UPFs should also be heavily taxed due to impact on health and mortality, says scientist who coined term
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets “all over the world” despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutritional scientist who first coined the term.
Prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will highlight the increasing danger UPFs present to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week.
“UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the conference in São Paulo.
From the study itself:
These (UPFs) products are characterised as industrial formulations primarily composed of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods.
What is a “whole food?”
I looked further into the paper they used to classify UPFs
A practical way to identify an ultra-processed product is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the NOVA ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).
So I guess a “whole food” is a food that doesn’t contain High fructose corn syrup or additives. But if they are making this direct link between ultra-processed foods and increased mortality, then surely it’s these specific substances that are responsible for it? So why aren’t we banning high fructose corn syrup and these additives?
Surely it doesn’t need to be more complicated than that?
“What happens when we eat these substances?”
“we tend to die more quickly then if we didn’t eat them.”
“so let’s ban these substances.”
“OK.”
Human health and nutrition is, of course, highly complex. A substance may be generally healthy in one formulation/concentration, and tend to cause health problems in in another.
A “whole food” is not strictly defined, but is “Group 1” in the Nova food classification you mentioned.
Once you take a bite out of a whole food it’s not whole anymore.
But if they are making this direct link between ultra-processed foods and increased mortality, then surely it’s these specific substances that are responsible for it?
Not necessarily. Think about it like cigarettes. The nicotine is what gets you addicted, but it is not what kills you. In a similar vein, these additives might cause you in some way or another to consume an unhealthy diet in the most general sense. So the effect can be more indirect.
I’m pretty sure high fructose corn syrup is banned here and when my wife from the US moved in with me she kept complaining how things don’t taste as sweet until she got used to it.
The whole UFP thing is so wishy washy. It’s such a broad category it is essentially meaningless, one of the earlier guardian articles talked about sliced bread being a UPF as it has added vitamins and minerals due to law.
If you closer at the whole topic it just comes across as saying if you are poor and eat food that you can afford you will die earlier. Writing a reminder of this on the food will not help anyone but it will make poor people feel a bit more like shit.
The point of these kinds of efforts is to shift the blame. “It’s easy to know which foods are good and bad with this handy system, so if someone is only eating bad foods, that’s their choice, and the rest of us can blame them for their poor health.”
We already have a traffic light system on foods and it is largely ignored, partly because few people have the time and energy but also because you have to look at your diet as a whole and not judge it by individual items. I also think these UPF studies have a bit of a conservative agenda.
Why do people eat more processed food? Because there isn’t a homemaker spending hours a day preparing meals as a full time job. Proceesed and convenience foods are massively egalitarian and I think let more people join the workforce.
So many public health problems would be solved if we publicly funded cafeterias to provide subsidised breakfast, lunch and dinner to any member of the public. Economies of scale on providing those meals would make them incredibly cost effective and the improved health among working class people would lead to increased tax receipts which are would (at least partially) mitigate the cost of such a policy.
I’d like to see warnings on alcohol before this
Aren’t there already? Surgeon General’s Warning: Do not drive a pregnant woman under the influence blah blah blah
Everything needs warnings because if used incorrectly they will do damage to you in some way. where do warning end?
even water 💦💦
Having recovered a dead body from the bottom of a lake, I can positively affirm it’s not good for you.
so, dumb question :
what’s the risk of these foods for people who are not obese?
Becoming fat/obese
From my understanding: we extract many micronutrients from food by having bacteria in our digestive tract pre-process the food.
When you eat primarily eat junk food for a long time, the bacteria die of starvation. Once this happens it’s hard to get them back and you are crippled by not being able to fully digest healthy food to its full potential.
TL;DR humans need to consume more than just calories and protein
Unfortunately, the “Processed Food Moral Panic” has been taken over by the meat and dairy industries, so people will not be learning why it’s important to eat lots of plants as whole foods.
so judging by that a truly mixed diet with some degree of shitfood should be fine
It’s a waste of time, the “NOVA” system is subjective and it makes testing it a dead end. Your question will not be answered.
It also doesn’t teach nutrition to the people; the core application of it is demonizing food that isn’t cooked at home, as if something made in a small home kitchen is magically healthful.
If you want to get a better grasp, here’s a nice and short read: (shorter than a book) Series 5: Is the Ultra-processed Food (UPF) concept useful, and for what goals? | TABLE Debates
Won’t happen. Governments want lifespans shortened.
anyone who eats this shit does not care about their health
What a garbage take on this. You’re completely ignoring mental health, poverty, food deserts, etc.
Removed by mod
