Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are replacing healthy diets “all over the world” despite growing evidence of their dangers and should be marketed with tobacco-like warnings, says the nutritionist who first coined the term.
Professor Carlos Monteiro, from the University of São Paulo, will highlight the growing risk of UPF to children and adults at an international obesity conference this week.
“UPF is expanding its share and dominance in the global diet despite the health risks it poses in terms of increasing the risk of several chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the Sao Paulo conference.
“UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods around the world and are also contributing to a decline in diet quality due to some of their harmful properties. These foods are contributing to an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes.”
The stark warning comes amid a surge in consumption of UPFs around the world, including in cereals, protein bars, sodas, ready-to-eat meals and fast foods.
In the UK and US, more than half of the average diet now consists of ultra-processed foods. For some people, particularly young people, those living in poverty and those from disadvantaged areas, a diet containing as much as 80 percent UPF is common.
The world’s largest study, conducted in February, found that UPF is directly linked to 32 adverse health effects, including an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, poor mental health and premature death.
Professor Monteiro and his colleagues first used the phrase UPF 15 years ago when they designed a food classification system called “Nova,” which evaluates not only the nutritional content but also the processes that foods undergo before they are consumed.
The system categorizes foods and beverages into four groups: minimally processed foods, processed cooking ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods.
Prof Monteiro told the Guardian he was very concerned about the impact of UPF on human health, and that research and consideration alone was no longer enough to warn the public about the health hazards.
“A public health campaign similar to the anti-tobacco campaign is needed to curb the dangers of UPF,” he told The Guardian in an email, “which would include the health risks of consuming UPF.”
“UPF advertising should also be banned or severely restricted and a front-of-pack warning similar to those used on cigarette packets should be introduced.”
He told delegates: “The sale of UPF should be banned in schools and health facilities, and UPF should be heavily taxed with the revenue used to subsidize fresh produce.”
Prof Monteiro told the conference that food giants selling UPFs know that to stay competitive, their products must be more convenient, affordable and tastier than freshly prepared meals. “To maximise profits, these UPFs need to be cheap to produce and over-consumed,” he said.
He also draws parallels between UPF and tobacco companies: “Both cigarettes and UPF are responsible for numerous serious illnesses and premature deaths. Both are produced by multinational corporations who invest the huge profits they make from their irresistible, addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies and anti-regulatory lobbying. Both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not the solution.”
But Dr Hilda Mulroney, lecturer in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said comparing UPF to cigarettes was “grossly simplistic”.
“There are no safe cigarettes, even passive smoking, so banning tobacco is relatively easy, especially since the health effects are so clear.”
“But we need a variety of nutrients, including fats, sugars and salts, which have multiple functions in food, such as taste, flavour and hedonic properties, as well as structure and shelf life.”
“It’s not easy to reduce our intake by modifying some foods, and it’s not like tobacco, because we need food – we just don’t consume it in the amounts that most people do.” – The Guardian
