Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are crowding out healthy diets “around the world” despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutrition scientist who first coined the term.
Professor Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will highlight the growing danger UPFs pose to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week.
“UPFs are increasing their share and dominating the global diet, despite the risk they pose to health in terms of increasing the risk of many chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of a conference in São Paulo.
“UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods around the world and also causing a deterioration in dietary quality due to their several harmful properties. Together, these foods are driving the obesity pandemic and other diet-related chronic diseases such as diabetes.”
The stark warning comes amid rapidly growing global consumption of UPFs such as cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals and fast food.
In the UK and US, more than half of the average diet now consists of ultra-processed foods. For some, especially people who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, a diet containing up to 80% UPF is typical.
In February, the world’s largest review of its kind found that UPFs were directly linked to 32 harmful health effects, including a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, poor mental health and premature death.
Monteiro and his colleagues first used the UPF phrase 15 years ago when designing the “Nova” food classification system. Not only the nutritional content is evaluated, but also the processes the food goes through before consumption.
The system divides food and drink into four groups: minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed foods.
Monteiro told the Guardian that he is now so concerned about the impact of UPF on human health that studies and reviews are no longer enough to warn the public about the health risks.
“Public health campaigns like those against tobacco are needed to counter the dangers of UPF,” he told the Guardian in an email. “Such campaigns would include the health risks of consuming UPF.
“Advertisements for UPF should also be banned or severely restricted, and front-of-pack warnings similar to those used for cigarette packs should be introduced.”
He will tell delegates: “The sale of UPF in schools and health facilities should be banned and UPF should be heavily taxed, with the revenue raised used to subsidize fresh food.
Monteiro will tell the conference that food giants that market UPF know that to be competitive, their products must be more convenient, affordable and tastier than freshly prepared meals. “To maximize profits, these UPFs must have lower production costs and be over-consumed,” he said.
He also draws parallels between UPF and tobacco companies. “Both tobacco and UPF cause numerous serious illnesses and premature deaths; both are produced by multinational corporations that invest the huge profits they make from their attractive/addictive products into aggressive marketing strategies and lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not the answer.”
Dr. However, Hilda Mulrooney, reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said the comparison of UPF with tobacco was “very simplistic”.
“There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, not even second-hand, so banning them is relatively simple in that the health case is very clear.
“However, we need a range of nutrients including fat, sugar and salt that have multiple functions in food – structural, shelf life – not just taste, flavor and hedonic properties.
“It’s not that easy to reformulate some food classes to reduce them, and they’re not the same as tobacco because we need food — just not in the amounts that most of us consume.”