Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

David Chiu is Interviewed about Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit; American Thoughts on Tariffs; Segun Oduolowu is Interviewed about the Netflix Docuseries on Combs. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired December 03, 2025 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:30:00]

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Are encouraged. They're relieved that they didn't lose a seat. But I would not, if I were advising the Republicans, and I'm sure their advisors are telling them this, we survived. We didn't thrive. And this is another warning sign about the midterms.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And healthcare was a big issue in that campaign.

AXELROD: Yes.

BERMAN: The expiring Obamacare subsidies.

AXELROD: That was what she ran on.

BERMAN: There's no resolution on that, on December 3rd.

AXELROD: No, I think this is interesting. How will members of Congress, who are now right up against it, the Senate's going to vote. Probably do nothing. How are they going to deal with this issue of these expiring tax credits for the Affordable Care Act? And I read the results. Look, the Republican in the race was -- his ads at the end mirrored the Democrat, affordability, health care. What are they going to do? Are they actually going to let these, you know, exponential increases in premiums go through? If they do, I think they do it at great peril.

BERMAN: Yes, look, I don't think we even understand what the political consequences would be because we haven't seen anything like that happen so quickly, relatively speaking.

AXELROD: And, John, we ought to point out that it's coming at a time when health care premiums overall are rising. And people are not going to distinguish between the Affordable Care Act premiums and the general rise in premiums.

BERMAN: No.

AXELROD: They're going to look at it and they're going to say, they didn't do anything and now I'm paying.

BERMAN: You talk about affordability.

AXELROD: Yes.

BERMAN: President Trump spoke a little bit about affordability in a way that I think probably alarmed some of his political advisers.

AXELROD: Yes. I would think so, John.

BERMAN: Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's this fake narrative that the Democrats talk about, affordability. They just say the word. It doesn't mean anything to anybody. They just say it. Affordability. I inherited the worst inflation in history. There was no affordability. Nobody could afford anything. The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AXELROD: Yeah. Look, I don't know whether he wasn't paying attention during the last election, but this is exactly how Joe Biden got in trouble, by insisting that the economy was strong, that the inflation issue was under control.

When people were going to the grocery store and going, you know, paying their rent and their insurance and all of their costs, and they saw, in real life 00-- in real time what was happening. And it's still happening. We're no better off on inflation today than we were the day he walked in. And how long can you keep blaming the last guy for your problems? You know, the -- Harry Truman said the buck stops here. The motto of this administration seems to be, the buck stops there.

BERMAN: He seems so pained talking about it. He came off the pain a little bit with Mamdani a week and a half ago, but now it just seems like -- it's like the Fonz who can never say he was sorry. I don't know if you remember "Happy Days."

AXELROD: Yes.

BERMAN: Like President Trump seems to not be able to get the word affordability out.

AXELROD: No, because I think he recognized -- he promised to very quickly bring down prices. That was the offer in the election. He's failed. And that's the reason his numbers are tumbling more than anything else.

BERMAN: David Axelrod great to see you.

AXELROD: Good to see you, as always.

BERMAN: First place Chicago Bears. First place New England Patriots.

AXELROD: Yes. BERMAN: 1985 rematch. Let's do it.

AXELROD: We'll see you in the Super Bowl.

BERMAN: All right, Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Something like that.

BERMAN: Something like that.

BOLDUAN: Let's go to this now.

This morning, the city of San Francisco is going after ten of the nation's biggest food manufacturers, filing a lawsuit that alleges ultra-processed foods are responsible for a national public health crisis. This is the nation's first government lawsuit against food manufacturers over ultra-processed products. Some of the names of -- some of the companies named in this suit. I mean look at them all. Some of the biggest names that you know, Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, Kraft Heinz Company included.

The lawsuit argues this, in part, "ultra-processed foods, like tobacco and illegal drugs, are addictive. The defendants have created and continue to create addictive substances by processing naturally occurring substances into products with unnaturally high doses of reinforcing ingredients that enhance the rewarding effects of the substance." It goes on to talk about how cravings for ultra-processed foods are an obstacle and an issue, stating this. "The result can be a descent into consumption of ever-increasing amounts despite a desire or even repeated attempts to quit."

Joining us right now is the man bringing this lawsuit, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu.

Thank you so much for being here.

First and foremost, why are you taking on these massive companies now? And these foods have been on the store shelves for decades.

DAVID CHIU, SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY: Absolutely. Well, our case is about companies that over the years designed their products to be addictive, marketed them to maximize profits. And as you've said, like the tobacco industry, they knew their products have been making people sick, but they hid this truth from the public. They made billions upon billions. And they've left us, taxpayers and patients, to clean up the mess.

And what's different now is, in recent years there have been many, many studies, enormous data sets that have confirmed this link between ultra-processed foods and very significant chronic diseases.

BOLDUAN: So, CNN has reached out directly to all the companies involved, and we have just received a statement from Consumer Brands Association, which is the trade association that represents food manufacturers.

[09:35:09]

They're pushing back against your lawsuit, saying this in part in their statement, "there is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods and attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities."

How can you win if there isn't an agreed upon definition of what fits into this category of food?

CHIU: Well, the industry is just trying to distract. This is really a red herring. There are clear definitions with scientists. There are clear definitions in my state of California on what ultra-processed foods are. And their foods fall under these categories. And the reality is, their foods are creating chronic diseases. So, heart disease, type two diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, depression. This has been particularly alarming with children who are experiencing obesity and type two diabetes at levels that we have never heard. And the industry isn't responding to that. And they've known about this for many, many years going back decades. And we describe in our lawsuit how they've known about it and yet continue to move past that employing (ph) plays from big tobacco, employing the same scientists that addicted us to generations of tobacco usage, bringing them to this -- to this new industry to make food that isn't food. Food that's not found in nature, that's created by combining artificial chemicals with industrialized processes and food in which addictiveness is a feature and not a bug (ph).

BOLDUAN: This seems -- this also is kind of a rare moment in a very rare issue of kind of bipartisan agreement, if you will, between San Francisco and the Trump administration. I mean, the HHS secretary has taken on ultra-processed foods in a way that no -- really others have not, calling them poisons, wanting to target them and to root them out. You -- do you have an ally in RFK Jr., do you believe, and what do you want the companies to do with this? What do you want the end result of this lawsuit to be?

CHIU: So, it is a bit coincidental. And I think it is a result of the fact that there has been a tipping point in the science. The international scientific community has consensus that ultra-processed foods are bad for health. They are literally making us sick, plain and simple. And Americans from across the political spectrum agree on this, including RFK, the MAHA movement, as well as Californians whose politics are a bit different. I've been thinking these days that even a broken clock is right twice a day. We may disagree with RFK on many things because we follow the science, but in this case we're all following the science.

BOLDUAN: So, what do you want the end result to be of this -- of this lawsuit?

CHIU: So, a few things. We want to ensure that this industry stops deceiving the public about its products, particularly when it comes to advertising. They've been bombarding kids with product messages and advertising with their cartoon mascots, Tony the Tiger, Fred Flintstone, Paw Patrol. They're integrating their market with Disney and Nickelodeon and Nintendo and Marvel. They're targeting low-income communities. Particularly low-income communities of color. So, we want them to stop that. But we also want to ensure that there is accountability. They have caused billions upon billions of dollars of health care costs on Americans. This has been incredibly burdensome for cities like mine, states, public health systems. We need to make sure that they are addressing the harms that they have created. And we've asked for restitution, as well as for civil penalties to ensure that that is the case. We're not asking for the products to be banned. We're simply asking for Americans to know what it is that they are consuming, particularly when we're talking about food that has created a public health crisis with skyrocketing health care costs.

BOLDUAN: David Chiu, the city attorney of San Francisco, thanks so much for coming in. I appreciate your time.

John.

BERMAN: All right, Costco suing the government over tariffs. What are Americans saying about who they blame for rising prices?

And the --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:50]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning. Costco is now the biggest retailer to sue the Trump administration in an effort to preserve tariff refunds. We're waiting on a big Supreme Court decision, which may or may not declare many of the president's tariffs not legal, but what do the American people think now about the tariffs?

One man has the answer. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: We're number one. And I'm one man.

BERMAN: All right, talk to me about right now, views of tariffs, broadly speaking.

ENTEN: Yes, this is a topic on which the American people have shifted significantly and they have shifted significantly against tariffs. I mean this just gives you an indication. I mean, just look at the shift over the last year. When Donald Trump was elected back in November of 2024, 52 percent of Americans favored new tariffs on imported goods, 48 percent opposed. Look at this switcheroo now. By late October of 2025, the clear majority, 62 percent, opposed new tariffs. That favor number has absolutely plummeted, down to 38 percent on the key policy that Donald Trump has been pushing since the beginning of this second term. The American people have shifted completely against the president of the United States.

BERMAN: That's just a complete reversal right there. How about Americans approval of the president on the issue of tariffs? [09:45:03]

ENTEN: Yes, this issue is dragging, dragging Donald Trump down. Because, why? What are we just looking at here? Trump's net approval rating on trade/tariffs. In January it was OK, right? It was doing OK. It was minus two points. But in this political environment, and the fact that polls oftentimes underestimate Donald Trump, this ain't too bad of a number.

Look at where we are now, minus 24 points. A shift of 20 points away from the president of the United States. I was looking at data around this point in his first term. This is double digits worse, as well as he was at this point on trade and tariffs, as where he was in term number one at this point. The American people have moved against tariffs, and they have definitely moved against Donald Trump when it comes to tariffs.

BERMAN: What do people think the tariffs do basically to prices?

ENTEN: Yes. Well, the question is, why? What's cooking?

BERMAN: Right.

ENTEN: Why are the folks moving against Donald Trump? Why are they moving against tariffs? I mean, this just gives you an indication. Say tariffs effect on prices in the short term increase in March, 72 percent, 72 percent of Americans believed that tariffs raised prices in the short term in March. You come over to October. Donald Trump's been making the argument, and the American people ain't buying it, Johnny Berman. Ain't buying it. Seventy-one percent. It is awfully difficult when the number one issue in the country right now is inflation, is affordability. And folks believe that a signature policy of yours increases prices. That is no bueno. That is no good. No wonder Americans are moving against tariffs and moving against Donald Trump's -- Donald Trump on tariffs. As I said at the beginning, it is dragging him down.

BERMAN: And look, it's a tell when the administration cuts tariffs on coffee so that it will reduce coffee prices. It tells you what they think about that.

All right, so one of the things the president has said -- is floated the idea of maybe he'll give tariff income checks, stimulus checks based on the revenue from tariffs to the American people. Do the American people -- do they feel like these checks are coming?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, you know, one of the best ways we can look at this is the prediction markets because they give you an indication of where people are putting their money where their mouth is, right? Do they think that the tariffs -- that these rebate checks are actually coming? And at this point, no. No. I mean chance tariff -- Trump tariffs, the tariff stimulus checks are sent to Americans by August of 2026, it's a 25 percent chance. That's one in four. So, that's not nothing. But the American people, right now, are craving, craving some relief. And at this point it doesn't look like it is coming.

Although I will note, John Berman, this 25 percent, it is greater than this six percent who say that tariffs decreased prices.

BERMAN: Yes.

ENTEN: Or that five percent back in March, which are just -- you never see one, two, three, four, five percent. So, look, 25 percent ain't nothing. But, at this point, it's low.

BERMAN: Yes, it's interesting. The prediction markets think that only one -- one in four chance that will actually happen there.

ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: Harry Enten, great to see you.

ENTEN: Great to see you.

BERMAN: Thank you very much. A lot of news.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:24]

SIDNER: A new documentary about Sean "Diddy" Combs has shot to number one on Netflix, less than 24 hours after its release. It has never before seen video of Combs in the lead up to his arrest on racketeering conspiracy charges. Most of those serious charges he beat in court. Now there's another legal battle over the series itself. Combs' legal team sued to get Netflix to cease and desist streaming it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Puffy, Puff Daddy, Diddy, Sean Combs, all of these reincarnations, all those name changes are attached to really bad deeds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything in life, you're going to have people that are bad and people that are good. You have to choose your side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: As you can see, it ended up streaming anyway. One clip in particular, though, took center stage in the lawsuit to keep it from the public. It shows Combs' frustration over how his team was handling public perception. Combs' team says that footage was stolen and was never authorized for release. The film's legal team says they got the video legally.

CNN's Segun Oduolowu joining me now.

It is so good to see you.

This documentary series was always going to be dramatic, full of controversy, not only because, of course, of Diddy's lifestyle, but because of who the executive producer is. What can you tell us about that?

SEGUN ODUOLOWU, EMMY AWARD-WINNING JOURNALIST AND MEDIA PERSONALITY: Well, the executive producer, of course, is 50 Cent, a longtime antagonist of Sean "Diddy" Combs. And when you watch this documentary, the director, the producer, they paint a picture almost biblical of this person's rise and then fall. Like, hate him or love him, whatever your feelings are about Sean Combs, you cannot deny the sheer force of will of his personality. How he was a visionary long before others moved into alcohol. He was doing Ciroc before Clooney was with Casamigos. He was doing Sean John before Pharrell was doing Louis Vuitton. He was always one step ahead, it seemed, for all -- for all of his peers or competitors. But what happens in darkness eventually comes to light. And the light they shed on this man is frightening at times in the documentary.

[09:55:04]

SIDNER: I am curious, because I know you've watched it. Apparently a bunch of people have, because it's number one. What is it in the doc that has everyone talking?

ODUOLOWU: There are a couple things. First, the sex worker just -- who was involved with Cassie and Diddy, his just unfiltered details of everything that went down is very difficult to hear, very difficult to listen to. But it is eye-opening with the description of just how often it happened, how long these freak off sessions would last, and everyone's role in the participation.

But what hit me the most is that we were there. If you were of a certain age, you were there in the '90s and the early 2000s. You danced to his music. You wanted to be at the Diddy parties. How did we not see all of the violence that was attached to him? All of the lawsuits from the early '90s with Biggie and Tupac, the death that was always surrounding him, even back when he was throwing parties. That's what -- that's how blinding of a light that he cast that we couldn't see through Danity Kane and the band and all of these different incarnations of him all came with violence, guns around Jennifer Lopez and Shyne going to jail. Like all -- there was always violence mixed in with all of the success that he brought.

SIDNER: You brought this up just quickly, but does it go into the long standing suspicions about why or who was behind the murder of the iconic rappers Tupac and Biggie?

ODUOLOWU: It does. And that, you know, there's always been speculation about who shot --you know, who shot who, who ordered what. But they've got footage. They've got recordings of, you know, gang members saying that this was basically ordered by Diddy. Who whomever you choose to believe, they've got it -- they've got the footage.

And I really just want to hammer home really quick the hubris of Diddy to have a film crew following him while he's going through all of this legal drama, almost as if I'm going to make a behind the scenes video of me being exonerated. That type of arrogance always leads to destruction.

SIDNER: Segun Oduolowu, thank you so much for walking us through that. A lot of people watching that. Appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: Thank you so much for joining us today. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. "THE SITUATION ROOM" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)