• UPFs should also be heavily taxed, says scientist who coined term

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets ‘all over the world’ despite growing evidence of the risks that 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 highlighted the increasing danger that UPFs present to children and adults. “UPFs are increasing their share in, and domination of global diets, despite the risk that they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,” Monteiro told. “UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods all over the world, and also causing a deterioration in diet quality due to their several harmful attributes. Together, these foods are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes.”

The stark warning comes amid the rapidly rising global consumption of UPFs, such as cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals, and fast food.

For some, especially people who are younger, poorer, or from disadvantaged areas, a diet comprising as much as 80% of UPF is typical.

In February, the world’s largest review of its kind found that UPFs were directly linked to 32 harmful effects to health, including a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, type two diabetes, adverse mental health, and early death.

Monteiro and his colleagues first used the phrase UPF 15 years ago when designing the food classification system ‘Nova’. This assesses not only nutritional content, but also the processes that food undergoes before it is consumed. The system places food and drink into four groups: minimally processed food, processed culinary ingredients, processed food, and UPF. Monteiro said that he was now so concerned about the impact that UPF was having on human health, that studies and reviews were no longer sufficient to warn the public of the health hazards. “Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs,” he said. “Such campaigns would include the health dangers of the consumption of UPFs. Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned, or heavily restricted, and front of pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs.” “Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidise fresh foods.” Monteiro said that food giants marketing UPFs know that in order to be competitive, their products must be more convenient, more affordable, and tastier than freshly prepared meals. “To maximise profits, these UPFs must have a lower cost of production and be over-consumed,” he said. He draws parallels between UPFs and tobacco companies. “Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits that they obtain with their attractive and addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies, and in lobbying against regulation, and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.”

(The Guardian)