Whether to ban or not, reformulation lawsuit of ultra-processed foods

In a recent review article published in a magazine nutrientsresearchers summarized the debate on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

They concluded that there is a lack of causal evidence regarding the effects of UPF on NCDs and that reformulating these foods rather than banning them entirely may provide significant health benefits. I attached it.

study: Ultra-processed foods—dietary enemies or potential allies?? Image credit: AtlasStudio / Shutterstock

background

Research highlights the global spread of Western dietary patterns, particularly the increasing consumption of UPF in different economic stages. UPFs are often high in saturated fat, salt, and sugar, but advances in formulations have made their classification more complex.

Although debate continues over the classification and health effects of UPF, its importance in the global food system cannot be ignored. According to some estimates, UPF accounts for more than 50% of the population's caloric intake in the United States, while consumption of healthy foods is declining.

Many people face difficulty accessing and purchasing healthier alternatives, which can lead to poorer health habits. However, his current UPF could contribute to a better score on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) despite lacking essential nutrients.

Epidemiological evidence links UPF intake to NCDs such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. There is debate over whether the negative health effects of UPF are due to its less nutritious contents or additives that mimic natural flavors, and whether UPF should be banned or replaced for better health outcomes. This has led to a debate about whether to reformulate it.

The narrative review aims to advance understanding by examining food classification systems and proposing guidelines for UPF formulation and consumer choice.

food classification system

Food classification systems aim to classify foods based on common characteristics, generally for the purpose of providing dietary guidance and informing nutrition policy. Traditional systems like the U.S. Dietary Guidelines focus on culinary definitions and nutritional needs.

However, concerns about the health effects of food processing have led to the introduction of alternative classification systems. These new systems, such as NOVA, classify foods based on the extent and purpose of processing and distinguish between minimally processed extractives and UPF.

Although widely used, the NOVA system has been subject to criticism, prompting research into alternative classification methods. Recent advances include machine learning algorithms like FoodProX that assess the degree of food processing and link diet quality to his NCD risk biomarkers.

Evidence of causation regarding UPF

Studies have shown a lack of clear causal evidence directly linking UPF to negative health outcomes. The researchers identified four categories for further investigation: energy balance, nutrient density, food processing, and the use of non-culinary additives.

Current evidence suggests a positive association between UPF intake and obesity risk, even when caloric intake is controlled, and energy balance alone does not link UPFs to health problems. This suggests that gender may not be explained.

Although the initial assumption was that UPF had low nutritional value, many highly nutritious UPF are now available. Poor nutritional status may be a biomarker for other processes that modify NCD risk, but it is unclear whether these products influence his NCD likelihood.

Certain food processing techniques and additives are thought to be involved in an increased risk of NCDs. These changes can affect the gut microbiome and contribute to metabolic diseases. It is important to investigate the impact of purified macronutrients, additives, microbial products, and novel chemicals produced during processing.

The decision tree framework allows us to investigate causal relationships by conducting a series of experiments to determine whether factors associated with UPF influence NCD risk. Preclinical models, such as mouse models of fatty liver, can be used to systematically investigate these factors.

Rebuild your UPF for health benefits

The developers of the NOVA system recommend limiting your UPF intake. Several strategies have been identified to promote healthier eating habits and counter his UPF's dominance in the food system. This includes promoting the preparation of healthy foods, increasing support for family farmers, and creating public health policies to regulate low-nutritious UPF.

However, these recommendations overlook the appeal of UPF to consumers, such as taste and convenience. Restricting the availability and consumption of UPF can reduce food security, especially among vulnerable populations such as the elderly.

Another approach is to reformulate UPF to make it healthier. Whole-food formulations, which replace processed ingredients with whole or minimally processed ingredients, are one such approach. Changing agricultural and economic incentives could encourage the development of healthier processed foods.

Additionally, the military ready-to-eat meal (MRE) framework could be used as a model for UPF development. We focus on science-based nutritional standards and emphasize convenience, adjustability, and deliciousness. Collaboration between the food industry and the research sector can lead to mutual benefits and improved consumer health.

conclusion

UPF has an unclear causal relationship to health outcomes and is often misunderstood. The issue of standardization in food classification systems like NOVA further complicates matters. Technologies such as machine learning can help understand the UPF, but care must be taken to avoid bias. Improving UPF formulations for better health outcomes requires collaboration and research.