ULTRA-processed foods have gained a reputation as a modern health scourge, with claims that they are linked to obesity, heart disease, cancer, and early death. Researchers have even called for taxation and bans on these products, which make up a significant portion of the global food supply. However, some nutrition experts are challenging these all-encompassing claims, arguing that the definition of ultra-processed foods can be vague and that some of them can actually be healthy.
The concept of ultra-processed foods was first introduced in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, a nutrition and health researcher at Brazil’s University of Sao Paulo. His NOVA classification system categorizes foods based on the level of processing involved in their creation, rather than focusing on specific nutrients like fat, salt, sugar, and carbohydrates. According to this system, everything in the fourth group is considered ultra-processed.
Monteiro explains that ultra-processed foods “aren’t exactly foods” but rather “formulations of substances derived from foods.” They contain minimal or no whole foods and are typically enhanced with colorings, flavorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives to make them palatable. Examples of ultra-processed foods include crisps, ice cream, soft drinks, and frozen pizza. Surprisingly, items not traditionally considered junk food, such as non-dairy milk, baby formula, and supermarket bread, also fall into this category.
According to the NOVA scale, nearly 60 percent of the calories consumed in the United States and United Kingdom come from ultra-processed foods. Numerous observational studies conducted in recent years have found a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, asthma, depression, and other illnesses among individuals who consume a significant amount of ultra-processed foods. However, it is important to note that these studies cannot establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between ultra-processed foods and these health problems.
Monteiro points to a US-based randomized-controlled trial conducted in 2019, which is considered the gold standard of research. In this trial, 20 participants were fed either ultra-processed or unprocessed food for two weeks, followed by the opposite diet for the subsequent two weeks. The diets were matched for factors like fat, sugar, and overall calories. The study found that those consuming ultra-processed foods gained an average of nearly a kilo (2.2 pounds), while those on the unprocessed diet lost the same amount of weight.
However, it is worth noting that the trial participants were not limited in terms of how much they could eat, including snacks. Those on the ultra-processed food diet consumed significantly more food, and their weight gain was proportional to the additional calories they consumed. This study, according to Monteiro, demonstrates how large food companies make their products “hyperpalatable,” leading to overconsumption and even posing risks of addiction.
On the other hand, Ciaran Forde of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, one of the co-authors of the study, rejects the notion that there is something unique about ultra-processed foods that makes them irresistible. Forde, a critic of the NOVA classification system, emphasizes that confusion exists not only among the public but also among nutrition experts. In a French study published last year, nearly 160 nutrition experts were asked to categorize 231 different foods using the NOVA system, and they only unanimously agreed on four.
To address this confusion, US researchers collaborated with NOVA experts to develop a healthy diet in which 91 percent of the calories came from ultra-processed foods. Surprisingly, their week-long menu scored 86/100 on the US Healthy Eating Index, significantly higher than the average American diet score of 59/100. Julie Hess, a nutritionist at the US Department of Agriculture who led the study, explains that they carefully selected fruits and vegetables, such as dried blueberries and canned beans, which were considered ultra-processed but still nutritious.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding ultra-processed foods is complex. While observational studies suggest a higher risk of various health problems among those who consume these foods, more research is needed to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. The NOVA classification system has its critics, and some experts argue that certain ultra-processed foods can be part of a healthy diet. As with any dietary choices, moderation, and a focus on whole, minimally processed foods is generally recommended for optimal health.
Source: The Manila Times
