A study published in the journal The Lancet highlights the serious health threat of ultra-processed foods. The research group also accused the food industry of sowing doubts on the issue.
Ultra-processed foods pose a real threat to health, according to a large group of researchers who published a series of studies this Wednesday in the journal The Lancet, further accusing the agri-food industry of sowing doubt on the issue.
Manufacturers are employing “tactics worthy of the tobacco industry” to discredit research on ultra-processed foods, said Chris van Tulleken, one of the lead authors of one of the studies, in a press conference hosted by The Lancet, in a press conference hosted by The Lancet, published by a major medical journal with the ambition to provide a refereed review on the subject.
These three studies are part of a context where health problems are increasing due to ultra-processed foods, but there is still strong scientific controversy about the magnitude of the risks. According to some scientists, the term ultra-processed food, which is widely applied to products resulting from complex industrial processes and recombining various ingredients, covers too vague a reality, with the risk of raising certain concerns.
According to other researchers, these doubts are used by the food industry to hinder any action aimed at reducing the consumption of ultra-processed foods.
The authors of the Lancet study clearly fall into this second group. Among them is epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro, creator of a system called Nova for determining whether a food is ultra-processed. This classification is widely used as a reference, but its methodology is not unanimously accepted.
Critics in particular point to the fact that, according to Nova’s definition, products such as plant-based milk or bread can be classified as ultra-processed products, even though they are widely considered healthy.
Carlos Monteiro was the lead author of the first Lancet study, which compiled about a hundred scientific papers to establish knowledge about the risks of ultra-processed foods. He concluded that its consumption is associated with various pathologies, such as obesity and diabetes, as well as premature death.
The authors acknowledge that there is “valid scientific criticism” of Nova, but this pales in comparison to the destabilization efforts undertaken by the industry. They called for more research to differentiate the effects of certain industrial processes, such as those that give yogurt artificial flavors.
It is urgent to take action against the consumption of these foods
The second study looked at the consumption of ultra-processed foods and concluded that consumption of ultra-processed foods already represents more than half of the calories absorbed in countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom.
The third study looked at the strategies of large agri-food groups – the eight main groups are Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilver, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento, Economico Mexicano, Mondelez and Kraft Heinz – and accused them of aggressively promoting products made from poor quality ingredients for decades.
At the end of this global review, the researchers concluded that there is an urgent need to take action against the consumption of ultra-processed foods, in particular by banning advertising aimed at children, or by taxing certain products. According to the researchers, the money recovered could fund programs that facilitate access to fresh produce for households with the lowest incomes.
This extensive file was welcomed by researchers who did not participate in it and remain reluctant regarding certain methodological points. “It’s clear that the authors of this study were biased in favor of Nova from the moment they created it,” said Hilda Mulrooney, a nutritionist at Kingston University in London, stressing that it is still largely unknown the exact mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods can harm their health.
But “the time is right to take action” on these products, he acknowledged, citing the high costs “to individuals, health systems and public finances”, noting that the poorest neighborhoods are the most impacted with a “disproportionate” risk of chronic disease.
