A new series of three articles published in The Lancet journal finds that ultra-processed foods (UPF) are displacing fresh and minimally processed foods and meals, degrading diet quality and being linked to an increased risk of many chronic diseases.
UPFs are commercial products made from inexpensive industrial ingredients, such as hydrogenated oils, as well as food additives such as colors, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers.
The first Lancet article examines the scientific evidence on UPFs and health and presents evidence that UPFs displace established dietary patterns, degrade diet quality, and are associated with an increased risk of many diet-related chronic diseases.
According to data from national surveys, the estimated contribution of UPFs to total household food purchases or daily intake has tripled in Spain (from 11% to 32%) and China (from 4% to 10%) over the past three decades, and has increased (from 10% to 23%) in Mexico and Brazil over the past four decades.
In the US and UK it has increased slightly over the last twenty years, maintaining levels above 50%.
It is pointed out that a diet high in UPFs is associated with overeating, poor nutritional quality (too much sugar and unhealthy fat, too little fiber and protein), and greater exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.
In addition, a systematic review of 104 long-term studies found that 92 of them reported an increased risk for one or more chronic diseases, with meta-analyses showing significant associations for twelve conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and premature all-cause mortality.
The authors acknowledge, however, that the lack of long-term clinical and community trials is an important need for future research, as is the identification of subgroups of foods with different nutritional value.
The second article describes the need for specific policies to complement existing legislation to regulate and reduce the production, promotion and consumption of UPFs, so that large companies are held accountable for their role in promoting unhealthy diets.
Among other things, they propose stricter marketing restrictions, especially on advertising aimed at children, a ban on ultra-processed foods in public institutions such as schools and hospitals, and the introduction of limits on their sale and the space they take up on supermarket shelves.
As a successful example they point to Brazil's national school feeding program, which has eliminated most UPFs and will require 90% of food to be fresh or minimally processed by 2026.
Finally, the third article notes that multinational corporations – not individual choices – are driving the rise of UPFs, and that a global health response to this challenge is both urgent and feasible.
With global annual sales of $1.9 trillion, UPFs are the most profitable food sector.
The authors highlight that UPFs companies use cheap ingredients and industrial methods to reduce costs, combined with aggressive marketing, attractive design to boost consumption, and political pressures.
