Researchers warned on Wednesday that the worldwide increase in ultra-processed food consumption is becoming a serious health threat and urged governments to impose marketing limits and taxes on certain products made by major food companies.
The international research team also responded to criticism of their UPF findings, saying that attempts to “create scientific doubt” mirror strategies once used by the tobacco industry.
The debate over ultra-processed foods continues, but researchers in The Lancet warn the health risks are too serious to ignore.
The debate over ultra-processed foods has been heated, with some experts arguing the term lacks precision and requires more study. But leading researchers writing in The Lancet said the health risks are too serious to delay action.
In the first of three papers, they analyzed 104 studies and found that high consumption of UPFs is associated with greater risks of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and early death.
The second paper revealed that UPF intake is rising globally—already making up more than half of daily calories in the U.S., Australia, and the U.K.
Concentration of Market Power Among Global Food Giants
The third paper pointed to a small group of powerful corporations whose aggressive marketing and low-cost, industrial production methods have reshaped diets worldwide. According to the paper, just eight companies—Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento Economico Mexicano, Mondelez, and Kraft Heinz—held 42% of the sector’s $1.5 trillion in assets in 2021.
The researchers urged governments to adopt measures such as package warning labels, limits on marketing—especially to children—and taxes on select UPFs, with revenue used to make fresh foods more accessible to low-income families.
The researchers said they appreciated “legitimate scientific critiques” of the Nova classification system, created by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro, who led the first study.
They acknowledged that the Nova system—which groups foods into four levels of processing—has been criticized for overlooking specific harmful nutrients like fat, salt and sugar.
This has led to some foods typically seen as healthy—like plant-based meats, alternative milks, certain breads, and even some canned vegetables—being classified as ultra-processed.
The researchers recognized that fat, salt, and sugar play significant roles in health outcomes and urged future studies to separate the effects of ultra-processing from these nutrients, using examples such as flavored versus plain yogurt.
They also noted that most UPF studies to date are observational, meaning they cannot prove cause and effect.
Possible Mechanisms Linking UPFs to Health Risks
The exact ways UPFs contribute to numerous health issues are still uncertain, but the team presented several possibilities: these foods tend to be more calorie-dense than fresh options, may encourage overeating through combinations like fat and sugar, are easier to consume quickly due to their soft texture, and might include potentially harmful additives.
Chris van Tulleken, co-author of the second paper and writer of Ultra-Processed People, argued that many critics of UPF research have ties to the food industry. “We’re seeing tobacco-style tactics—even during this call,” he said.
Lead author Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney added that the UPF industry is trying to sow doubt by attacking both the scientists and their work.
Hilda Mulrooney, a Kingston University nutritionist not involved in the research, said the team made a strong case. She noted that although the authors favor the Nova system they helped develop, more research is needed to understand exactly how UPFs cause harm.
Still, she said the heavy burden of chronic disease on disadvantaged groups and the high costs of poor diets make action on UPFs long overdue.
Read the original article on: Medical Express
Read more: How Does Eating Too Many Ultra-Processed Foods Affect your Body?