Ultra-processed or ultra-complicated?
You may have seen ultra-processed foods (UPFs) mentioned in the media lately.
A quick google search will take you to thousands of articles explaining why UPFs are ‘bad for us’.
But what’s causing the increased scrutiny?
There is increasing evidence points towards a link between consumption of UPFs and poor health outcomes such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), depression and frailty.
So, if that’s the case, why can’t we just stop eating them?
Well, according to the British Nutrition Foundation’s latest Position Statement released in April this year, over 50% of the calories we consume in the UK are from foods that would be classified as UPFs. Food processing also plays an essential role in the food system to ensure food sustainability and security.
That means our diet is dominated by UPFs. And changing that won’t happen overnight.
However, it gets even more complicated when we try to officially define a UPF.
According to NOVA, the classification system used to categorise UPFs, a UPF is determined by considering the ‘extent’, ‘purpose’ and ‘nature’ of food processing within national dietary guidelines.
The NOVA UPF definition captures many foods including those classified as UPF that have poor nutrient profiles. Such as ice cream, confectionary, cakes and salty snacks.
However, it also suggests that foods considered to be healthier options are also UPFs such as sliced wholemeal bread and lower sugar wholegrain cereal. This is because they may contain emulsifiers, sweeteners, colours or flavours which are added during processing.
There is a caveat to all of this. We can’t show a causal association between processing and health. Which basically means we can’t prove anything right now.
That’s why at present, there is no agreed guidance for UPFs and they are not referred to in government dietary recommendations.
So where does that leave us?
Confused.com, that’s where.
All jokes aside, there is a lot more research that needs to be done to clearly define UPFs and understand the role of UPFs in poor health.
We also must be careful not to confuse the public and start unhelpfully demonising foods. This could lead to expansion of the health halo surrounding artisan foods which are often more expensive and inaccessible to families with lower socio-economic backgrounds, widening the inequalities we currently face in our food system.
After attending the Nutritionist in Industry (NII) meeting last week (a fantastic organisation and source of CPD for nutrition professionals working in industry), its clear that industry also has a role to play in developing, marketing, and promoting healthier options, as well as providing education on how to help consumers prepare affordable nutrient-dense, healthier foods and drinks (plot twist: this doesn’t mean completely avoiding UPFs!).
Bottom line?
For consumers and industry alike, don’t be misled by the waves of headlines and negativity surrounding UPFs. First, government and academia need to collectively decide on a clear definition of UPFs. Then, the research looking into the effect of consumption of UPFs and therefore, what action we should take, will follow.
In the meantime, those facing the public such as healthcare professionals and the food and drink industry, must emphasise on the healthy principles that have remained the same for years: eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, aim for wholegrain varieties of foods, reduce the intake of saturated fats, limit salt, be mindful of hidden added sugars, and drink water regularly.
Yes, that means the Eat Well guide is still a thing and we still should eat 5 portions of fruit and veg (or more) a day. This isn’t always the most exciting of messages, but the core principles remain the same. Let’s avoid overcomplicating things.
References:
British Nutrition Foundation (BNF). The concept of ultra-processed foods (UPF) Position Statement. April 2023.