By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

For decades, U.S. food safety assessments have relied on a deceptively simple principle: if the concentration of a food additive is low enough in each product, it must be safe.

This is the logic behind the FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) and the industry’s formulation strategies. It assumes that consumers will encounter these ingredients only in modest amounts, spread thinly across a varied diet.

But real life doesn't follow regulatory assumptions.  People don’t consume additives in theoretical units—they consume foods, in real households, in real patterns, driven by marketing, convenience, cost, culture, and habit.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recognized this gap and did something paradigm-shifting. Instead of relying on ingredient concentrations, it relied on publicly available real-world consumption data to measure actual exposure. And the results showed that children, the most vulnerable population, were routinely consuming far more synthetic dyes than the FDA’s outdated models ever anticipated.

The lesson is clear: real-world exposure, not theoretical ingredient limits, is the only reliable measure of food safety.

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

Every holiday season, many of us receive boxes of smoked salmon, artisan bacon, honey-glazed hams, or “old-world” cured meats. We buy them for guests, enjoy them at restaurants, or eat them at someone else’s home. Because they feel traditional, hand-crafted, or premium, we rarely stop to ask: Are these foods healthy? And when labels show “0g sugar” or “no carbs,” the instinct is to assume these foods are relatively harmless.

Science tells a different story.

The real risks of cured, smoked, or marinated meats have nothing to do with whether the sugar, salt, or seasonings remain in the final product. The danger comes from chemical reactions that occur during the curing or smoking process, reactions that permanently change the structure of the meat and create compounds that remain long after the marinade is washed off. Understanding these risks empowers consumers to make better choices without giving up every food they enjoy.

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

We are living through one of the fastest scientific revolutions in the history of human health. Every month, new findings emerge that overturn long-held assumptions about metabolism, weight regulation, and chronic disease. 

At the same time, media outlets and social-media influencers continue to oversimplify or exaggerate early findings—making it almost impossible for the average person, or even a busy clinician, to know what is real.

This is why AI agents are becoming indispensable. They can scan new research instantly, separate strong evidence from weak correlation, and explain complex findings with a level of precision and calm that today’s information ecosystem simply cannot match.

Two areas of recent science—gut microbiome research and the interaction among stress, sleep, and ultra-processed foods—show why intelligent AI assistance is no longer optional. They both show that strong research emerges too fast for us to understand and absorb into nutritional decision making and media coverage is a poor way to keep up with this research. 

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

Over the past two years, the meteoric rise of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro has disrupted not only healthcare but also the food industry’s quiet science of seduction. These medications suppress appetite, slow digestion, and blunt the dopamine rewards associated with overeating. For millions of users, they represent liberation from a lifelong biochemical trap—one that food scientists have spent decades perfecting.  

Within the last week, their importance in population health has been underscored by an attempt by the Trump Administration to negotiate a price of $149 a month, far below their current pricing to large commercial insurance plans and employers.

But as with any innovation that changes human behavior, there is a counter-move underway. In the same way marketers learn to outwit ad blockers and hackers evolve to bypass new security systems, food manufacturers are experimenting with reformulations to preserve the allure of their most profitable products. This is not a morality play with heroes and villains. It is a systems-level conflict between two forms of applied science: one medical, one culinary; one designed to quiet appetite, the other to awaken it.

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

On October 27, 2025, my wife, son, and in-laws ordered takeout from a local restaurant. That simple act reminded me of a neglected topic: the cues influencing our nutritional decisions when we order online or by phone after viewing digital menus.

We’ve often discussed nutritional outcomes from grocery shopping and dining out, but digital menu design—now central to how Americans eat—deserves special focus. According to Grand View Research, the U.S. online-originated food delivery and takeout market is projected to grow at a 9.6% compound annual rate from 2025 to 2030. This isn’t merely a convenience trend; it’s a profound shift in how behavioral design and algorithms shape our eating patterns.

Restaurants have long used “menu engineering”—strategic choices about layout, descriptions, and visual cues—to influence ordering behavior. When dining moves online, those levers become far more powerful. 

On apps like Uber Eats, DoorDash, and Grubhub, every image, ranking, and prompt is guided by real-time data. Our cravings and nutritional outcomes are molded by the invisible architecture of digital interfaces.

Read more