Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Save the Children U.S. President and CEO Janti Soeripto; Interview with Former New Zealand Prime Minister and "A Different Kind of Power" Author Jacinda Ardern; Interview with "Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine" Author and Former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 03, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
For the third day in a row, Palestinians are killed on their way to get aid in Gaza. What is going on and what does it mean for the humanitarian crisis
there?
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACINDA ARDERN, FORMER NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER AND AUTHOR, "A DIFFERENT KIND OF POWER": I really want to challenge these traditional notions of
what makes for good leadership?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: -- the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, tells Christiane what it was like to be the world's youngest female head of
government and why she's pushing for a different kind of power in her new memoir.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DAVID KESSLER, AUTHOR, "DIET, DRUGS, AND DOPAMINE" AND FORMER FDA COMMISSIONER: The American body is ill. Only about 12 percent of Americans
are metabolically healthy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine." Hari Srinivasan speaks to former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler about the dangers of obesity and
how he says it can be combated.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York. Sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Unconscionable, that's how the United Nations Human Rights Chief describes fatal attacks on Palestinians trying to reach aid in Gaza. These were the
scenes near a distribution site in Rafah today where Gaza's Health Ministry says Israeli forces opened fire. At least 27 people have been killed in
dozens injured.
It's the third day in a row that people have been killed on their way to collect critically needed aid at the site, which is run by the
controversial new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. This time, the Israeli military says that its forces did open fire multiple times after
identifying, quote, "several suspects" moving toward them, deviating from the designated access routes.
Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem with more on what has happened. So, three days in now, Jeremy, different headlines each day of chaos and death. Tell
us about what happened today.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, for the third day in a row people were gunned down as they were trying to make their way to this
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation site in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. And today, nearly 30 people were killed in an incident that the Israeli
military acknowledges. The military acknowledging that they did indeed open fire on individuals who they claimed were approaching their forces in a
suspicious manner. They said they fired warning shots first, but the result is 27 people killed, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health and
local hospital officials, including a mother who was trying to find food for her son. I just watched a video of her son crying over her body after
she had tried to get food for him.
We know that on Sunday there was this other very deadly incident, 31 killed, according to those same health authorities. That incident, the
Israeli military didn't outright acknowledge, although an Israeli military official did indeed tell us on that day that forces did fire on individuals
about one kilometer away from that aid site, which is the exact location where this attack actually happened.
All of this, of course, raising serious new concerns about this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the way in which it is operating in terms of
requiring Palestinians to walk sometimes miles through what are now Israeli military declared combat zones and through Israeli military lines.
GOLODRYGA: So, who, who is running security around the Gaza Humanitarian Fund in these distribution sites? Because I had initially thought that it
was private contractors that were hired to maintain security. And then you have the IDF there as well. How is this working, Jeremy? If you can just
walk us through what it looks like at these sites.
DIAMOND Yes. Yes, there are indeed American, you know, military security contractors. Many of them are American military veterans, but they are in
charge of the aid site itself and the immediate area of these aid sites, which if you've seen some images before of them, they've kind of erected
sand berms around the area. They've put fences up to try and, you know, manage the flow of thousands of people a day coming to these sites.
[13:05:00]
But outside of these aid distribution sites, that is still territory controlled by the Israeli military, and we've seen several videos now that
show Israeli military tanks operating in very close proximity to these sites. In addition to that, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation itself has
told people to use this Al-Rashid Street. It is the coastal street in Gaza to get to this Tel al-Sultan site while also warning that before certain
hours the Israeli military would be operating in that area as well.
So, it's clear that the military is operating in this area that they have declared much of this zone, a dangerous combat zone where they've told
Palestinians to evacuate from. And yet, at the same time, they are coordinating with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation quite closely to have
Palestinians come to this area. And that's exactly what humanitarian aid officials have been warning about for weeks now, as they have said that
this mechanism was not the right one, that this mechanism would increase the risks for Palestinians because of the distances they would have to
walk, because they'd have to walk through dangerous combat zones. And that's also why they are calling for the old model in which you would see
hundreds of aid sites throughout the Gaza Strip, in much closer proximity to where people actually live that wouldn't require these dangerous
journeys.
GOLODRYGA: And quickly, Jeremy, how many of these hubs, these aid sites are functioning right now?
DIAMOND Well, they said they were going to establish four to start with, and it seems that all four have been operational at some point. But in the
last few days, we've only seen this one site in the Tal al-Sultan neighborhood of Rafah that's actually been operational. And that's part of
why you are seeing these enormous crowds of people sometimes showing up in the middle of the night, hours before these sites actually open up because
they're trying to get aid. They've had the experience too many times before of getting to these sites when the aid has already run dry.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem for us. Thank you. For more now on that desperate need for aid in Gaza and the controversial new
distribution operation there. I'm joined by Janti Soeripto who is president and CEO of Save the Children U.S. in Washington, D.C. Janti, thank you so
much for taking the time.
Just given the headlines, the chaos, and confusion that has ensued since this Gaza Humanitarian Fund has started distributing aid, just give us your
thoughts and what you're hearing from those on the ground there, from your team about what these last eight days have been like, because it has been
eight days now that this humanitarian fund ha has been operational.
JANTI SOERIPTO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SAVE THE CHILDREN U.S.: That's right. And let's also remind ourselves that it's been since March 2nd that we
haven't seen any supplies come into Gaza at all. So, just to get a sense of the level of scarcity and the level of desperation there for the population
of Gaza who are essentially wanting for everything, basic healthcare, clean water, food, baby milk, et cetera, for well over 80 days now. So, that's
the starting position.
Then these last eight days, we're watching an abject horror, of course, because, A, we have said all along that this new mechanism wasn't fit for
purpose, was untested, was woefully inefficient in terms of the number of sites, and also doesn't really address all of the issues, in particularly
for children and a vulnerable population to address their needs. This is not just about food boxes that people then have to carry, as Jeremy said,
for miles and miles sort of on their shoulders that you then still need clean water for to actually prepare before you have any food.
But it doesn't address basic healthcare needs. It doesn't address care for pregnant women. It doesn't address care for infants and young children. It
doesn't address malnutrition treatment for severely malnourished children who are at death's door. So, it is a woefully inadequate plan, badly
executed, and it is actually doing even more harm to a population that has already been through so much.
GOLODRYGA: This Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, there's still so much uncertainty about who is running it these days now, it seems almost daily
we're hearing new headlines. The founder left I think on day one of this distribution. And now, The Washington Post is reporting to the Boston
Consulting Group who helped designed the operation has withdrawn from the team as well.
I'm just curious because I know there's a lot of distrust between Israel, between this foundation, and the United Nations per se, but did anyone
reach out, solicit advice from you, from Save the Children, before launching this operation to get a sense o of what this would be like?
SOERIPTO: Look, I mean, you describe it well and the chaos tells you everything around who's running it, who's actually in charge, who helped
design, who didn't help design, you know, who was on the board of this foundation.
[13:10:00]
Look, all humanitarian agencies who've been operational in Gaza, most of the time for many, many decades, have weighed in when first ideas of this
plan were moated a few months ago, and we've identified exactly the issues we saw with it. It seemed to be a militarization of aid. It seemed to be
really tricky -- risky, additionally risky for people to actually walk for miles to pick up a box. It doesn't address all the needs that need to be --
it doesn't address all the aid, supply, humanitarian assistance that needs to be given to the population in Gaza. And it would be -- you know, the
whole supply chain and protocols that we asked for, standard operating procedures that we asked for didn't seem to be in place.
So, we have weighed in with our concerns. Sometimes we were asked for those concerns, sometimes we gave them proactively. But we've been very clear
from the start that we didn't feel that this was a mechanism that would actually deliver quality humanitarian systems at scale.
GOLODRYGA: What are the biggest concerns you have now, specifically as it relates to children?
SOERIPTO: So, we see an enormous amount of children being really at risk of literally starvation. You know, the latest numbers there, as we know,
for over 80 days and nothing has been able to get in. So, there is essentially one for everything, but we are particularly concerned about
very young children starving to death. We are concerned about children being hurt in some of the kinetic activity on the ground.
So, they need basic healthcare. They need vaccines and immunization. They need treatment for their -- for malnutrition. They need treatment for
wounds, for shelling, injuries, et cetera. Above all, they need the fighting to stop.
So, we need to go back to the situation that we had before March 2nd, which was a ceasefire. It was giving -- there were all the gates were open,
humanitarian supplies came in, over 500 trucks a day, a mix of commercial and humanitarian supplies were in. We were able to treat people in
communities where they were close to the -- to where they were living. And we were able to find kids that were -- that needed the most urgent care.
So, the mechanisms that were there during the ceasefire were working at scale and we were able to do it. We and everybody else operating in Gaza
was able to deliver humanitarian assistance with quality and care. And that is currently not the situation at all.
GOLODRYGA: When was the last time you were in Gaza and what did you see there?
SOERIPTO: I was there late March last year and then it was pretty bad at the time. I was in Deir al Balah, where Save the Children still operates
the primary healthcare clinic where we are still treating children and women every day, notwithstanding the horrendous circumstances now.
So, it was bad then. I saw people, you know, 600 people to one, you know, makeshift toilet. There was no clean water. Then there was lack of food
there. There was clearly, completely traumatized communities, and I thought it was as bad as it got then. And now, we're in a position where it is even
worse.
GOLODRYGA: As I'm sure you're aware, Israel is accusing and has long accused Hamas of stealing this food and hoarding it for itself and its
fighters and killing civilians in the process of doing that. And they say that this humanitarian foundation is a system to prevent Hamas from doing
that. Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister has been quite active on social media about this, and here's what he wrote on X. Hamas is under
pressure due to the food distribution operation managed by an American company and is trying in every way to sabotage it. Hamas wants to control
the food and through it to control the people. Israel is denying Hamas this control.
How do you respond to this argument?
SOERIPTO: Yes. So, that is one reality that's being put forward. So, let me be very clear. Save the Children nor I think most of our humanitarian --
the organizations that we speak to and who are operational on the ground haven't seen that level of diversion at all. There is no evidence of that
whatsoever.
Has there been looting of trucks and of aid? Yes. Because if you create a situation where there is a completely desperate population and you restrict
the level of -- the number of supplies that can come in, of course, there's going to be looting. And at the same time as always, in a war zone, you
will -- we now have criminal gangs operating, trying to profit from this war economy.
[13:15:00]
So, we were -- we are acutely aware of that risk. And humanitarian organizations are dealing with risks like this in other conflict areas
around the world. This is nothing that's different. I mean, we were able to do it because we have protocols in place to avoid that, to mitigate against
that. And if it does happen, we investigate, we report, and we are transparent about those risks.
At the moment, you create these sites where there is some level of aid dripping in, but it is woefully inadequate. Of course, we're going to have
increased risk of looting, and then we'll have people walking across for miles around the Gaza strips with their boxes, creating even more risk of
looting or possibly diversion as well.
So, I don't see how this mechanism actually prevents the very risk people say is actually really is significant of which we have seen no evidence.
GOLODRYGA: Janti, quickly, last few seconds. Do we know the status of any, specifically as it relates to children, medical aid being able to come in
to treat those in hospitals?
SOERIPTO: It is very limited. I did hear of I think one or two trucks being able to get in, not from Save the Children, but from one of our
organizations. Again, I think how that truck was looted because of the desperation. So, what we're seeing now is that supplies are really
dwindling, including for Save the Children. We're talking about therapeutic treatment for malnutrition. We're talking about anesthetics. We're talking
about painkillers. We're talking about antibiotics.
GOLODRYGA: All kinds. Yes.
SOERIPTO: Basic -- all kinds of supplies. And everything is running out. And that will increase further desperation. And let me repeat, completely
unnecessary death.
GOLODRYGA: Janti Soeripto, thank you so much for joining us. We'll have to leave it there. Appreciate the time.
SOERIPTO: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And please stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next to a different kind of leadership. When she unexpectedly came to power as New Zealand's prime Minister in 2017, Jacinda Ardern
seemed, to many, like a breath of fresh air. At just 37, she became the world's youngest female head of government. But her time in office collided
with tragedy when a gunman killed dozens of Muslim worshipers in Christchurch. Her response was emblematic of her political philosophy of
empathy and kindness.
A philosophy that's at the center of her new memoir, "A Different Kind of Power." It releases today just ahead of a documentary about her time in
office titled "Prime Minister." Christiane recently spoke with Ardern about what it took to lead her country and the lessons she learned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Jacinda Ardern, welcome back to our program.
JACINDA ARDERN, FORMER NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER AND AUTHOR, "A DIFFERENT KIND OF POWER": Thank you so much. A real pleasure to speak with you.
AMANPOUR: It's been so long. And of course, the last time you were prime minister, you've taken a couple of years out. You've also written a memoir.
There's a documentary out about you, and it's called "A Different Kind of Power." What is your different kind of power?
ARDERN: Well, it's fair to say I've spent the last two years, yes, as you say, teaching, writing, reflecting. And initially I didn't have an
intention particularly of writing a memoir until there were those who pushed me a little harder to think beyond the idea of just a political
memoir and rather sharing a little more of an insight into how it feels to lead.
[13:20:00]
And of course, if I was going to write a book like that, it meant also sharing how it feels to lead when you do see yourself as someone quite
focused on empathy, kindness, compassion, and it's occurred to me that we talk a lot about different types of leadership, but not often do we talk
about the alternatives that we see current -- from what we see currently.
And so, as much as I've enjoyed my quiet time being out of the media eye, I think it is time to start talking about some of those alternative styles.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, look, I was going to get in more deeply into empathy, kindness, et cetera, but you've just brought it up. And I heard
your Yale speech to the graduating class. And I was really struck by how you talked about it's not just about you, it's about us. That empathy is
not a weakness. It's not just a female thing. Empathy is a basic value for leadership. Expand on that for me.
ARDERN: And I do see it that way. You know, there's a number of things that, over time, I think we've either I personally felt were weaknesses in
leadership and certainly, I think we come -- we become climatized to this idea that empathy and leadership must denote weakness as opposed to the
fact that actually it's a form of people-based policy making, people-based leadership.
And actually, when you're motivated by acting on behalf of your community and trying to fix problems that people are facing, that actually often
makes you more decisive. I talk often also about the idea of a confidence gap. We probably have a number of people that exclude themselves from
leadership because they don't believe they have what it takes. I certainly put myself in that category, but by bringing that humility to a job also
means that you are more likely to be extraordinarily prepared. You're more likely to seek the advice of others, bring in experts who can support your
work and that too can be a strength in leadership.
So, I really want to challenge these traditional notions of what makes for good leadership. And again, particularly in these times when we have a view
that there is no place for kindness in politics because that is characterized as weakness.
AMANPOUR: Let's go back a little bit because you obviously learned all this from your early childhood, which you write about, of course, in your
book. You talk about growing up in a place which was a conservative rural part of New Zealand. What did you witness there? What did you internalize
as a child that may have led to being a leader, but also how you feel about being a leader?
ARDERN: Two really distinct experiences, really. I spent my early years, just a few short years in a small town called Murupara, and that was in the
1980s when New Zealand went through significant economic reform.
Now, of course, as a child, I wasn't walking around the streets muttering about rapid -- you know, rapid deregulation. I rather just saw what the
kids around me didn't have. I saw poverty and inequality and it -- that question it left a mark. I do think that was a place that really made me in
my own way political. But the place where I spent most of my life was a small rural town that was predominantly conservative.
And, you know, I credit that place for being somewhere that ensured that I -- you know, I always like to engage in a good debate, but I also like to
try and see the world from a multitude of perspectives. So, yes, I'm a progressive, but I'd like to get us back to a place where we were able to
respect different ideas, debate different ideas respectfully, that we didn't descend into violence and aggression in political debate. Where we
aren't so entrenched that we can't see another person's perspective.
So, two really important lessons for me going into politics. Not necessarily did I see myself in those times, is that would be the place I
would end up, but no doubt they were important lessons.
AMANPOUR: You know, you just mentioned, yes, I am a progressive. As you know, and I don't need to tell you, progressive politics are under full-
scale assault in the democratic world, in the United States and in parts of Europe as well. Do you see a future for progressive politics?
ARDERN: Absolutely. And I see a place also, as I've talked about for empathetic leadership. You know, and two reasons why I run now a fellowship
on empathetic leadership and our first cohort were politicians out of Europe. There are political leaders who believe the fact that they are
there to serve people, that they should focus on the politics, nothing personal, and do politics differently. But the incentives to focus in on
those individuals have shifted. So, that's why I like to spend a bit of time spotlighting it.
[13:25:00]
But the second point, you know, we've had two major elections in different parts of the world recently, Australia, the election of Labor Prime
Minister Anthony Albanese, and of course in Canada with Mark Carney. And both prime ministers, on their election nights, in their critical victory
night speeches, referenced the importance of the value of kindness.
These are not values that are data, nor are they values that people have given up on seeking from politicians. But we need to make sure that they're
back at the forefront and demonstrating how they can successfully deliver for people when they need it.
AMANPOUR: We'll get to that in a moment, but I also read, and I had no idea about this, that you were brought up a Mormon, but tell me something,
how did that affect you and how come you left the church?
ARDERN: Yes, it there's a, you know, reasonable church in New Zealand. Certainly, where I grew up, it was smaller. It was a membership of about
50. So, I was literally you know, probably the only progressive and Mormon in the village as it were. But there's several thousand in the adjoining
city.
You know, for me it was an upbringing. It was my community and it was an upbringing. It was very service orientated and, you know, that's probably a
value that stayed with me. But it is fair to say in my early 20s, I did struggle with the clash between, you know, the part of my faith that had a
particular view on, for instance, homosexuality. And yet, here I was at that time campaigning for civil unions in New Zealand. And there came a
point where I had to reconcile that clash of values.
In writing the book, that was an area that I didn't think I would find it as difficult to write about as I did in part probably because it was a
decision I made several decades ago and I packaged it up and put it in a little box and tucked it away. And, you know, as is the case with probably
writing memoire, you bring all of those things out and you put them on a page, particularly if you are really intent on just sharing -- yes, sharing
a really genuine and intimate way. Well, what led you on a particular path and why it's important that other people who might have a similar journey
should -- you know, should take a path of leadership as well.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Again, I just want to drill down a little bit on what you write a lot about and speak a lot about. The whole idea of anxiety and
imposter syndrome. You know, people who look at people like you don't think that you could possibly have imposter syndrome. And you say, my insistence
on over-preparing and the tendency to imagine every worst-case scenario meant that I could envision any possible argument that might come back to
me from the opposing side. Until now, my near-constant worry had felt debilitating. Suddenly it felt like a superpower.
That must be an amazing realization. A major pivotal point for you.
ARDERN: Yes, and I think probably, you know, what I would conclude, because people ask me all the time, oh, did you just eventually get over
there? I mean, if you're prime minister for five years, surely you stop having that kind of confidence gap at some point? And I think the answer is
no. There's no silver bullet or magic remedy to remove that. But perhaps we should reframe it.
Because if it does bring a little humility, and it does mean that you prepare, and as I say, bring in others to support your decision making,
isn't that what we want in leadership? And I think one of the first times I really reflected on the fact that there are a number of people that might
have that view of themselves who don't often speak to it, you know, is when I hear for instance, or see Melinda French Gates in her memoir or her
recent, not full memoir, but her recent book, talks about one particular meeting where she found herself just preparing and preparing, going over
screeds of material. It was only after the fact that she finally decided she shouldn't treat every meeting as if it were a test as to whether or not
she should be there.
And so, I do think we should talk about it more because it's much more pervasive than I think we understand or believe, and perhaps in doing so,
those who might self-exclude because of that confidence gap we might encourage to come forward.
AMANPOUR: Was part of this issue for you being a woman, even though you were not the first female prime minister in your country? You were the
third. I mean, talk about progress in New Zealand. Was it hard being a woman in leadership?
ARDERN: You know, this is -- I consider myself incredibly lucky that I was the third. And so, there were these other remarkable women who carved a
path. And there is no question, in my mind, it made the journey that, you know, because that path was more -- that, well, you know, well-traveled, it
made the journey, in many ways, easier for me. It meant that I did not grow up believing that my gender meant that I couldn't be in politics or
leadership, and that in itself is a gift.
[13:30:00]
But I unfortunately did grow up believing that my character might be a problem. And that the fact I was thin skinned did not make me well placed
for politics. But again, you know, really putting that to the test by being in there, by demonstrating it was possible, and by ultimately showing that
we often have far more resilience and are capable of far more than we give ourselves credit for. It's just that we don't put ourselves in those
positions often to test it.
I happened to find myself in leadership through a series of remarkable events. It wasn't what I would say a path that I set out on deliberately.
My boss came to work one day, quit, and then nominated me. Were it not for those circumstances, I'm not sure I would've ever become prime minister.
I'm certainly glad I did, and now I feel a responsibility to share with others some of those learnings and realizations.
AMANPOUR: So, do you think then that you have come a bit of away now in these last two years from what you said when you did actually resign the
job?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARDERN: I know what this job takes, and I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What did that mean? Many people, you know, put their own ideas onto what you said. Oh
ARDERN: Oh, they do. And I fully expected that. Because I think it's natural. It's human nature that you look for the one thing, what's the one
reason. And I didn't have one reason, you know, other than to say that the five years that preceded my departure cumulatively meant that I came to a
point where I was having to make a decision about running for the next election. That meant essentially committing for another four years.
And whilst I could keep going, all those things that were important to me in leadership, you know, maintaining your curiosity, not being defensive.
You know, having enough for the inevitable point where there might be more -- another crisis. I knew that those things were depleting and that it felt
to me that responsibility had brought me into the job and my sense of responsibility needed to take me out of it.
I miss a lot about politics, but I don't regret the decision. It was the right one. And I try and for the first time, put a lot more detail around
that decision because it was a lonely one. So, I put it on a page to do the best I could to explain which -- what I know didn't make sense to a lot of
people.
AMANPOUR: You know, you did a lot of things and you had a lot of successes. I think something that stood out, especially when you talk about
empathy and kindness and inclusion, was when you had that terrible terrorist attack in Christchurch, and dozens of members of your Muslim
community were killed. And you immediately went down there and you dressed in, you know, respectful, traditional dress and you hugged people, and
people around the world really responded to that.
But then, I met you afterwards and I asked you about the policy that emanated from that because you were very justly proud that merely 28 days
later, your government passed very important legislation to ban the kind of weapons that were use. So, I'm just going to play this little bit from our
interview on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I wonder whether you ever think that other countries can learn from what you did and actually from what neighboring Australia did after
their massacre in 1996, a conservative government passed tough gun laws.
ARDERN: Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws. New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws. To be honest with you, I
do not understand the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I bring that up because you did things and so did Australia, and so did Britain after their terrible mass murder in Dunblane. But the
United States, where you've spent the last couple of years, cannot get itself into that position anymore. Have you understood America any better
in those two years that you've been there? Why it wouldn't?
ARDERN: I often describe myself as an observer, you know, very lucky to have had some time here. But an observer all the same. And, you know,
again, it's very hard as an observer to understand all of the -- you know, the history, the politics, the culture.
All I know is that when you experience tragedy and crisis, it asks for change. It calls for change. And it keeps calling. And so, whilst again,
you know, I'm not a legislator here, I will not understand the intricacies of the system or the history of the politics, but I do understand crisis
and I know that's what it keeps calling for.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: I want to end just with a personal note, because the documentary, it's called "Prime Minister," but it's very, very personal as
well. And I want to play a little clip. It features yourself and your daughter. It's your 40th birthday and this is from the documentary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARDERN: Thank you everyone for always supporting me. Even though I curse your name when this thing comes to me. Neve, when she sees me pick this up,
says, bye-bye, see you tomorrow.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just wondered if you wanted to take the opportunity, sort of reflecting back on that first term as a Prime
minister?
ARDERN: I don't even know how to sum it up. Everything about it was unexpected. It amazes me that the things that you can paint on can
sometimes become the most irrelevant thing that you'll be doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's so beautiful. I met you first in New York when you brought the baby, who was an infant, to your first U.N. General Assembly. It's so
personal. And I think your husband had quite a lot to do with quite a lot of the personal parts of the footage in the documentary.
ARDERN: Yes, he's a broadcaster. And so, you know, when I became unexpectedly leader of the Labor Party, you know, without any plan in mind,
I think in his mind, he just thought, oh, this feels like a bit of history. I should capture it.
And there's no one else that would've been able to capture it. No one else I would've let -- you know, fill me in bed in my pajamas or in those really
difficult moments. You know, and, in many ways, again, it's a similar hope for the film that I have for the book that we can rehumanize one another,
that we can focus, again, on those things that matter the most and that are important.
See that, you know, certainly as a politician myself I wasn't perfect. I made mistakes, but there are a lot of people out there every day just doing
their best. And perhaps that's ultimately as simple message that this film is sharing.
AMANPOUR: Well, it is really, really interesting stuff and for you to be putting a spotlight on a different kind of leadership is super important at
this time. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us.
ARDERN: Thank you. Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And the "Prime Minister" is out in theaters across the U.S. on June 13th. We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: 260 million, that's how many Americans are predicted to be either overweight or obese by 2050. It's a dire warning from medical
experts, but can drugs like Ozempic offer a way out or does a lack of regulation mean they could cause more harm than good?
Dr. David Kessler is a former FDA commissioner who was instrumental in enacting tough tobacco regulations under President Clinton and later led
President Biden's COVID response. He joins Hari Srinivasan to discuss his new book on the obesity crisis.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. David Kessler, thanks so much for joining us. Your new book is titled
"Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine: The New Science of Achieving a Healthy Weight." And you're looking really kind of a little bit more holistically at
nutrition and weight loss. And I guess, why did you feel the need to write this book right now?
DR. DAVID KESSLER, AUTHOR, "DIET, DRUGS, AND DOPAMINE" AND FORMER FDA COMMISSIONER: You know, the American body is ill. Only about 12 percent of
Americans are metabolically healthy. And there's a real opportunity to reclaim our health. That's why I wrote the book.
SREENIVASAN: I mean, how much of the population is, you know, suffering in these different ways? I mean, are our statistics say that we're talking as
of 2023, 40 percent of American adults over the age of 20 are considered obese? How do we get to this point? I mean, is it the fact that ultra-
processed foods have been introduced to that? How long they've been there? How culturally accepted they are?
DR. KESSLER: Let's understand one thing. This is not about weight. It's not how big you are or small you are. To me, it's about health. The
question is really about toxic fat, sick fat. It's the fat in our midsection. It's the fat that gets into our liver, into our pancreas,
right, into, you know, layers of our heart that caused, you know, many of the chronic diseases, cardiac, kidney, metabolic, certain forms of cancer
and possibly even neurodegenerative diseases. So, it's toxic fat. This is not about weight.
SREENIVASAN: Can you explain a little bit medically what's happening with that kind of belly fat or deep fat, visceral fat, whatever it's called?
What is it actually doing? How is it kind of actively working against my health more than just the fact that, oh, I have a few pounds now overall
spread out from my body? What's the danger of it being right here in my midsection?
DR. KESSLER: You know, this midsection fat, you know, as you just referred to it, this toxic fat, it's different than some of the fat that's under our
skin and our arms and in our legs. This fat -- these fat cells have a hard time because of the -- just the amount of calories we're taking in, holding
on to all the lipids, to all the fats. So, they leak these molecules. They leak certain pro-inflammatory molecules. And those molecules in that fat, I
mean, are getting into our vital organs.
You know, doctors, whether it's cardiologists, nephrologists, neurologists, oncologists, we're all waking up to the fact that this toxic fat getting
into our vital organs, that our organs are bathed in this inflammatory soup that these cells are leaking out. I mean, it's really causing metabolic
chaos in our bodies.
You know, this beer belly, we always, you know, became part of the culture. You know, thought it was cool and, you know, men were strong. I mean, it's
really killing us.
SREENIVASAN: What's the role of the government here? Should this industry be regulated more closely? We're doing it for alcohol and for tobacco?
DR. KESSLER: I had the privilege, you know, of being part of the team that, as you said, you know, did the investigation into tobacco. No doubt
that there are certain tools the government has that can change our relationship with these addictive substances. But what really worked in
tobacco, what -- I mean, it was one of the great public health successes, I mean, over the last hundred years.
You know, the turn of the previous century what the tobacco companies did was, you know, they hired the psychoanalyst, AA brill, to come up, you
know, with the phrase, you know, symbols of liberty, torches of freedom. There was the march down Fifth Avenue you for emancipation. They made
cigarettes into something that was sexy, adventuresome, glamorous. There was the Marlboro Man. I mean, they made it positively valenced. And what
happens when something's positively valenced and it's addictive? I mean, you want it.
What did we do over the last 50, 75 years, right? We changed the valence. We changed the tobacco. There was this critical perceptual shift from
something I wanted that was my friend to something that I didn't want. There was a deadly, disgusting product. It was my enemy. So, how we
perceive these foods, are these foods really satisfying me? What are they doing to my body? Do I really want them?
[13:45:00]
I mean, I think, yes, there's government tools that you can use, but we really have to change how we see these foods.
SREENIVASAN: Let's turn our conversation a little bit to GLP-1 drugs. And you write it, really, in a fantastic kind of personal voice about your
personal journey with these drugs. How do this sort of semaglutides, the tirzepatides, how do they work and what has been your experience with them?
DR. KESSLER: What they do is, the -- scientific term is they delay gastric emptying. That just simply says that food stays in your stomach longer. And
we all have experienced that, you know, we get the flu. Our GI tract doesn't move as much food, it stays in our stomach. And how do you feel?
You know, you don't want to put anything else in your stomach. I mean, there is this spectrum, you know, there's this -- there is -- and it's the
result of both the GI tract and part of the brain, the hind brain.
You know, that continuum of I feel satisfied, I feel full. And then, in this Thanksgiving fullness. I mean they -- I mean, everybody perceives
these differently, but for me, they took me to the edge of nausea. What's strong enough to overcome the addictive circuits, right? I mean, there are
another set of circuits in the body called the aversive circuits. You know, the circuits that, you know, when we feel ill. In fact, when the first
early, you know, precursors of these drugs were given to laboratory animals, animals didn't move. The scientists, you know, coined the term
visceral malaise, this general illness.
And what the great thing is -- about these drugs, because of the dose, they can push you along that continuum, you know, fullness, satiety. I mean,
some people can't tolerate these drugs because they push them over, I mean, into outright nausea. But those feelings are strong enough to, you know,
overcome the reward circus.
The problem is these drugs only work while you are on them. And the latest data that I saw is that the average person in this country is on them for
eight or nine months. You go off them, I mean, and they stop working. But the premise of the company are that you're going to be on that for, you
know, your life. I think that the FDA and the companies have to study how we can effectively use these drugs in the real world.
SREENIVASAN: You're describing a couple of different processes here. One is kind of the physiological, if there's more food in my stomach and I feel
full, I don't feel like I'm going to put more calories in. right? And then the other is, what's interesting to me is kind of this idea of food noise,
right? Decreasing your interest in going after all foods, including the hyper addictive ones. So, I wonder when you got off the drugs, did that
food noise increase?
SREENIVASAN: You said it very well. You know, that food noise is the result of those reward circuits, those addictive circuits. I mean, that --
those are just the -- those that cue-induced wanting, you know, I mean, going off in my head that my reward circuits, I mean, are being triggered.
And those aversive circuits, that edge of nausea that I felt. The -- you know, the sort of counterbalance, those addictive circuits that works when
you're on these drugs. And they'll work for a while after you go off them. But at a certain point, you know, this is highly variable.
I mean, we're each -- you know, every individual has their own experiences. For me, I mean, it worked for a while, but what I found and what I've tried
to do is to change my relationship with food while I'm on that, what I want, and try to have that sort of condition me in a way to be able to
carry over. But, you know, I mean, I had the opportunity to run -- to co- lead operation warp speed, I mean, during the pandemic. I worked 18 hours days. I was sitting there at my computer. I didn't get up, you know, it was
seven days a week, and I turned around and I was some 40 pounds heavier afterwards. You know, and I wanted to do something about this.
I mean, these drugs are not a panacea, right? I mean, there's no magical. They're one tool, right? You need to take them. I mean, you can't expect to
deal with these addictive circuits by yourself. You need a team. You need a good physician. You need a dietician.
[13:50:00]
I mean, you need people who can help you to change the relationship with food. And the drugs are one tool, but only one tool.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we are having this conversation about these drugs. One of the things that I definitely want to point out is that, you know, we
might have access to them, but it's very unequal access. For most people, their insurance does not cover the GLP-1 drugs. It might cover it for
diabetes, but it might not cover it for weight loss.
DR. KESSLER: This is not about willpower. This is very much a disease process at work. And it's causing enormous trillions of dollars of health
bills these insurance companies are paying. I think one of the first things the administration has to do is to agree under Medicare to cover these
drugs. Not to do that is a form of discrimination against people who live, who struggle with obesity. We need to provide access to these drugs.
I -- you know, I carry -- I was carrying three different insurance policies and not one covered these drugs. They were, you know, over a thousand
dollars. I mean, could you imagine struggling with your weight your whole life and being ill from it, from suffering, the cardiac consequences, the
renal consequences? You know, diabetes, you know, and a number of other complications. A drug comes along and it can help you, and you can't have
access to that drug.
So, I mean, it just shows you how broken the American health system is. The companies, what do they do? They price these drugs, you know, exorbitantly.
And there is this thing in the food and drug laws is sort of this loophole that allows what's called compounded drugs to be made. I mean, these are
drugs, you know, not coming from the manufacturers. The source of these drugs are probably coming from China. It's hard to even know where these
are, in some cases, being made. The FDA has not done testing to assure the safety.
So, because the drug companies had priced these drugs so high, people had a resort to drugs that they couldn't assure the safety of. Now, the companies
are lowering the prices to compete with these compounded drugs. I mean, that -- it just shows you how broken the healthcare system is.
SREENIVASAN: So, is there something where we can collectively figure out how to increase access to this category of drugs while at the same time, I
don't know, equipping people, preparing people for a way for them to say, OK, this is -- we understand that the manufacturer says, you need to be on
this drug for the rest of your life, but our goal is not to have you on this drug for the rest of your life. I want you to just figure out in this
interim, like let's get you back to a healthy level and hopefully, between now and that point, we can change your relationship with food?
DR. KESSLER: You've just said it wonderfully. I mean, that's the goal, but it's a journey. There is no end game right now. You and I are not going to
figure out, you know, how to get the data to use these drugs, the right dose, whether it's safe to take those -- that dose down. Can I go off the
drug? When can I go back? Will it continue to work? Those are questions the drug company, along with the regulatory bodies need to figure out.
What our job is to do, is to want to be able to deal with this toxic fat, with this sick fat, to reclaim our health and to get a team, I mean, again,
access is a very key issue. You can't deal with an addictive substance alone. You need docs, you need nutritionists. That's what we need to do. We
just have to want to reclaim our health and understand there's no end game. It's a real journey.
SREENIVASAN: Former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler. His new book is called "Diet, Drugs and Dopamine: The New Science of Achieving a Healthy
Weight." Thanks so much for joining us.
DR. KESSLER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, jubilation for many in South Korea.
[13:55:00]
Supporters of opposition leader Lee Jae-myung are celebrating with exit polls projecting that he is set to become the next president. Voter turnout
reached almost 80 percent with millions casting their ballots in the snap election. And with these creative I voted stickers going viral on social
media. Now, it comes exactly six months after the now ousted leader Yoon Suk Yeol imposed martial law, leading to political chaos.
Make sure to tune into the show tomorrow where we're going to have more analysis on this big moment for Korean democracy. For now, that is it for
us though. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
