Ultra-processed food link to disease and death grows — so do
we need to shift our food policy
Just
weeks after researchers showed a cause-and-effect relationship between
ultra-processed food and weight gain, two more studies have linked these foods
with disease and death.
The pair of studies, published in
the BMJ today, both looked at consumption of ultra-processed food and health
outcomes and — perhaps unsurprisingly — it's not good news.
The first, which was
based in France, found increasing the proportion
of ultra-processed food in the diet by 10 per cent was associated with
significantly higher rates of cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular
disease (such as stroke).
The second, based in
Spain, found people who consumed more
than four servings of ultra-processed food per day were 62 per cent more likely
to die of any cause compared to those who had less than two servings per day.
In both studies, large groups of
adults completed food intake questionnaires, then their rates of disease were
tracked for up to 10 years.
The findings provide further weight
to the already sizeable pile of evidence that highly processed food is linked
to poorer health, said Mark Lawrence, who co-wrote an editorial on the topic.
We need to reconsider what it is
about these foods that makes them unhealthy, said Professor Lawrence, a food
policy expert from Deakin University.
"It's not just about the
so-called 'risky' nutrients in foods," he said.
"The nature of the cause is
associated with the physical and chemical changes that happen to the food as a
result of this high degree of industrial processing.
"It's an independent risk
factor irrespective of the presence of, say, sodium or added sugar in the
food."
Australian adults get more than a third of their energy from discretionary foods, according to a recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
report. This definition isn't exactly the same as "ultra-processed"
but there is a fair bit of overlap between the two.
What
is an 'ultra-processed' food?
If the term
"ultra-processed" food conjures images of fluoro-orange
cheese-flavoured snacks and sour gummy lollies, you wouldn't be wrong.
But there are other foods you might
not realise also fall into this category.
The
NOVA food classification system
·
Group 1 -
Unprocessed and minimally processed foods: Fruit,
vegetables, nuts, meat, eggs, milk. May be dried, pasteurised, cooked or
chilled.
·
Group 2 -
Processed culinary ingredients: Oils,
butter, sugar and salt. Processed to make products that can be used to cook
Group 1 food but not meant to be consumed by themselves.
·
Group 3 -
Processed foods: Preserved fruit and
vegetables, canned fish, cheese and fresh bread. Usually made from two or three
ingredients.
·
Group 4 -
Ultra-processed foods: Soft drinks, packaged snacks,
reconstituted meat, pre-prepared frozen meals. Contain little, if any, intact
Group 1 foods. Include ingredients like sweeteners, colours, preservatives and
food-derived substances like casein, lactose and gluten.
Packaged biscuits, sausages,
instant soups and fruit yoghurts are all classed as ultra-processed under the
NOVA food classification system, which is recognised by global health agencies
including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Ultra-processed foods tend to be
higher in nutrients we know are not good for us, namely salt, fat and added
sugar, but this new wave of evidence suggests their health impact is more than
the sum of their parts, said Alexandra Jones from the George Institute for
Global Health.
This means a common approach for
reformulating packaged foods by simply reducing their salt, fat and sugar content,
or fortifying them with fibre and vitamins, might not be enough, Ms Jones said.
"This evidence suggests that
perhaps there are some foods that — because they're ultra-processed — it
doesn't matter what we do to their nutrient content, it's not going to make
them better for us," she said.
"You basically can't make an
ultra-processed food healthy by just pumping it full of nutrients.
Current food labelling in Australia
focuses on salt, fat and sugar. But both Professor Lawrence and Ms Jones said
evidence was mounting to suggest the degree of processing should also be
communicated to consumers.
"This has implications across
a lot of different areas. I think the front of pack labelling is the most
tangible one at the moment," Professor Lawrence said.
"It could be something as
simple as, is this an ultra-processed food or not."
Ms Jones said Australia's current
labelling systems, which include nutrient breakdowns, ingredients and
the opt-in health star ratings were
useful and evidence based — but these studies suggested we may need to go
further in the future.
"As we watch this evidence
evolving, we will be looking at whether we need to review all our nutritional
policies to factor in processing as an additional consideration," Ms Jones
said.
But that doesn't mean we should
ignore information about fats, sugar and salt in a product.
"We shouldn't be scrapping
what we already do know well and which is supported by a lot of evidence, which
is that there's a lot of risks associated with consumption of foods which are
high in salt, sugar and fat, so stay with that advice.
"A lot of these
ultra-processed foods are going to be high in these nutrients anyway."
No comments:
Post a Comment