‘Global public action’ is needed on ultra-processed foods, linked to obesity and cancer

The rising global consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is a major public health threat that must be urgently addressed, according to a new series of papers written by 43 global experts in the Lancet medical journal. The scientists, including Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro, who coined the term with colleagues around 15 years ago, argue that UPFs are increasingly common worldwide and linked to a decline in diet quality and many diseases, from obesity to cancer. “It’s about the evidence we have today about … ultra-processed foods and human health,” says Monteiro, a professor at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. “What we know right now justifies global public action.” UPFs are a class of food or drink made using processing techniques, additives and industrial ingredients such as hydrogenated oils, protein isolates or glucose/fructose syrup, and dyes, artificial sweeteners and emulsifiers. They contain little whole foods. Examples include carbonated soft drinks and instant noodles. There has been intense debate in scientific circles about UPFs, with some health and nutrition experts raising concerns that the term is vaguely defined and that more research is needed. However, the researchers say that these foods present too great a danger to wait any longer. In the first of three papers, the researchers reviewed 104 previous studies, showing that eating a diet with a lot of UPFs is linked to a higher risk of a range of diseases, including obesity, diabetes, heart problems, depression and early death. Most of these studies were only designed to show links, rather than direct causality, which the authors acknowledged. The second paper showed that the consumption of UPFs is increasing around the world, and already represents more than half of all calories eaten in the United States, Australia and the UK. The third blamed a handful of massive corporations for altering global diets in recent decades by using aggressive marketing to sell products made with cheap ingredients and industrial methods. Eight UPF manufacturers – Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento Economico Mexicano, Mondelez and Kraft Heinz – accounted for 42 per cent of the sector’s US$1.5 trillion in assets in 2021, the paper said. The authors called for nations to introduce warnings on package labels, restrict marketing – particularly advertisements aimed at children – and tax certain UPFs, using the money to make fresh food more affordable for low-income households. Are there healthy UPFs? The researchers said they welcomed “valid scientific criticisms” of the Nova classification system developed by Monteiro, the lead author of the first study. The Nova system separates food into four categories, from the least to most processed. It has come under scrutiny for not taking into account nutrients known to be unhealthy, such as fat, salt and sugar. This has meant that food traditionally thought to be healthy – such as fake meat products, plant-based milks and some breads and canned vegetables – could be considered ultra-processed. The researchers acknowledged the important role played by fat, salt and sugar, calling for future research to isolate the effect of ultra-processing in foods such as flavoured and plain yogurts. Almost all existing UPF research reviewed by the team was observational, which means it cannot directly establish cause and effect. The precise mechanism for how UPFs cause such a wide range of health problems also remains unclear. Evidence reviewed in the series shows that diets high in UPFs are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality – too much sugar and unhealthy fats, and too little fibre and protein – and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives. The researchers laid out numerous theories, including that UPFs contain a higher density of calories than fresh food, provoke overeating by combining elements such as fat and sugar, can be consumed more quickly because they are softer, and potentially contain harmful additives. ‘Beyond time to act’ Chris van Tulleken, a co-author of the second paper and author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?, accused scientists who have criticised UPF research of often having ties to the food industry. The second paper’s lead author, Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney in Australia, accused the UPF industry of “targeting the scientists, and the science, attempting to manufacture scientific doubt”. Hilda Mulrooney, a nutritionist at Kingston University London, in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the research, said the team made a compelling case. “Clearly, the authors of these papers are predisposed in favour of Nova since they created it,” she said, adding that more research is needed to identify the exact mechanisms that UPFs could be causing harm. However, “given the disproportionate risks of chronic disease to the most disadvantaged groups and the costs of a poor diet to individuals, healthcare systems and finances, it is beyond time to act” on UPFs, she said. With additional reporting from agencies, EurekAlert Like what you read? Follow SCMP Lifestyle on Facebook, X and Instagram. You can also sign up for our eNewsletter here.

‘Global public action’ is needed on ultra-processed foods, linked to obesity and cancer

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Experts urge action against aggressive marketing and call for food label warnings on ultra-processed foods as their consumption increases

Experts urge action against aggressive marketing and call for food label warnings on ultra-processed foods as their consumption increases