Although not a scientist by graduation, Lobo has been collaborating with the Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health (NUPENS) at the School of Public Health of the University of São Paulo (USP), headed by Carlos Monteiro, for over a decade.

The partnership, formalized in 2014, has helped transform scientific evidence—such as the classification of foods by the degree of processing—into practical tools to help tackle the rise of ultra-processed foods (industrial formulations with chemical additives and high levels of salt, sugar, and fat).

The collaboration is an example of what science philosophers Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz call an “extended peer community,”in which scientists and other members of society work together to address complex problems, such as food insecurity and the global rise in obesity.

The combination of epidemiological research and experience discussing cooking with a large audience has resulted in a number of high-impact projects, such as the books Cozinha a Quatro Mãos (Cooking together) and Comida de Bebê (Baby food), as well as several TV series promoting traditional Brazilian diets.

The daughter of an anthropologist and an engineer—both university professors—Lobo does not only “translate” technical knowledge; she also links it to real-world issues, such as the division of domestic labor and household food organization.

This work has taken her to places traditionally restricted to academics, such as international conferences and the launch of The Lancet’s series on ultra-processed foods. In these settings, the professional chef advocates for “real food” and argues that cooking is a liberating skill and an instrument for social transformation.

In the following interview, Rita Lobo discusses her partnerships with researchers, the challenges of navigating academia, and why the kitchen is, ultimately, a direct link to public health.

Science Arena: How do you see your current role in scientific conferences and your partnership of over a decade with NUPENS (the Center for Epidemiological Research on Nutrition and Health at USP)?

Rita Lobo: There is a formal agreement between NUPENS and Panelinha to create content based onscientific evidence. It all started with the publication of the Brazilian Dietary Guide in 2014, which recommended my book Panelinha as a reference on healthy eating.

Science provides the concepts and Panelinha shows people how to implement them in everyday life. Our goal is to create evidence-based content that encourages people to get back in the kitchen, taking ultra-processed foods off the table.

How is scientific knowledge reflected in the practical projects you work on?

I look at the data identified by science and seek practical solutions. For example, when I noticed that vegetable consumption was declining in Brazil, I created “O Que Tem na Geladeira” (What’s in the refrigerator?), featuring 200 recipes based on the country’s 30 most popular vegetables.

Another example is the book “Comida de Bebê.” We realized that the introduction of solid foods to babies presents an opportunity to improve the entire household’s diet. We showed that baby food isn’t just puree, it is a set “mini-meal.“

Parents learn that adults should also eat what the baby eats: cereals, legumes, vegetables, meat, and eggs.

You refer to the “set meal” almost like a formula. How did science help to refine the concept?

I learn a lot from my books: each one is like a master’s degree for me! The set meal is a formula, because you can propose nutritionally equivalent combinations while still making use of the four food groups.

It offers a balanced combination of the four groups that we should consume every day: vegetables; grains, roots and tubers (such as rice, potatoes, cassava flour, etc.); legumes (all types of beans); and meat and eggs (for those who eat them, of course).

Vegetables on one side of the plate; rice, beans, and meat on the other. A dish consisting of hummus, tabbouleh, and stuffed eggplant is nutritionally equivalent to a set meal.

You often emphasize that healthy eating is inseparable from the division of household chores. Why is this perspective so important?

Because ultra-processed foods are also a gender issue. From that standpoint, I offer the perspective of the kitchen and of cooking, and help guide discussions that go beyond nutrients.

In Brazil, women are still largely responsible for preparing family meals. If a woman works and/or studies and still has to handle the cooking alone, it is no surprise that she ends up resorting to “nuggets and fries.”

I argue that food is not a “housewife’s” issue—it is a household issue. Without dividing household chores (planning, cooking, shopping, cleaning), there will be no food on the table.

How has your work been received at medical conferences?

I try to shake things up at these events. I have to. At a recent conference full of doctors, only one person was able to conceptually define what an ultra-processed food is. My role is to show that cooking is a health tool, and neither a talent nor an art. It is a liberating learning process that empowers people to live a healthier life.

Are academic or medical circles still resistant to classifying foods by degree of processing?

Yes, because it challenges established narratives. Some health professionals focus solely on macronutrients, telling people to eat more protein and fewer carbohydrates, ignoring the fact that the protein may come from an ultra-processed yogurt full of sweeteners and preservatives.

The science shows that the body may not even recognize those products as food. There is a conflict of perspectives between looking at the food as a whole or looking only at nutrients.

Even so, the classification of foods by level of processing is gradually breaking paradigms in global nutrition.

What advice would you give to early-career scientists seeking to have a greater impact on society?

Invest in how you explain your research. Nowadays, there are many tools that can help researchers communicate better and reach a wider audience by removing the “academic tone.”

If the message is to eat real food, someone has to teach us how food gets to the table; science and cooking need to work together to transform public health.

O post Rita Lobo: “Science makes an impact when it reaches people’s tables” apareceu primeiro em Science Arena.

The book Transformative Transdisciplinarity: An Introduction to Community-Based Philosophy, by David Ludwig and Charbel N. El-Hani (Oxford University Press, 2025), in which they propose an innovative approach to thinking about and practicing transdisciplinarity as a transformative process that brings together philosophy, science, and community action.

WHY IS THIS BOOK RELEVANT?

Transformative Transdisciplinarity, by David Ludwig (Wageningen University, Netherlands) and Charbel N. El-Hani (Federal University of Bahia – UFBA, Brazil), proposes a profound reconfiguration of the relationships between science, philosophy, and society. The book criticizes traditional transdisciplinary approaches, which seek to integrate different forms of knowledge from a perspective dominated by academia, reducing other knowledge systems solely to what is considered acceptable to academics.

The authors show that collaborations between scientists, indigenous peoples, and local communities require engagement with different values, knowledge areas, and power dynamics. For Ludwig and El-Hani, transformative transdisciplinarity confronts the inequalities between different forms of knowledge and their users.

WHAT MAKES THIS WORK ESSENTIAL READING?

The main innovation of the book lies in the methodology of partial overlaps, which seeks to identify shared perspectives between different knowledge systems without losing sight of their differences. In doing so, it promotes dialogue and collaboration among different epistemologies, ontologies, and values, rejecting both the total integration and the radical isolation of knowledge. This approach enables partnerships without erasing cultural differences.

The book also connects debates on objectivity and epistemic and natural kinds of injustice, exploring the suggestion of partial overlaps to the fullest.

Partial overlaps enable dialogue and joint action between academic and traditional knowledge while preserving epistemological, ontological, and value differences.

Concrete examples

In fishing communities in northeastern Brazil, fishers and researchers come together to discuss species such as the sea bass (Centropomus undecimalis), sharing information on certain classificatory categories, even when they disagree on practical or scientific criteria. 

In agriculture, farmers classify some species of agricultural interest as fungi (based on appearance), while scientists consider them to be insects (based on phylogeny). 

In joint projects, however, both groups recognize each other’s knowledge to develop pest-control strategies, without having to unify or reconcile their criteria. 

Thus, the book shows how it is possible to coproduce knowledge without eliminating conflict—recognizing the transformative potential of difference.

O post Authors propose new perspective on dialogue between different knowledge areas  apareceu primeiro em Science Arena.

Analyses of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems have demonstrated that the constant hunt for material resources and quest to improve living conditions for growing populations has generated and exacerbated direct and indirect forces that alter the capacities of ecosystem services, which themselves are essential to supporting human quality of life.

These vast chains of cause and effect, which include global climate change and related phenomena, tend to affect health on different scales.

The broad combination of human health and quality of life factors help illustrate the enormous interdisciplinary challenge faced by those attempting to analyze global climate change. The relationship between human epidemiology and environmental changes is made even clearer by the overlapping influence of different types of environmental factors.

Experts point to the large sections of the world’s population that are simultaneously affected by atmospheric pollution, a lack of basic sanitation, and the inherent risks of climate disasters. These are often the poorest inhabitants of urban areas in developing countries.

The result is an urgent need to reflect on the challenges involved in changing the way we think about and respond to health and socioenvironmental issues from a modern perspective.

It is impossible to resolve the growing and complex problems affecting contemporary society—and revert the causes—without radical changes in our knowledge systems, values, and behavior, which are based on the dynamics of existing reason and driven by aspects of economic development.

The interdisciplinary nature of the problem needs to be seen as a chance to produce new knowledge, to establish transversal perspectives and understanding in research, which will lead to developments in teaching.

Greater engagement with society as a whole is needed, as well as interaction between disciplines, in contrast to the current compartmentalization of science caused by excessive specialization. Combining multiple fields of knowledge would stimulate the development of interactive methodologies, bringing the scope into focus.

The desire to consolidate teaching and research from an interdisciplinary perspective highlights the importance of social processes that determine how nature is appropriated and transformed through social participation in environmental resource management, considering the evolutionary aspect in the broadest sense, including connections between biological and cultural diversity, as well as the different practices of different social actors and the impact of their relationships with the environment.

German sociologist Ulrich Beck (1944–2015) believed that living in a society at risk has made it difficult to “control” the side effects and dangers of our decisions—but knowledge can help make unpredictable risks more calculable, despite not being able to put an end to unpredictability.

The biggest hurdle is to reconnect knowledge and abandon reductionism, making space for what French philosopher Edgar Morin calls “thought that knows its boundaries and the reality of uncertainties.”

Based on the recognition of uncertainty and complexity, Funtowicz and Ravetz proposed an approach they dubbed “post-normal science.” The principle involves increased dialogue and collaborative work between scientists and other social actors through “extended peer communities,” respecting different fields of scientific knowledge and the diversity of traditional knowledge.

In the event of a global health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic and an inability to find explanations for complex and emerging high-risk situations, improving dialogue can accelerate decision making.

The emphasis on practices that encourage interdisciplinarity and transversality reveals the major potential for a new approach, especially with respect to topics that demand changes in behavior, such as the issue of socioenvironmental responsibility.

It is important to understand the complexity involved in the processes and the challenge of fostering a more reflective and active attitude, thus encouraging citizens to be more responsible, cautious, and engaged in collaborative processes related to health and the environment.

Pedro Roberto Jacobi is a sociologist and professor at the School of Education of the University of São Paulo (USP), as well as a professor on the Environmental Science Graduate Program at USP’s Institute of Energy and Environment (IEE). He is a member of The Integrated Assessment Society (TIAS) and the Steering Committee of USP’s Global Cities Program at the university’s Institute for Advanced Studies (IEA).

Opinion articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Science Arena or the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein.

O post Reconnecting knowledge apareceu primeiro em Science Arena.