Health, UK (Commonwealth Union) – New findings from the University College London (UCL) research reveal that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) generally pack more calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt compared to minimally-processed alternatives. However, not all UPFs necessarily spell trouble for health, as indicated by the study published in The British Journal of Nutrition.
In this pioneering investigation, scientists aimed to gauge the potential of food processing information as a marker for dietary health. By analyzing the processing levels of commonly consumed foods and comparing them to guidance provided on food packaging labels, the research team embarked on a groundbreaking assessment, marking the first of its kind.
Research into UPFs gained momentum following the release of the 2023 report by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) on processed foods and health. The SACN report, after evaluating existing scientific literature, linked increased consumption of processed foods, particularly UPFs, with heightened risks of health issues such as obesity, type-2 diabetes, and depression. However, the report underscored the necessity for further investigation to ascertain causality.
The level of food processing is commonly evaluated using the NOVA scale, which categorizes foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods.
Presently, information regarding food processing is absent from the front-of-pack labeling systems utilized in countries like the UK, which employ a ‘traffic light’ system to indicate the levels of energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt in foods. In this system, red signifies high levels, amber denotes medium, and green indicates low levels.
In this investigation, UCL researchers analyzed UK dietary data to evaluate the alignment between the NOVA scale and front-of-pack labeling recommendations. Their findings revealed that UPFs exhibited poorer front-of-pack labeling scores, containing higher levels of energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt compared to minimally-processed foods. Processed foods, positioned one step lower than UPFs on the NOVA scale, also displayed unfavorable front-of-pack labeling, albeit with lesser energy and sugar content compared to UPFs.
Furthermore, the results indicated variability among UPFs regarding healthfulness based on package labeling. For instance, a meat-free mince product might receive favorable ratings for fat, saturated fat, and sugar (green indicators) but an amber rating for salt. However, it could still be categorized as ultra-processed if it comprises more than five ingredients, many of which are additives.
Samuel Dicken, the primary author of the study hailing from the UCL Division of Medicine, emphasizes the significant intersectionality between food healthiness, front-of-pack labeling, and the extent of food processing. This intersection carries profound implications for comprehending dietary habits in the UK. The prevalence of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and the portrayal of unhealthy options through red ‘traffic lights’ on packaging underscore the imperative to overhaul the food environment, thereby facilitating individuals in adopting a healthier, more balanced diet. Dicken suggests that merely updating package labeling with processing information might not sufficiently empower individuals to make informed, health-conscious choices.
Insufficient data on Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) leaves the question unanswered regarding whether food processing serves as a reliable gauge of a nutritious diet. While many UPFs are evidently detrimental to health, even ostensibly basic foods like sliced bread and vegan ‘meat’ products fall into the ultra-processed category. Establishing causal links between UPFs and health ailments is imperative to determine if observed negative correlations stem from processing effects or other variables, according to the researchers of the study.
At UCL, a trial is presently underway to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining a healthy diet solely on UPFs versus minimally-processed foods. Additionally, it aims to investigate whether offering guidance on healthy eating influences individuals’ dietary choices. Anticipated findings are slated for early 2025.
Dr Adrian Brown, the lead author of the study as well as a specialist dietitian from the UCL Division of Medicine, says “Having worked with patients for nearly two decades, one of the biggest challenges for people is to identify what’s healthy and what’s not in a supermarket environment. On the face of it, a low-fat yoghurt may look healthy for, example, but it may also be high in sugar. Adding that it’s also ultra-processed will only make these decisions harder.
“At the moment, things aren’t so clear cut as to say all UPFs are bad and there is a risk of confusing people about what is healthy to eat.”
