They've been called “poison”, “addictive” and “garbage”, but no matter how you describe it ultra-processed foods (UPF), they are clearly a nutritional bogeyman. This concern is well-founded, since their consumption is associated with a staggering number of health consequences, from obesity and type 2 diabetes to anxiety and depression.
Their dominance changed food systems so quickly that much of what we eat today would be unrecognizable even to our recent ancestors. We certainly haven't evolved to adapt to them.
It is not surprising that they are a key target of strategies to control diet-related chronic diseases in the UK and US. Despite this, we believe that the UPF's total panic must give way to a more nuanced conversation. It's a mistake to paint flavored yogurt and whole grain breads with the same scary brush as cakes and sugary cereals. Just because the food ultra-processed doesn't mean it's unhealthy. Our approach to them should reflect what the science says at the moment.
When people consume more UPF, their intake of saturated fat, sodium, and sugar increases, and they receive less fiber, protein, and beneficial micronutrients—the opposite of a healthy diet. But when it comes to how UPFs cause weight gain, Kevin's recent research found that they tend to be overconsumed when they are energy-dense (more calories per bite) or overly palatable (contain pairs of nutrients that are not typically found together in nature, such as high in salt and fat, carbohydrates and salt, or sugar and fat).
On the other hand, Kevin's work has shown that when people eat foods with high amounts of UPF that are not high in energy and too tasty, they do not gain weight. They may even lose weight even if they don't intend to do so on such diets.
These findings have enormous implications not only for our personal choices, but also for nutrition policy and regulation. Instead of targeting all UPFs, we should focus on those that fall short of healthy eating standards. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving in this direction, recently releasing a definition of what constitutes a “healthy” food. It is similar to the UK's food profiling system and looks at ingredients from food categories people need to eat more of, such as vegetables, fruit and whole grains, and limits sugar, sodium and saturated fat. By targeting UPFs that are also high in calories or contain tasty combinations of nutrients, we can focus on the foods that appear to be major culprits in obesity and other diet-related conditions.
To deal with these specific foods, we must implement a range of public health measures similar to those that reduce tobacco consumption: marketing restrictions, mandatory labeling, and aggressive taxes. We also need to enact policies that make healthy food more convenient, affordable, and widely available, as well as incentivize companies to make their UPFs healthier—think whole-wheat crust pizza with veggies.
Some UPFs are already considered healthy by FDA standards (again, think whole grain bread or yogurt). None of this will be subject to such policies or regulations. Many of us also rely on UPF pasta sauces, hummus, frozen dinners, canned beans, broths and breads, which can be an easy and affordable part of a healthy diet. This is why it is important to identify which UPFs are most likely to cause harm.
The UPF is not going anywhere yet, and the history of their science is still being written. So let's move from panic to healthy coexistence by understanding how some of them cause harm and acting accordingly.
Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall – co-creators Food intelligence: the science of how food nourishes and harms us.
Topics:
