021) 195–204; David R. Montgomery et al., “Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming,” PeerJ 10 (2022): e12848, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12848.
 Jordina Balaguer-Trias et al., “Impact of Contaminants on Microbiota: Linking the Gut-Brain Axis with Neurotoxicity,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(3) (2022): 1368, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031368; Agnieszka Gruszecka-Kosowska, Anotonios Ampatzoglou, and Maragarita Aguilera-Gomez, “Microbiota analysis for risk assessment of xenobiotics: cumulative xenobiotic exposure and impact on human gut microbiota under One Health approach,” European Food Safety Journal 20(Suppl 2) (2022): e200916, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.e200916; Wojciech Grodzicki et al., “Nanoplastic Impact on the Gut-Brain Axis: Current Knowledge and Future Directions,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22(23) (2021): 12795, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312795.
 Erica D. Sonnenburg and Justin L. Sonnenburg, “The ancestral and industrialized gut microbiota and implications for human health”, Nature Reviews Microbiology 17(6) (2019): 383–390, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0191-8; Bernard Srour et al., “Ultra-processed foods and human health: from epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights,” Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 7(12) (2022): 1128–1140, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00169-8; Lisa Miclotte and Tom Van de Wiele, “Food processing, gut microbiota and the globesity problem,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 60(11) (2020): 1769–1782, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1596878.
 Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are harmful compounds formed when protein or fat combine with sugar in the bloodstream (this process is called glycation): https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/advanced-glycation-end-products.
 John F. Cryan et al., “The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis,” Physiological Reviews 99(4) (2019): 1877–2013, https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00018.2018.
 Md. Iftakharul Muhib et al., “Occurrence of microplastics in tap and bottled water, and food packaging: A narrative review on current knowledge,” Science of The Total Environment 865 (2023): 161274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161274; Zahra Sobhani et al., “Microplastics generated when opening plastic packaging,” Scientific Reports 10(1) (2020): 4841, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61146-4.
 FCCmigex Database, accessed April 10, 2023, https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/fccmigex.
 Kimberly R. Wiersielis, Benjamin A. Samuels, and Troy A. Roepke, “Perinatal exposure to bisphenol A at the intersection of stress, anxiety, and depression,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 79 (2020): 106884, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2020.106884.
 Ksenia J. Groh et al., “Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards,” Science of The Total Environment 651(Pt 2) (2019): 3253–3268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.015.
 Birgit Geueke et al., “Systematic evidence on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals: Most chemicals detected in food contact materials are not listed for use,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (2022): 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2067828.
“Listed” means listed in the food contact chemicals (FCC) database (FCCdb): Groh et al., “Overview of intentionally used food contact chemicals and their hazards,” Environment International 150 (2021): 106225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106225. The FCCdb integrates 67 FCC lists from Europe, the US, the Mercosur region, China, and Japan and covers 18 food contact materials (e.g., plastics, coatings, rubbers, paper and board, adhesives, printing inks, silicones, metals, glass).
 Xiu He et al., “The relationship between pesticide exposure during critical neurodevelopment and autism spectrum disorder: A narrative review,” Environmental Research 203 (2022): 111902, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111902; Johanna Inhyang Kim et al., “The mediating role of the gut microbiome in the association between ambient air pollution and autistic traits,” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 246 (2022): 114047, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114047.
 Manuel Blesa et al., “Early breast milk exposure modifies brain connectivity in preterm infants,” Neuroimage 184 (2019): 431–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.045; Lancet, Breastfeeding 2023, February 7, 2023, https://www.thelancet.com/series/Breastfeeding-2023.
 Lancet, Breastfeeding 2023, February 7, 2023, accessed April 10, 2023, https://www.thelancet.com/series/Breastfeeding-2023.
 Jessica Grosse, Screaming on the Inside: The Unsustainability of American Motherhood (New York: Harper Collins, 2022).
 Julie P. Smith et al., “The volume and monetary value of human milk produced by the world's breastfeeding mothers: Results from a new tool,” Frontiers in Public Health 11 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1152659.
 Tanita Northcott et al., “Ecological regulation for healthy and sustainable food systems: responding to the global rise of ultra-processed foods,” Agriculture and Human Values (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10412-4.
 Northcott, “Healthy and sustainable food systems.”
 Christine Parke and Fiona Haines, “An Ecological Approach to Regulatory Studies?” Journal of Law and Society, 9 February 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12083.
 Filippa Juul et al., “Ultra-processed Foods and Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes: from Evidence to Practice,” Current Atherosclerosis Reports 24(11) (2022): 849–860, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-022-01061-3; Barry M. Popkin et al., “Towards unified and impactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and promote healthier eating,” Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 9(7) (2021): 462–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00078-4; Marion Nestle, “Regulating the Food Industry: An Aspirational Agenda,” American Journal of Public Health 112(6) (2022): 853–858, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306844.
 Carlos A. Monteiro, Arne Astrup, and David S. Ludwig, “Does the concept of ‘ultra-processed foods’ help inform dietary guidelines, beyond conventional classification systems? YES,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 116(6) (2022): 1476–1481, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac122.
 Mélissa Mialon, Paulo Serodio, and Fernanda Baeza Scagliusi, “Criticism of the NOVA classification: who are the protagonists?” World Nutrition 9(3) (2018), https://doi.org/10.26596/wn.201893176-240.
 Lisa Harnack et al., “Effects of Subsidies and Prohibitions on Nutrition in a Food Benefit Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Internal Medicine 176(11) (2016): 1610–1618, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5633.
 Benjamin Wood et al., “Market strategies used by processed food manufacturers to increase and consolidate their power: a systematic review and document analysis,” Global Health 17(1) (2021): 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00667-7.
 Pan American Health Organization, Ultra-processed food and drink products in Latin America: Trends, impact on obesity, policy implications, 2015, https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/7699/9789275118641_eng.pdf.
 Popkin, “Policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption.”
 Julie Samia Mair, Matthew W. Pierce, and Stephen P. Teret, The Use Of Zoning To Restrict Fast Food Outlets: A Potential Strategy To Combat Obesity, October 2005, The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Johns Hopkins & Georgetown Universities, https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/center-for-law-and-the-publics-health/research/_pdf/ZoningFastFoodOutlets.pdf.
 Matthew Little et al., “Promoting Healthy Food Access and Nutrition in Primary Care: A Systematic Scoping Review of Food Prescription Programs,” American Journal of Health Promotion 36(3) (2022): 518–536, https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211056584.
 Carly Graf, “Fresh Produce Is an Increasingly Popular Prescription for Chronically Ill Patients,” KFF Health News, March 23, 2023, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/food-prescriptions-montana-indigenous-nutrition-fast-blackfeet-nation/.
 Northcott, “Healthy and sustainable food systems.”
 Luvdeep Malhi, “Places to Intervene to Make Complex Food Systems More Healthy, Green, Fair, and Affordable,” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 4(3–4) (2009): 466–476, https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903346448; Lee M. Johnston, Carrie L. Matteson, and Diane T. Finegood, “Systems science and obesity policy: a novel framework for analyzing and rethinking population-level planning,” American Journal of Public Health 104(7) (2014): 1270–8, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301884.
 Jessica Bayes, Janet Schloss, and David Sibbritt, “The effect of a Mediterranean diet on the symptoms of depression in young males (the ‘AMMEND: A Mediterranean Diet in MEN with Depression’ study): a randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 116(2) (2022): 572–580, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac106; Samantha L. Dawson et al., “Targeting the perinatal diet to modulate the gut microbiota increases dietary variety and prebiotic and probiotic food intakes: results from a randomised controlled trial,” Public Health Nutrition 24(5) (2021): 1129–1141, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020003511.
 Mary Lou Chatterton et al., “Economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for adults with major depression (the "SMILES" trial),” BMC Public Health 18(1) (2018): 599, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5504-8; Rachelle S. Opie et al., “Assessing healthy diet affordability in a cohort with major depressive disorder,” Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology 7(5) (2018): 159–169, https://doi.org/10.5897/JPHE2014.0668.
 White House, Biden-Harris Administration National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, September 27, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/27/executive-summary-biden-harris-administration-national-strategy-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/.
 Rocio Collado-Soler et al., “A Systematic Review of Healthy Nutrition Intervention Programs in Kindergarten and Primary Education,” Nutrients 15(3) (2023): 541, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030541.
 WHO describes the commercial determinants of health as “the private sector activities that affect people’s health, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively”: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/commercial-determinants-of-health.
 Sharon Friel et al., “Commercial determinants of health: future directions,” Lancet 401(10383) (2023): 1229–1240, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00011-9; Anna B. Gilmore et al., “Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health,” Lancet 401(10383) (2023): 1194–1213, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00013-2.
 Jennifer Lacy-Nichol et al., “Conceptualising commercial entities in public health: beyond unhealthy commodities and transnational corporations,” Lancet 401(10383) (2023): 1214–1228, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00012-0.
 Jo-An Occhipinti et al., “Mental health: build predictive models to steer policy,” Nature 597(7878) (2021): 633–636, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02581-9.
 Roger A.H. Adan et al., “Nutritional psychiatry: Towards improving mental health by what you eat,” European Neuropsychopharmacology 29(12) (2019): 1321–1332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.10.011; Wolfgang Marx et al., “Nutritional psychiatry: the present state of the evidence,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 76(4) (2017): 427–436, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665117002026.
 Felice N. Jacka et al., “Association of Western and traditional diets with depression and anxiety in women,” American Journal of Psychiatry 167(3) (2010): 305–11, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09060881.
 Felice N. Jacka et al., “A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial),” BMC Med 15(1) (2017): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y.
 Camille Lassale et al., “Correction: Healthy dietary indices and risk of depressive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies,” Molecular Psychiatry 26(7) (2021): 3657, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01056-7.
 Joseph Firth et al., “The Effects of Dietary Improvement on Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Psychosomatic Medicine 81(3) (2019): 265–280, https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000673.
 Bayes, “AMMEND: A Mediterranean Diet in MEN with Depression.”
 Gin S. Malhi et al., “The 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 55(1) (2021): 7–117, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867420979353.
 Wolfgang Mar et al., “Clinical guidelines for the use of lifestyle-based mental health care in major depressive disorder: World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) and Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine (ASLM) taskforce,” World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (2022): 1–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/15622975.2022.2112074.
 WHO, World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all, World Health Organization, June 16, 2022, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049338.
 Roger A.H. Adan et al., “Towards new nutritional policies for brain health: A research perspective on future actions,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 105 (2022): 201–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2022.07.012.
 Andrew D. Brown et al., “A Theory of Change for Community-Based Systems Interventions to Prevent Obesity,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 62(5) (2022): 786–794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.10.006; Nick Roberts et al., “Can the Target Set for Reducing Childhood Overweight and Obesity Be Met? A System Dynamics Modelling Study in New South Wales, Australia,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 36(1) (2018): 36–52, https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2555.
 Nigel Rollins et al., “Marketing of commercial milk formula: a system to capture parents, communities, science, and policy,” Lancet 401(10375) (2023): 486–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01931-6.
 Daniel Munblit, “Health and nutrition claims for infant formula are poorly substantiated and potentially harmful,” BMJ 369 (2020): m875, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m875; Ka Yan Cheung, “Health and nutrition claims for infant formula: international cross sectional survey,” BMJ 380 (2023): e071075, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071075.
 Editor, “Unveiling the predatory tactics of the formula milk industry,” Lancet 401(10375) (2023): 409, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00118-6.
 UN Environment Programme, “Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement,” press release, March 2, 2022, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/historic-day-campaign-beat-plastic-pollution-nations-commit-develop.
 Philip J. Landrigan et al., “Announcing the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health,” Annals of Global Health 89(1) (2022): 23, https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4056.
 Dariush Mozaffarian, “Measuring and Addressing Nutrition Security To Achieve Health and Health Equity,” Health Affairs, March 30, 2023, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20230216.926558/full/.
 Food & Mood Centre, “Global burden of disease Lifestyle and Mental Disorders (GLAD) taskforce,” accessed April 10, 2023, https://foodandmoodcentre.com.au/projects/global-burden-of-disease-lifestyle-and-mental-disorders-glad-taskforce/.
 ESG has been described as “a framework of standards measuring a company’s risks and impacts alongside financial factors.” It stands for environmental, social and governance factor. ESG reporting may disclose data on things like emissions, waste management, employee satisfaction, and anti-corruption practices. See https://www.ecowatch.com/esg-101-what-is-esg-and-does-it-matter.html.
 Meghan O’Hearn et al., “The time is ripe for ESG + Nutrition: evidence-based nutrition metrics for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76(8) (2022): 1047–1052, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01075-9; British Retail Consortium Global Standards, “Why ESG is increasingly critical for the food industry,” November 3, 2021, https://www.brcgs.com/about-brcgs/news/2021/why-esg-is-increasingly-critical-for-the-food-industry/.
 Erin Smith, et al, “A Brainier Approach to ESG Investing,” Psychiatric Times, March 25, 2021, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/a-brainier-approach-to-esg-investing.
 Husein Moloo et al., “Integration of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a scoping review,” BMJ Open 12(6) (2022): e057207, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057207.
 Saba Hinrichs-Krapels, “Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach,” Palgrave Communications 6 (2020): 101, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.