The scientist behind the term “Ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) has called for tobacco-style warnings to alert consumers to the dangers, 15 years after the label was first used. At the International Congress on Obesity, that took place in São Paolo, Brazil, Professor Carlos Monteiro told delegates the danger to the public from UPFs was increasing, not diminishing, as the proportion of UPFs in people’s diets grows year on year, to the point of domination, “displacing healthier, less processed foods all over the world”.
What are UPFs?
UPFs are defined as foods that have undergone multiple processes and contain multiple ingredients that aren’t found in the ordinary person’s kitchen, including breakfast cereals, various forms of fast food, fizzy drinks, ready meals and even products that many people might think are healthy such as protein bars.
Research has shown that diets containing a high proportion of UPFs put consumers at “risk of multiple chronic diseases,” according to Monteiro, and “are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes” that many countries face. In fact, the problem is so acute, he says, that the scientific community’s warnings are no longer enough and government intervention must ensue.
Ultra processed foods now make up over 50% of the average diet in both the US and the UK, with younger, poorer demographics most at risk of consuming dangerously high amounts. The topic was something heavily explored in experimental diets by the UK celebrity doctor, Michael Mosley, who went missing on holiday in Greece recently and was found to have died during a hike.
Is a ban the answer?
At the congress, Monteiro made the case for a ban on UPFs in schools and hospitals, as well as for using taxation as a weapon in the battle for better nutrition. He recommends high taxes on UPFs, with revenues going towards subsidies for fresh food.
He also argued for a change in advertising regulations that would follow in the footsteps of the war on tobacco. Advocating a ban or heavy restrictions on the promotion of UPFs, Monteiro accused food giants of deliberately creating products that are aggressively “attractive and addictive”, while knowing they have been shown to be pathogenic.
Food lobbyists as well as other industry experts however, say a ban on UPFs could mean the heavy-handed legislation of items considered treats and that should be thought of, due to the range of fats, sugars and salts and other nutrients needed, part of a “balanced diet.”
