Dr. Shawn Baker on the Joe Rogan Experience #2069, fact-checked

What the evidence shows: Baker's argument treats population-level cancer incidence as evidence against any causal link between meat and cancer, but this conflates a low absolute/lifetime risk across a population with the epidemiological question of whether an exposure raises relative risk. In 2015 an IARC Working Group (WHO) reviewed over 800 epidemiological studies and classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen (sufficient evidence it causes colorectal cancer in humans) and red meat as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans (limited evidence, mainly for colorectal cancer, with associations also reported for pancreatic and prostate cancer). WHO explicitly cautions that this classification describes the strength of the evidence that an exposure causes cancer, not the size of the risk; the studies underlying it found modest relative-risk increases (about an 18% higher risk of colorectal cancer per 50g/day of processed meat) rather than near-universal causation. That most meat-eaters never develop cancer is consistent with a modest elevation in relative risk against a backdrop of many contributing causes and is not evidence against the epidemiological findings, so Baker's inference does not follow from the "most people eat meat and don't get cancer" premise. Current scientific consensus, per WHO/IARC, is that processed meat consumption is an established (though modest) contributor to colorectal cancer risk and red meat consumption a probable one, alongside many other risk factors.

What the evidence shows: Baker's figure is essentially correct for the specific budget he is describing, though the claim conflates a sub-agency figure with the FDA's overall budget. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), first enacted in 1992 and renewed roughly every five years, pharmaceutical companies pay fees to FDA to support the review of new drug applications. A peer-reviewed 2022 analysis in Medical Care reported that in 2020, industry user fees totaled $1.3 billion, accounting for approximately 65% of the budget of FDA's Human Drugs Program (the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER), the FDA's largest sub-unit. That figure applies specifically to the drug-review program's budget, not the FDA's total agency-wide budget, which draws more heavily on congressional appropriations and is funded by user fees at a lower overall share. The underlying mechanism Baker describes, that companies seeking approval pay fees that fund a majority of the review process, is accurately characterized by FDA's own program description, which confirms PDUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees from drug and biologic sponsors to fund and expedite the review process.

What the evidence shows: The spending figure is roughly accurate for the period Baker appears to be citing: U.S. national health expenditures were about $4.3 trillion in 2021 and rose to $4.5 trillion in 2022, according to CMS data. The claim that life expectancy "is going down," however, does not reflect the most recent data available at the time of this podcast. U.S. life expectancy fell sharply during the pandemic, from 78.8 years in 2019 to a low of 76.4 years in 2021, but then reversed course: CDC final mortality data show life expectancy rose to 77.5 years in 2022 and further to 78.4 years in 2023, driven mainly by declining COVID-19, heart disease, and drug-overdose deaths. As of the most recent reporting, U.S. life expectancy had been rising for two consecutive years, not declining, though it remained below the 2019 pre-pandemic peak. The claim is therefore mixed: the spending figure is roughly correct, but the "going down" characterization of life expectancy is outdated and contradicted by subsequent CDC data.

What the evidence shows: The 91% figure comes from a real, peer-reviewed proof-of-concept study in which USDA and academic researchers (Hess et al., Journal of Nutrition, 2023) deliberately constructed a 7-day, 2,000-kcal menu using NOVA Category 4 ultra-processed foods that still complied with 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans food-pattern recommendations. That menu derived 91% of its calories from ultra-processed foods yet scored 86 out of 100 on the Healthy Eating Index-2015, losing points mainly for excess sodium and insufficient whole grains, while meeting nutrient targets except for vitamin D, vitamin E, and choline. Baker's quoted figure and framing are verbatim and accurate to the study's stated results. However, the study is explicitly a hypothetical, researcher-constructed menu built to test feasibility, not a real-world dietary pattern, an official government recommendation, or evidence that people following the Dietary Guidelines typically eat this way; a published commentary in the same journal questioned whether the constructed menu is representative or fit for drawing broader conclusions about ultra-processed foods and health. The claim's core statistic is well-supported, but any implication that the DGA itself endorses or typically produces 91% ultra-processed diets goes beyond what the study shows.

What the evidence shows: A peer-reviewed 2022 study in Public Health Nutrition (Mialon et al.) found that 19 of 20 members (95%) of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which produced the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, had at least one documented financial tie to the food and/or pharmaceutical industries, including research funding, board memberships, consulting, and speaking fees. That figure describes industry ties broadly, spanning companies like Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, General Mills, Dannon, and pharmaceutical firms, not a narrower category of "processed food companies" specifically. Baker's claim conflates this well-documented 95% statistic about the 2020 committee with the incoming panel for the next (2025) guidelines cycle, misstating both the target committee and the specific industry sector involved. No equivalent peer-reviewed conflict-of-interest audit of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's full membership was found to confirm or refute a 95% figure for that panel specifically.

What the evidence shows: Per-capita sugar consumption in the U.S. and other industrialized countries has risen substantially since the 19th century, and current intake among American children and adults far exceeds recommended limits: the average American consumes roughly 17 teaspoons (about 68 grams) of added sugar per day, versus American Heart Association guidance of no more than 6 teaspoons (25 grams) per day for children. This directional claim, that children today eat dramatically more sugar than people did generations ago, is well supported. However, no historical dataset or peer-reviewed study was found that supports the specific quantitative claim that an average 8-year-old today has consumed more sugar than someone would have eaten in an entire lifetime roughly 150 years ago. This is a widely repeated popular framing without a clear, verifiable source, and even generous estimates of 18th- or 19th-century lifetime sugar intake make an exact crossover by age eight implausible on a cumulative-year basis. The specific 'entire lifetime by age eight' framing is a rhetorical exaggeration not backed by identifiable data.