Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Former U.S. Special Representative For Iran Elliott Abrams; Interview With Former U.S. State Department Adviser And Johns Hopkins University Professor Of International Affairs Vali Nasr; Interview With "I'm Still Here" Actress Fernanda Torres; Interview With "I'm Still Here" Director Walter Salles; Interview With Weill Cornell Medicine Physician And The New Yorker Contributing Writer Dr. Dhruv Khullar. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 14, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VALI NASR, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISER AND PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: President Trump has really
laid the foundations for a negotiated approach to some kind of a nuclear ceasefire with Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What is Trump's Iran plan? I discuss opportunities and dangers ahead with former State Department Adviser Vali Nasr and Elliot Abrams,
special representative for Iran during Trump's first term.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Congressman Rubens Paiva? I'll be back soon, sweetie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "I'm Still Here," the Oscar nominated film telling the true story of a family ripped apart by Brazil's 20-year U.S.-backed military
dictatorship. Actor Fernanda Torres and director Walter Salles joins me.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DHRUV KHULLAR, PHYSICIAN, WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE AND CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: It's very difficult for even someone with knowledge
and experience to find food that's consistently healthy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Why is the American diet so deadly? Physician and writer Dhruv Khullar tells Hari Sreenivasan what he thinks.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
This week, President Trump's global shakeup testing the absolute limits of an 80-year world order has come into sharp focus. He stunned allies by
saying that he'll meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon in Saudi Arabia to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. He's doubled down on his
plans to displace Palestinians from Gaza. He's read Europe the Riot Act about taking the lead in defending themselves and Ukraine. While also
slapping massive tariffs on these allies, and he's rapidly dismantled America's agency for delivering crucial humanitarian aid.
But less clear is his approach towards Iran. Last week, he signed a directive, quote, "restoring maximum pressure on the country." That's the
very same way he described his first term Iran policy after withdrawing the United States from the nuclear agreement known as the JCPOA, which is meant
to curb Iran's nuclear ambition and was President Obama's landmark negotiation.
But now Trump is signaling that he's open to reaching a new deal with Tehran. So, what should we make of it all? I asked two former State
department officials, Val Nasr and Elliot Abrams, who've served Democrat and Republican presidents on this issue.
Elliott Abrams and Vali Nasr, thank you both for joining me from Washington. So, let's talk about Iran a huge amount of executive orders and
other things coming from the White House. We're discussing a lot of them in these first weeks.
Iran seems to be providing a bit of an unusual dilemma for President Trump. So, let me ask you both to analyze what he's been saying, because as he
signs these executive orders, it's almost with regret as you remember when he was signing the maximum pressure one.
So, Elliott Abrams, let me ask you, particularly from your previous government work, what do you think's going on? How would you describe where
Trump is on this?
ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR IRAN: I think this is the authentic Trump, Christiane. That is, they can't have a nuclear
weapon. I would like to do a negotiation with them. That's what he said last time.
The purpose of the maximum pressure campaign was not regime change, which he is not interested in, it was to get what he thought was a better deal
than the 2015 Obama deal. One that would last longer and include more things. He wants that again, and he says, you know, very Trump like, look
we can get there through bombing their nuclear program, we can get there through negotiations. I want to do negotiations. And I think there will, in
fact, be a negotiation. Indeed, for all we know, some feelers are starting now secretly.
AMANPOUR: So, you, Elliott Abrams, think, you're not quoting Trump, you think there will be a negotiation?
ABRAMS: I think there will be. Trump wants one. The only thing that would stop it is the Iranian side. Now, the supreme leader has spoken, you know,
has said negotiations are stupid and they're useless and they're worthless, but he hasn't actually said, therefore, I forbid it.
I think what he's really doing is setting sort of protecting himself, setting up Pezeshkian and the foreign ministry to take the fall if
negotiations go badly.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Pezeshkian obviously is the new-ish president. Vali Nasr, let me ask you. You both have somewhat different views as to how to address Iran.
So, Elliott Abrams has talked about the latest Trump you know, quotes in which he said, they mustn't have a bomb, we could go either way, and, you
know, I want to negotiate.
But earlier, when signing the maximum pressure executive order, he also said the following, and this I was a little bit stunned by, and I want to
get your reaction to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They can't have a nuclear weapon. Beyond that, you know, it would be very tough if they insist on doing that. They
have some of their leadership, I can tell you right now, and maybe you know it, maybe you don't, but there are many people at the top ranks of Iran
that do not want to have a nuclear weapon just for that very reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that's an interesting thing for Donald Trump to say, because 45 years of American policy has been based on saying that Iran wants a
nuclear weapon. What did you take from that, Vali?
VALI NASR, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISER AND PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: I mean, first of all, I
have to say that he didn't sign an executive order, he signed a memo and that's a bit different, although, the language in it was pretty tough.
I think he said a number of things which were surprising. One was that he insisted that Iran actually was not weak, it was strong, which runs counter
to the narrative that is out there. But also, as Elliott said, he was creating a great deal of room to say that I don't think they're imminently
having a nuclear weapon. They may not want it. And therefore, I don't need to bomb them. I don't need to do regime change. I want to have negotiations
with them.
And I do think -- I agree with Elliott that I think there will be negotiations. There's a lot of pre-negotiation posturing going on. Iranians
reacted angrily to what President Trump signed. But I think that's largely because the Supreme Leader wants to say, don't assume that we're weak. We
don't -- he doesn't want his constituents in Iran to think that he -- that Iran is being bullied to the table, that Iran's going to go to table with
sort of his chest forward and his head held high.
But I think President Trump has really laid the foundations for a negotiated approach to some kind of a nuclear ceasefire with Iran.
AMANPOUR: Let me just read their response, because you said, Vali, and also you, Elliott, about what's happening from Iran. So, the foreign minister,
Araghchi, has responded to Trump's latest, maximum pressure is a failed experiment, and trying it again will lead to another failure. If the main
issue is that Iran does not pursue nuclear weapons, that is achievable and there is no problem.
So, again, signaling that they're open to a deal. I want to ask you, Elliott, because I know you take a certain military and hard line towards
fixing whatever you might think is the Iran problem. But, Trump, as you know, is the one who pulled out of what was an arms control agreement.
That's it, an arms control agreement called the JCPOA. Then, four years ago, he talked about maximum pressure and getting the better bargain that
you just talked about. But he got nothing, nada, nishta, nothing. He just got them to build more -- enrich more uranium.
Do you think he's, I don't know, seeing the error of those ways? Does he still think he can get a better deal or can he just get a deal that's a
Trumpian deal?
ABRAMS: He will have to have a better deal. His view, and my view, is that the maximum pressure campaign lasted only two years. Remember, it didn't
start the day he was elected in 2016, it started in 2019 and '20. And by the end, it had a huge effect on Iran. Their reserve, foreign currency
reserves that they could reach were down to $4 billion. They're back up to, I don't know, 50 or 60 now.
The problem, I think, is not going to be the nuclear deal if Iran is willing to walk away from building nuclear weapons. The problem is that
Trump -- or the challenge is that Trump wants more. He's going to say, and no more weapons shipments to Hezbollah, no more weapons shipments to the
Houthis, leave the Shia militias in Iraq alone. He's going to say, stop the proxy wars. And I don't know if Iran is willing to do that.
AMANPOUR: What do you think, Vali, to that? Because clearly, they're in a pretty bad position regarding their proxies. All of them, one by one, have
been falling like dominoes under the weight of Israeli fire. What do you think? Where is their negotiating leverage?
NASR: Well, I think partly they see their negotiating leverage what President Trump doing -- is doing to the rest of the Middle East and the
perception that he's going to overwhelm the American system inside that this sort of honeymoon right now with his administration will not last. And
particularly, they're looking at the pressure on the Arab world, the talk of taking over Gaza, and they're not seeing the Iran-U.S. issue unfolding
alone, separate from what else is happening in the Middle East.
[13:10:00]
But I also think that it depends on what sort of a negotiation and what sort of a deal takes place. In other words, if we're going to have a big
deal that's going to take a long time to negotiate like JCPOA took two years, that's one thing. But if there's going to be a much quicker deal in
which Iran concedes a number of things and in return gets to sell more oil and have some sanctions relief, somewhat like what happened in Oman between
the Biden administration and Iran before October 7th in which Iran made certain even regional concessions and not selling missiles to Russia as
well as freezing its nuclear program, at least as a prelude to something bigger, then I think this can unfold rather quickly. And then, you get into
a stream for a longer period negotiation, but that's going to be further down the road.
AMANPOUR: Let me play this soundbite. We talked about it a little bit at the top, Elliott, and then you can react to it. But it is Trump this
weekend passed on Fox News regarding whether he wants to, you know, attack Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Everyone thinks, Israel, with our help or our approval, we'll go in and bomb the hell out of them. I would prefer that not happen. I'd much
rather see a deal with Iran where we can do a deal, supervise, check it, inspect it, and then blow it up or just make sure that there's no more
nuclear there. You can't allow them to have a nuclear weapon. But there's two ways of stopping them, with bombs or with a written piece of paper.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that -- it goes over a little of what you said, Elliott, but he did talk about Israel. And I know that this has been a topic of a lot of
conversation even from, you know, people like yourself and others, that maybe Israel would do it, maybe America will help Israel. And I think
you're saying, potentially, that American needs to make preps, preparations now for some kind of attack on Iran.
ABRAMS: Yes, I think that's right. That is, I think Trump needs to make good on both halves of that. And the talking part, if he wants to do that,
but also, the military preparation, joint planning, for example. We've done under Biden, but we did some exercises with Israel that obviously were
suggestive of an attack on Iran.
And I do think that, on Vali's point on the calendar, you know, we should say the word snapback, because the ability to snap back the U.N. sanctions,
which the British and French can do disappears in October, and it isn't something you do in one day, it's a process. So, that really has to be
started by the summer, which means we've only got maybe six months, maybe a little bit less to get a serious negotiation, producing something, or there
has to be snapback.
And I would say also that during those six months, yes, Trump should make some moves that show he's quite serious about the military side if Iran
will not abandon its nuclear weapons program.
AMANPOUR: Vali, again, how do you see that unfolding? For sure, Iran is in a weaker position than it has been -- or at least ostensibly for a long,
long time, having lost a lot of its proxies. It has very serious energy crisis, even though it's a massive energy producer, terrible, you know,
currency problems, economic problems and the like.
What would that kind of prep, that Elliott's talking about, that kind of visible prep for a military attack do? How do they react under that kind of
overt pressure?
NASR: Well, I think Elliott is correct that the snapback date is a pressure on them. But we also have to remember the last time they had that ceasefire
agreement in Oman with the Biden administration, the U.S. did not pull a trigger at the United Nations that it could have. So, that's why I think
there's going to be a short-term agreement as a basis for much -- what could be a much longer negotiation.
And Iran does take the military capabilities of Israel and its will to hit Iran quite seriously. But again, you know, there are, you know, caveats
here in terms of what the U.S. can do. An attack on Iran will end peace in the Gulf. It will jeopardize world energy prices. It could put, you know,
Saudi Arabia and UAE's economic advancement in jeopardy. And then, it would push the United States to have to go beyond just bombing Iran's nuclear
sites to much greater military confrontation with Iran.
[13:15:00]
I'm not saying that necessarily Iran will respond militarily to an Israeli- American attack on its nuclear sites, but it could. And so, the calculation, I think they think that you have a president that doesn't like
wars, doesn't want to go to war, and he can start a war, then he can stop a war. And so, in a way, I don't think it's as simple for the Trump
administration to signal that it's either that you come to the table or we'll attack you.
But having said that, I think Iran wants to talk. The message of that -- when their foreign minister wrote in Foreign Affairs -- the vice president
wrote in Foreign Affairs and then, the message they gave in Davos, the message that has been coming out of Iran all along is one of being willing
to talk. And perhaps there has been some kind of feelers going out and I don't think either what President Trump signed or the -- or what the
supreme leader said necessarily obviates the fact that we're going to end up in some kind of a negotiation.
AMANPOUR: Elliott, I saw you shaking your head in disagreement with some of it, nodding with other parts of it.
ABRAMS: Yes, those who want to avoid at all costs an attack on the Iranian nuclear sites will say, this is, you know, massive war throughout the
Middle East. That is not what happened when Israel attacked Iran. It's simply insane for Iran to get into a war with the United States by
responding to an attack on its nuclear sites, for example, by trying to sink American Navy ships in the Gulf, that would be insane. And I don't
think they're insane, and I think it would threaten the survival of the regime to do that. So, I just think the notion that this necessarily
expands into World War III cannot be sustained.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you also, because this is personal, you had colleagues in the administration the last time around working on the Iran file on
behalf of President Trump, whether it's Brian Hook, whether it's Pompeo, whether it's Bolton, et cetera. And he's just taken away, not just their
security details, when we know from intelligence that there is still a threat to them, and particularly Iran may still be looking to avenge the
assassination of Soleimani under Trump.
As a person, can you understand why Trump would have made these people potentially more easy sitting ducks?
ABRAMS: It's indefensible. It's just, you know, a sort of personal strike at them for reasons that are really, take someone like Brian Hook, not
clear at all. But they're -- it's simply indefensible. People have looked at the intel, say what you just said, that the threat is still there. So,
taking away their security is just an awful thing to have done.
AMANPOUR: And very finally to you, Vali, just expanding it a little bit. The threats to expel the Palestinian population and pressure two countries
that have gone into peace agreements with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, upon whom quite a lot of security does depend, both of whom, at least Jordan,
got up and helped defend Israel against the Iranian missiles, how do you think this is going to play out if, in fact, let's say the Jordanian nation
is compromised and destabilized?
NASR: The way the Iranians see it is that this region is heading towards much greater chaos. And the more chaos there is, the more the United States
creates instability in the Arab world, the less capacity it will have to either threaten Iran militarily or contemplate military action or -- and
its ability to pressure Iran would get less.
And so, the Iranians don't see a coherent U.S. policy that's actually isolating him in the region and is making Iran the sole problem of the
region. In fact, for the Arabs today Iran is not the problem, Iran is not the greatest threat to their security. And in many ways, that explains why
they are reaching out to Iran just as they are facing greater challenges in Gaza and in Syria.
So, the way of thinking about Iran in the Trump administration with things like Iran was in 2018, 2020 isolated in the region, the Arabs are all
arrayed against it, and the dynamics of the region is going against it is not quite the way Tehran sees it. And that's important in how they're going
to respond to the pressure that they're receiving.
AMANPOUR: Really fascinating. Hopefully, we can have you back. Vali Nasr and Elliott Abrams, thank you so much indeed.
Next to Brazil and a cautionary tale about the military dictatorship backed by the United States at the height of the Cold War. Now, an Oscar nominated
film explores this dark history. "I'm Still Here" with Fernanda Torres is a moving portrayal of a woman fighting for justice after her husband is
arrested and assassinated by the military junta.
[13:20:00]
Based on the true story of a political dissident, Rubens Paiva, and his widow, Eunice, who fights a long and lonely battle for truth and
accountability while also trying to stay strong for the five children she's been left to raise alone.
I spoke to the acclaimed actress and director, Walter Salles, about the film's relevance right now, decades on from the events which inspired it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Fernanda Torres and Walter Salles, welcome to the program. Great to see you. It was an amazing film, particularly for our times.
So, let's get to the, sort of, the basis of it. Fernanda, you play the heroine Eunice Paiva. Is the true story of her husband, your husband, her
husband, who gets arrested, and later we find out what happens to him. You're the mother of five children, and it's set during the dictatorship
that emerges in Brazil. A U.S.-backed dictatorship, by the way. So, just give me the idea of what you would -- what you were trying to portray,
Fernanda?
FERNANDA TORRES, ACTRESS, "I'M STILL HERE": First, I was trying to be faithful to this great woman called Eunice Paiva, who was raised to be like
the perfect housewife of the '50s. She was the great woman behind the great man. And then, this tragedy happen in their lives, and she becomes a widow
with five children.
And then, she goes back to law school. She reinvents herself. I think she finds who she really is after this tragedy. Becomes a right -- human rights
lawyer. Defended off the indigenous rights, off indigenous reserves and become this amazing woman that nobody knew, actually. And so, I was trying
to be faithful to her, not making a melodrama out of her life. You see, that's something that me and Walter, I think we said we have to be faithful
to her righteousness.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, and it seemed that you absolutely were. It was a very -- and we'll get into that, highly controlled, dignified performance
you put on, as you say, not melodramatic. But I'm really interested Walter, because, you know, as we see what's going on in the world right now, and we
see purges in many, many countries, even in democratic countries, what happened to Rubens Paiva. the heroine's husband, was essentially an
anticommunist witch hunt purge. What made you want to do this story?
WALTER SALLES, DIRECTOR, "I'M STILL HERE": Well, there were many layers to that, but it -- I think that the common thread was -- the common idea was
to offer a reconstruction of memory, memory of that family, you know, of the story of that mother and father and their five children who happened to
be close friends of mine in real-life. And also, rebuild collective memory, the memory of Brazil in that time, you know?
And the film is based on a book written by the youngest kid of the Paiva family. And it's an extraordinary book that allowed us to offer this
reconstruction of this history that we thought was pretty much a reflection of our past. And little by little, we understood that it was also a film
about our present as the zeitgeist started to change.
I think that this is what truly united the whole crew and actors. We were - - we had the impression that we were doing a film that was for today, and not only a film looking towards the past of the Brazilian dictatorship.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's super interesting, and I just want to go a little bit further into it before getting to the first clip.
Fernanda, what does that mean to you in terms of it being the zeitgeist of the moment? Brazil is a democracy now, although it did have that 26 years
of military dictatorship. And your parents, I understand, were not only artists, but were subject to censorship and fear and the rest. Tell me what
you remember about that.
TORRES: Well, I think I learned the word censorship even, like, was a mama, papa, censorship because they were so afraid -- not afraid, they were
theater producers and before the opening, for instance, of a play, they had to do one session for the censor. And the censor could forbid the whole
play, could cut pages of the play. So, that was a constant problem for them.
[13:25:00]
And my father had, like, plays a musical by Chico Buarque, totally forbidden. So, this was like the common thing. But also, we had, like,
friends who were taking from home, just like Rubens Paiva. So, I remember that pretty much. And then, now, what we saw it was, again, this kind of
witch hunting for communists.
Everybody was a communist suddenly. It was a strange time again. And that's why Marcelo Rubens Paiva wrote the book because his mother was having
Alzheimer's and beginning to forget, and he thought that the country also was starting to forget about what did it mean to live in a dictatorship.
So, it's a bridge between that time and now, you see.
AMANPOUR: Exactly. And I guess you did it on purpose. You used that memory idea by looking through photos a lot, collecting memories, you know,
talking, et cetera. So, I want to play the first clip that we have, which is essentially, yes, the dictatorship is there, but it's at the very
beginning and you are having a nice family day on the beach and then there's a sort of a sinister background. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Eunice. I'll take it. You have to be in the photo. Attention. Ready, everyone? Nobody series, OK? Go.
Attention. Ditch the ditchtators. 1, 2, 3 and -- veroca.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Fernanda, that scene ends with you catching a glimpse and focusing on the military vehicles. I want to ask you though, Walter,
because you made a choice to portray this family in a way that the parents, particularly Eunice, played by Fernanda, tried to protect them as much as
she could, these children.
They asked questions, they wanted to know where their father was. But she never told them, really, except the oldest one. And I kept feeling, when is
this going to stop? I mean, you know, because I felt that the kids were getting anxious because they weren't being told the truth. Was that a
commentary on the truth at the time, or just a very protective mother?
SALLES: I think both, you know. The scene that you just showed is like a Greek omen to me because Eunice is the only one -- the only person in that
group that realizes that something is out of order, that the military trucks are passing and therefore, announcing something that is not
comfortable.
You know, and for me, that family was a family that lived with intensity, with that intensity, as a form of resistance during the military
dictatorship. So, the film was really about how that light, how that life was robbed when the father's taken away and the mother has to face the
tragedy of dealing with a loss.
How can you deal with a loss? You either are subject to it or you try to overcome it. And she did try to overcome it. But she ultimately embraced
the possibility of life. You know, it's a very life affirming decision that she made. But it's one that is very complex, because she had secrets,
secrets that she didn't share with those kids. So, that they had to deal with the death of their father separately in different times of their
lives.
AMANPOUR: And interestingly, you know, each one figures out, and you portray this at the end of the film, when they knew their father was dead,
because she never tells them. You, Fernanda, your character, Eunice, never tells them until a certain period. But your controlled and stoic and
dignified and performance cracks at one time. And that is when some, you know, sinister -- I don't know whether it's one of the regime or what,
kills the dog, the family dog.
And then, in this scene that we're going to show, there is a car that is stationed outside your house all the time, and these unknown people,
obviously, they're from the regime, from the dictatorship, are basically watching you. Here's what happens on this occasion.
[13:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TORRES (through translator): What are you looking at? What do you want? Where's my husband? Go away. Get out of here. Go away. Get out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's so powerful and in that one moment you get the whole story of your feelings, your pent-up emotions, you don't yet know, you haven't
been told officially that your husband is dead. How did you prepare for that scene and how did you internalize her?
TORRES: There are many scenes, that's wonderful because Eunice has five children. So, she cannot sit and cry. She cannot -- she's not allowed to do
it. It's like -- it's a Greek figure. It's a Greek mother. She faces tragedy, and the only way for her to move on and to raise those children
and to save their innocence, in a way, is to just say smile and move on.
And I never worked with it because normally as an actor you want to show emotions, and in the case of Eunice you have to restrain them. And the
power of it is that the audience sits in the board of the chair like, please do something. So, there is something that the audience feels with
you. You are not feeling and showing them, they are feeling for you.
And I think this is very close to Greek tragedy. And about not telling the children, how can you tell a child that your father was tortured and killed
by the state? It's something unbearable. So, that's why the story is so powerful. It's a normal family, but facing something like Antigone,
something in the size of a Greek destiny, a Greek tragedy. And that's what's so powerful for me in the movie.
AMANPOUR: Yes, you mentioned Antigone. Exactly. Walter Salles, there is a wonderful scene and it's obviously true because you've depicted it when the
family, the Paiva family, Eunice and the kids are trying to get the story out. Up until now, everybody's been afraid to talk publicly about it. Then
they get a magazine to do a story. The magazine wants to show them smiling and a happy family. Tell me about that scene and what, in fact, Eunice
decided to do for that shoot.
SALLES: Eunice was somebody in real-life and in the film who architectured forms of resistance that were unheard of. And one of them that is quite
unique is that whenever they were asked as a family, you know, to cry or to be portrayed as a sad family, she articulated and offered exactly the
opposite, to be portrayed as a smiling family, that is she never allowed herself to be portrayed as being part of a melodrama. She refused that. And
the whole scene is about that, the one that you're referring.
She realizes actually that one of the kids is smiling and then the second one is also smiling. And inspired by that, she really articulates that idea
in the moment, and that's the beauty of it, is that it's not something that was --
TORRES: Exactly.
SALLES: -- you know, completely rationalized, it's something that comes from the life of the family itself, you know? And it tells so much about a
woman that fought, you know, according, you know, not only to her beliefs, but also, according to her intuition of the moment.
AMANPOUR: And let me ask --
SALLES: She plans those two things.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And let me ask you about, you know, the full circle and the reaction to today. It is a democracy now, your country. But you have
said, I read, that you probably could not get this film done had it been during the Bolsonaro years. And that even after this film was released,
evidence came of, you know, plots against your current president, Lula, trying to bring back Bolsonaro. It's very immediate, this stuff, right?
SALLES: Yes. Yes, you know, it took us seven years to do the film. Seven years to be on your program, and we're so proud of this.
TORRES: It's the peak.
SALLES: It's the peak of our journey. But it also took seven years, because we did three years of research to make justice to the family, to make
justice to the culture, to the authenticity of what we were portraying. But also, it took us seven years because in four years, the country steered to
the extreme right, and we would have never had the possibility to shoot the film during that period. Therefore, the film is the product of the return
of democracy of Brazil.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: It's really interesting.
SALLES: You know, you interviewed President Lula. And it's really his return to the presidency and the return of democracy that allowed the film
to exist. We shot it in 2023 without having the slightest idea that there had been a failed attempt of a coup d'etat.
TORRES: A military coup d'etat.
SALLES: A military coup d'etat at the end of 2022.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
SALLES: You know, and as the film was being launched in Brazil and embraced by the audience that the news actually were unnerved by the federal police
that that coup d'etat, that included the assassination of President Lula, of Vice President Alckmin, had almost been, you know, the reality of the
country.
AMANPOUR: Had almost succeeded.
SALLES: That, for us, was --
TORRES: Yes.
SALLES: -- was --
TORRES: No.
SALLES: So, in the middle of the launch of the film, we realized that more than ever it was a film about today, you know, about what was happening in
the country at this very moment.
AMANPOUR: And, clearly --
SALLES: This act of anticipation clearly wasn't in our plans, it's just happened. It's an extraordinary coincidence.
TORRES: All kinds of people came to the movie theaters. So, you have right- wings, left-wings, center, progressives, old, and it was like around this family, the Paiva family, we all could come to a sense that a dictatorial
regime is not acceptable. And that was a miracle of this movie. We were all surprised, no? Because all kinds of people were going and getting moved by
this family and saying, that's not good. I mean, authoritarianism is not acceptable.
AMANPOUR: Well, I tell you, it's very powerful. Obviously, you know, the peak is that you've been nominated for Oscars and BAFTAs and everything
else. So, congratulations, even though the military has never been held accountable for the murder of Rubens Paiva. Thank you so much indeed.
TORRES: Thank you.
SALLES: Thank you very much.
TORRES: It's such an honor.
SALLES: Yes, an enormous honor. Thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: "I'm Still Here" is out now in the U.S. and Canada. It releases here in the U.K. later this month. And in Brazil, the film is sparking a
renewed debate in its Supreme Court and wider society about the country's 1979 law, which provided amnesty to regime officials, maybe accountability
is in the future finally.
Next to the ubiquitous, yet harmful ultra-processed food. Dhruv Khullar is a physician and contributing writer for The New Yorker. He's been
investigating the dangers in our diets and spoke to Hari Sreenivasan about his findings.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks. Dr. Dhruv Khullar, thanks so much for joining us.
You wrote a piece in The New Yorker recently that is titled, "Why is the American diet so deadly?" And, you know, it would seem like as you dive
into all of the research that there should be some sort of a simple answer, but there isn't. Why?
DR. DHRUV KHULLAR, PHYSICIAN, WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE AND CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: You know, it's a really complicated issue. One of
the things that we're really starting to learn more and more about almost every day is the idea of ultra-processed foods. And that's a really broad
category. It's one that, you know, we've only really had in our lexicon for the past 15 years or so.
But our diet, the American diet has among the most ultra-processed foods in the entire world. And so, if you think about how we compare about 60 to 70
percent of our diet is considered ultra-processed, it might be half in France or a third in Spain. And so, we really are an outlier in this way
and our rates of chronic disease and obesity track with that.
SREENIVASAN: So, can we just get kind of a definition on the table? What's process? What's ultra-processed? What -- you know, if I'm looking around
through my pantry or my refrigerator, how do I know the difference?
DR. KHULLAR: Yes, it's a great question. So, people generally have a sense that ultra-processed foods, they sound just like bad food or junk food, but
there's actually a very specific scientific definition. And so, if you think about ultra-processed foods, you start at the very bottom.
So, most foods when they come out of nature are unprocessed or minimally processed. So, you think about eggs or nuts or vegetables, and these group
one foods, and those are generally considered natural and healthy. Then we get to group two, which is kind of culinary ingredients. And so, salt,
butter, fat, sugar, these types of things. If you add the first group to the second group, you get the third group and that's considered a processed
food. Almost all the food that we have is processed in some way. You think about just buttering and salting your pasta, that's now processed foods. It
doesn't mean that it's a bad food.
[13:40:00]
What we're talking about here is that fourth group, group four foods. And that means that it has using unnatural ingredients or unnatural processes
to get there. And so, a lot of these foods have high fructose corn syrup or hydrogenated oils or certain emulsifiers or thickeners, additives of all
sorts, and that's what we're talking about when we're talking about ultra- processed foods.
But it's a very broad category. And so, everything from gummy bears to canned kidney beans might fall into this one category. And so, we really
need to be thoughtful about what are we talking about when we say ultra- processed foods are harming our health.
SREENIVASAN: So, what is the actual effect on our health when we take on these ultra-processed foods? Is it our ability to digest it or how we store
it? I mean, you looked at really fascinating research, which actually had people eat pretty weird diets as much as they wanted for days on end.
DR. KHULLAR: Yes. So, it's a great question. And we're just starting to get really rigorous research on this. So, the first kind of research that put
this on the map was broad scale survey research. And so, you might survey thousands or hundreds of thousands of people and say people who eat more
ultra-processed foods tend to have higher rates of cardiovascular disease or dementia or any number of conditions.
But what studies are doing now is they're bringing people in the lab to try to figure out, hey, if you're giving people 80 or 90 percent ultra-
processed foods versus very little ultra-processed foods, what happens inside their body?
The big -- the headline finding here is that people tend to eat many, many more calories on an ultra-processed diet than on an unprocessed diet. And
so, some of the studies that we've seen, you know, 500 more calories a day, 800 more calories a day on an ultra-processed diet versus an unprocessed
diet.
So, that's the headline finding. Underneath that, there's all sorts of interesting, provocative, early findings. You know, does it change our
microbiome in some way, a bacteria in our gut, does it change our hormone levels and cause us to feel more hungry? Does it change our taste buds, for
instance, are we more likely to crave salt and sugar and other things that are unnatural because we're so used to ultra-processed foods and the kind
of the high hit of those things that they offer.
And so, those are the things that are still a little bit speculative or figuring them out. But the headline finding seems to be that we just eat
more calories when we're on an ultra-processed diet than when we're on a minimally processed diet.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at the longer arc of how long humans have been on the planet and eating food, right, this is almost a blink of
an eye in the terms of when ultra-processed foods were manufactured and kind of introduced into our diets. And there are still societies on the
planet who have far less of this than you and I might have access to today, right? Are there ways that we can compare, you know, culturally or
geographically to say, hey, we kind of know that if you're on a little bit more of a, you know, holistic, maybe, I don't know, Mediterranean diet, or
maybe it's just less process that your health outcomes are better?
DR. KHULLAR: That generally seems to be the case. And so, countries that have had a more traditional diet that haven't had this industrialization of
their food system tend to have lower rates of obesity. You know, actually, the researcher that put this whole idea on the map was a researcher named
Carlos Monteiro in Brazil.
And what he found was he was tracking, you know, what are people buying when they go to the grocery store? He had all these receipts. And he said
that people are buying less salt, less sugar, less fat. So, he's thinking, you know, how are we having this explosion of obesity? And what he realizes
that people just basically aren't buying those things, they're just getting them packaged in foods that are coming to them that are ultra-processed.
And so, it's not just thinking about those specific ingredients or specific nutrients, but how are they packaged? You know, what are the other
additives that are going to these things? Why do they have such long shelf lives? Obviously, it's preservatives allow for that. And those types of
things are having a real impact on the way that we're able to live our lives and to put food on the table.
SREENIVASAN: You know, so many of us have tried to listen or watch the food pyramid guidelines or whether it's the -- you know, the healthy meal plate
that the FDA or the Department of Agriculture might recommend, like how we eat, you know, we've been told about it's about counting calories. And
then, we've told -- we were told it's not -- all calories are not equal, right?
I mean, what are some kind of simple guidelines that people can use to figure out how to moderate their consumption, maybe how to consume more of
the healthy and less of the unhealthy?
DR. KHULLAR: Yes, I think that the most important advice I could get is, you know, as much as you can cook your own food, the better you'll be,
right? So, the things that you will never put as much salt and sugar and fat and cholesterol in your own food as, you know, a restaurant or a fast-
food joint will put in your food. And so, my number one recommendation is to the extent that you can cook your food, prepare yourself all the better.
You know, not everyone has the time or the convened -- the ability to do that. A lot of fresh foods can be pricey. They're not readily available.
And so, from there, you know, I think think about how we can minimize the processing in what we're eating. And so, there's a big difference between
an ultra-processed yogurt, let's say that has one specific emulsifier that's improving the mouthfeel of that yogurt versus Doritos or something
that is like very heavily processed.
[13:45:00]
And so, I think keeping to things that are less processed on that entire spectrum of processing. And I always go back to Michael Pollan's, you know,
famous adage, which is basically eat real food, not too much, mostly plants. And I think if you can stick to those, you know, six or seven words
that'll get you a lot of the way there.
SREENIVASAN: Well, how much of this has a social dimension to it, right? Like I kind of -- I'm thinking right now, if you gave me the ZIP code of
someone in a test cohort, I could probably give you a pretty decent guess as to whether or not that population has high rates of heart disease or
diabetes just based on their poverty level, right? And whether or not they have access to whether they live in a food desert, whether -- like the
corner bodega is really the only place that they're getting their food.
DR. KHULLAR: Yes, I think you're getting an incredibly important point, which is we make some decisions about our food, but a lot of the decisions
that we're able to make are influenced by economics by, you know, our social status, by politics. And so, all these things kind of come together
to produce a food environment. And the food environment around us dictates a lot of the options that we'll have.
And so, you know, the first step I think is to educate people, to help them understand how to make healthy decisions about their lives. But we also
need to move upstream and, you know, talk with policymakers. There are things that we can do to change the subsidies in this country that
subsidize some of the junk food, things like corn and soy that end up as preservatives in our food. There are potentially restrictions on certain
types of marketing, especially for children. You know, people have talked about getting ultra-processed foods out of schools, which I think is a good
idea.
And so, there are things that we can do at a higher level to try to shape the environment in which people can make healthier decisions for
themselves.
SREENIVASAN: We're having this conversation as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been picked to be the Secretary of the Health and Human Services, and one
of the things that we heard before and during his confirmation was that there is some bipartisan interest in some of the things that he's talking
about in terms of getting ultra-processed foods out of school lunches and so forth. Now, there's got lots of other sort of controversial viewpoints
that he has on lots of things.
But I wonder whether or not this administration or any administration really has a chance at trying to decrease this, given that most of the
companies that are making these ultra-processed foods are also very active in lobbying for their interests.
DR. KHULLAR: It's such a good point. And you know, one thing that is important about this whole conversation is that we're talking about it.
It's on the map now in a way that it wasn't a few years ago. I mean, people have been concerned about chronic disease and obesity. But as you
mentioned, there's real movement behind particularly the idea of ultra- processed foods, but more generally trying to reduce rates of chronic disease in this country. And I think where we can make common cause across
the aisle, we should definitely pursue those options.
You know, it's hard to say how much progress we'll be able to make without having very specific proposals for what we're going to be able to do, but
the idea that people at the highest levels of government are concerned and talking about this in a really passionate way, I think, bodes well for the
potential, at least, to make progress on this issue.
SREENIVASAN: So, what are the counter arguments? What have you heard from the food companies in kind of slowing this system down? Because clearly,
they're motivated by selling more of whatever it is that you're buying and making more profits. But what do they say doesn't need to be changed? Is it
really just about individual responsibility? And look, I don't control what you put into your mouth.
DR. KHULLAR: Well, you know, as you're hinting at, you know, eating less is very bad for business. And so, these businesses want you to eat more. They
want you to consume more calories, to buy more chips, to buy more junk food, whatever it might be. And so, I think there's a couple of things to
think about, not just the food companies, but there are legitimate concerns among researchers that ultra-processed foods that are -- is an incredibly
broad category. I mean, it covers a huge swath of things from whole grain, you know, breads and yogurts all the way to sugary beverages, processed
meats.
And so, I think one step that we need to do is to try to figure out what within this huge consortium of foods is actually the most harmful. I think
what the research is showing is that if I could limit anything, it would be sugar sweetened beverages and processed meats. Those two things have
probably the highest level of evidence regarding their harmful effects on the human body. So, I think that's a good place to start, both in terms of
educating people about it, but also nudging food companies away from those types of products.
Look, I mean, the food companies are going to try to sell as much food as they can. And so, what we need to do is try to shape demand for some of
these things. And some of that will happen through education, but some of that, you know, we're already seeing through things like GLP-1 drugs and
Ozempic, you know, people's preferences are starting to change. And over time, it's possible that that could turn the food system into a different
direction that would be more helpful for everyone.
[13:50:00]
SREENIVASAN: Do you see that? I mean, either in your practice or anecdotally, or I guess there's probably data. Out there. What's the
longer-term arc of what the GLP-1 drugs could not just be doing to the population that's taking them, but the entire food industry that's catering
to all of us?
DR. KHULLAR: Absolutely. I mean, these drugs have been incredibly effective for so many people, including a lot of my patients. I've seen them, people
who have struggled all their life tried one diet after another to try to lose weight are now able to really lose weight and keep it off in a way
that they never were able to do.
And it's not just about weight. I mean, these things have really helpful for people and salubrious benefits for cardiovascular health, for liver
health, for kidney disease. We're seeing suggestions that they may help with things like addictive behaviors. And so, I think these are really
important drugs.
There's also a kind of more general -- but as you're hinting at, there's a potential to have a more general effect where people who aren't taking the
drugs could -- there could be indirect positive effects as companies, whether it's alcohol companies, tobacco companies, the food industry change
and reformulate their products because the demand that used to be there is no longer there in the same way.
SREENIVASAN: Are there any countries on the planet, so to speak, doing this well or better? Because you see often comparisons to Europe that, you know,
myself included, when we travel overseas, you feel like the fries taste different at a McDonald's in London than they do at a McDonald's here.
DR. KHULLAR: There are. I mean, so a lot of countries in Europe do not have the level of ultra-processed foods that we have in the American diet. And
so, if you look at certain European countries, it might be half as much or a third as much in terms of the overall food supply that is ultra-
processed.
You know, a lot of this movement grew out of South America and Brazil and surrounding countries. And so, those countries have taken even more
aggressive approaches towards ultra-processed foods. So, some companies have tried to limit it marketing of ultra-processed foods, particularly to
minors. Others are starting to introduce taxes on the worst types of ultra- processed food.
So, there are these policy levelers at policymaker's disposal. We'll see how aggressive they want to be. I think building the evidence base for some
of these policy changes is going to be really important. The stronger evidence that we have, the more forthright we can be about the policy
recommendations. But for now, I think, you know, moving forward with helping people understand the potential risks of consuming these types of
products, I think, is the best first step.
SREENIVASAN: So, how do we kind of get smarter in that way, where we might be seeing, well, I guess in this case, disinformation because it's actively
and intentionally trying to disinform us so that we make a certain kind of purchase. But you know, how do we navigate this? How do we become food
literate enough so that we can tell what's something that we should avoid from not?
DR. KHULLAR: Yes. I mean, I think helping people understand what is going in their mouth, what is on their plates, where their food is coming from is
so important. Empowering them to make decisions that are going to be good for their good for their long-term health I think is going to be really
important.
What's so exciting, I think, about this potential movement is that it is bipartisan. You know, so many of the things that are going on in our
country have become politicized and there's real division around particularly things around public health.
This is an area where still the left and the right in the center agree that chronic disease in the United States is a big problem. Most people agree
that our diet is contributing a substantial way to those rates of chronic disease and people are motivated to make a change. And so, I think it's a
place where there is potential to make real progress.
SREENIVASAN: So, what is the kind of rule that you go by in your household, right? I mean, you are kind of an average family. You have kids. You've got
a busy schedule. You know, you write that, ironically, when you were a resident, you were counseling people on diabetes and eating better. And
yet, you're taking processed foods in the hospital cafeteria.
DR. KHULLAR: Yes. I mean, I think -- you know, I shared that anecdote just to suggest, you know, how difficult it is really to avoid ultra-processed
foods, to avoid foods that aren't good for you. You know, I'm here counseling people with heart disease or diabetes to eat healthier and here
I am. It's very difficult for even someone with knowledge and experience to find food that's consistently healthy.
You know, in our house, we try our best to cook every evening or to prepare food at the beginning of the week and eat it over the course of the week.
Of course, we order in and we give into fries and pizza from time to time.
[13:55:00]
But again, that the most important thing that I want to try to instill in my family and my children is that if you could prepare your own food, it's
almost always going to be healthier than anything you buy in a restaurant or had a fast-food restaurant.
SREENIVASAN: Dr. Dhruv Khullar, contributing writer to The New Yorker, thanks so much for joining us.
DR. KHULLAR: Thanks so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
