0
0
In a newly published perspective, two leading nutrition experts caution that issuing premature public health warnings against all ultra-processed foods (UPFs) could have unintended social and health consequences, especially for those facing food insecurity. The article, written by Professors Alexandra Johnstone from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health at the University of Aberdeen and Eric Robinson of the University of Liverpool, was published in PLOS Medicine and calls for a more measured approach to public guidance on UPFs.
Social and Health Implications
The professors argue that while there is growing evidence from observational studies linking UPFs to poor health outcomes, blanket warnings to avoid all such foods could lead to negative repercussions. They caution that individuals might switch to foods not classified as ultra-processed but that are still nutritionally inferior. This is particularly concerning for people with limited financial resources, as UPFs often provide affordable, convenient options. The researchers highlight the potential “social cost for many people with more limited resources” if these foods are removed from their diets, as well as the potential for negative mental health impacts on those already concerned about their health or living with eating disorders.
“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,” said Professor Johnstone.
Balancing Public Health Messaging
The authors emphasize that until the mechanisms behind the health risks of UPFs are better understood, public health advice should remain focused on well-established dietary threats: high fat, sugar, and salt content. “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,” said Professor Robinson. He cautioned against simplified messaging that could mislead the public.
Both experts stress the importance of high-quality mechanistic research to better understand the specific effects of food processing on human health. Professor Johnstone highlighted diet reformulation, food quality, and affordability as key challenges within the food system.
Calls for Evidence-Based Action
Pressure to issue warnings against UPFs has been mounting in the UK media and other arenas. However, both Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have expressed reservations about taking immediate action without more concrete evidence. FSS, in a March report, warned that overemphasizing the dangers of UPFs could distract from other critical diet issues where the evidence is robust, such as the need to reduce high-fat, high-sugar, and high-salt foods.
The FSA also reiterated that while many UPFs are indeed high in these harmful ingredients, the mechanisms by which ultra-processing might contribute to poor health are not yet fully understood. Professor Robinson and Johnstone’s article reflects these concerns, urging policymakers to strike a balance between necessary food industry regulation and appropriate consumer guidance.
The debate over UPFs continues to gain momentum, with ongoing research needed to clarify the relationship between food processing and health. In the meantime, the authors advise against rushed public health warnings and encourage a focus on promoting the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
The Need for Careful Communication
The article concludes with a clear message for policymakers: “Mechanistic uncertainty over food processing and health should not prevent immediate and much-needed public health policy to regulate the food industry in order to dramatically reduce the advertisement, availability, and dominance of foods high in energy and/or saturated fat, salt, or sugar on national diets.”
However, the researchers argue that this uncertainty should guide how the public is informed about UPFs and what advice is given. Simplistic and potentially misleading messages, they warn, could do more harm than good, especially for vulnerable populations.
Reference:
Eric Robinson et al, Ultraprocessed food (UPF), health, and mechanistic uncertainty: What should we be advising the public to do about UPFs?, PLOS Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004439.
