UPFs should also be heavily taxed due to impact on health and mortality, says scientist who coined term

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.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.worldEnglish
    561·
    4 months ago

    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.”

    • Eutent@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      4 months ago

      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.