Ultra-Processed Food Fears ‘Could Mean Eating Even Less Healthily’

A Morrison’s supermarket in the UK in an undated file photo. Martin Rickett/PA

Warnings to avoid ultra-processed foods (UPFs) could lead to some people eating even less healthily, particularly the poor, researchers have said.

Two academics from the universities of Aberdeen and Liverpool argued research around UPFs is still in its infancy and more needs to be known before people are told to stop consuming them altogether.

Instead, they claimed the focus of public health guidance should remain on eating a diet full of fruit, vegetables, and wholegrains, while also limiting foods high in fat, sugar, and salt.

In the new article, published in PLOS Medicine, the academics argue that less affluent people could be negatively impacted by any blanket health warnings about UPFs without more scientific evidence.

Professor Eric Robinson of the University of Liverpool, one of the authors, said: “Foods classed as ultra-processed which are high in fat, salt and/or sugar should be avoided, but a number of ultra-processed foods are not.

“We should be thinking very carefully about what advice is being given to the public, as opposed to providing simplified and potentially misleading messages that grab headlines.”

‘Ultra-Processed People’

UPFs have been linked in studies to a wide variety of diseases, mental health conditions, and even premature death, with the best-selling book, “Ultra-Processed People” by Chris van Tulleken arguing the case against their consumption.

A systematic review involving 9.8 million participants and published in The BMJ in January, pointed to an association between the consumption of UPFs and an increased risk of more than 30 different health conditions, including heart disease, cancer, Type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and anxiety.

Some of the most commonly consumed UPFs include many cereals, mass-produced bread, biscuits, crisps, sweets, fizzy drinks, and processed meats. Not all processed foods are considered to be UPFs, as some undergo only minimal processing, such as being heated and then resealed in the factory.

UPFs often contain high levels of saturated fat, salt, sugar, and additives, which many experts say leaves less room in people’s diets for more nutritious foods.

These UPFs also tend to include additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, and artificial colours and flavours.

However, some experts say it is not clear why UPFs are linked to poor health and question whether this is because of processing, additives, or because people tend to eat less nutritious other foods if the bulk of their calories is coming from artificial sources.

Could Trigger Eating Disorders

The academics argue that those with mental health conditions, especially those with eating disorders, may worry unduly about the consumption of UPFs, in a similar way to the “clean eating” trend on social media, “particularly if social circumstances make avoiding UPFs difficult.”

The article goes on to say that “avoiding some types of UPFs” could lead some people to choose alternatives “that are higher in energy or macronutrients of concern.”

Professor Alexandra Johnstone, from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health at the University of Aberdeen, who co-authored the article, said: “We must guard against the possibility that the people in our society who are already most at risk of not being able to afford to eat healthily are not put in an even worse position as we continue to investigate the links between some ultra-processed foods and poor health.

“We need more high-quality mechanistic research in humans, using controlled diets, to tease out the effects of nutrient profile and ultra-processing per se.”

The article concluded: “Based on the balance of current evidence, we do not believe it is appropriate to be advising consumers to avoid all UPFs and we await further evidence to inform consumer guidance on the need to limit consumption of specifics foods based on their degree or type of processing.”

In the paper, the authors published details of anything that could be seen as a conflict of interest.

Johnstone said she currently receives funding from sources including the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) charities and the Scottish Government, and leads an food insecurity in people living with obesity research project, which has Sainsbury’s as a retail partner.

“I also lead the DIO (Diet Induced Obesity) Food project, also funded by UKRI, with other UK retailers involved in data analysis and consumer trend reporting around HFSS (High Fat, Sugar and Salt) purchase patterns,” she wrote.

Robinson said during 2014–2016, he was a named investigator on a project funded by Unilever and a project funded by the American Beverage Association.

Unilever is the world’s biggest ice cream manufacturer, and produces many famous brands of processed food, such as Bird’s Eye frozen foods, Flora, and I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter spreads, Hellman’s mayonnaise, and Knorr instant noodles.

He said, “I do not receive any financial awards or fees from the food industry.”

Other nutrition experts argue that too much sugar is far more of a problem than too much fat, and advocate for diets that are higher in protein and fat and lower in carbohydrates, such as the Keto diet.