An international team of researchers has issued a stark warning, stating that the increasing global consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) represents a major threat to public health. In a series of papers published in The Lancet medical journal, the scientists called for immediate action, including marketing restrictions and taxes on products made by giant food corporations.
The Evidence Against Ultra-Processed Foods
The researchers based their conclusions on a comprehensive review of 104 previous studies. This analysis demonstrated a clear link: diets high in UPFs are associated with a greater risk of developing obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and even premature death. The team argued that the danger is too significant to delay action while waiting for further research.
In a second paper, the researchers highlighted the rapid growth in UPF consumption worldwide. The situation is particularly acute in some nations, where these foods now make up more than half of all calories consumed, including in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
The Corporate Influence and Call for Policy Action
A third paper placed direct blame on a handful of powerful food and beverage corporations for reshaping global diets through aggressive marketing of products made with cheap ingredients and industrial methods. The paper identified eight key players: Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento Economico Mexicano, Mondelez, and Kraft Heinz. Together, these companies accounted for a staggering 42 percent of the sector's $1.5 trillion in assets in 2021.
In response to these findings, the authors proposed several policy measures for governments to consider:
- Placing warning labels on UPF packaging.
- Restricting marketing, especially advertisements targeted at children.
- Taxing certain ultra-processed products and using the revenue to subsidize fresh food for low-income households.
Addressing Scientific Debate and Industry Tactics
The researchers acknowledged ongoing scientific debates, particularly regarding the Nova classification system used to categorize foods by their level of processing. They welcomed valid criticism of the system, which has been scrutinized for not directly accounting for nutrients like fat, salt, and sugar. This means some foods perceived as healthy, such as plant-based milks and certain breads, can fall under the UPF umbrella.
However, the researchers pushed back strongly against what they described as efforts to “manufacture scientific doubt” about the dangers of UPFs. They compared these tactics to those historically used by the tobacco industry. Chris van Tulleken, a co-author, accused scientists critical of UPF research of often having ties to the food industry.
While most existing research is observational and cannot prove direct cause and effect, the researchers proposed several theories for how UPFs cause harm. These include their high calorie density, their ability to provoke overeating, their soft texture that allows for rapid consumption, and the potential impact of certain additives.
Independent experts, like Hilda Mulrooney of Kingston University London, agreed that it is “beyond time to act,” emphasizing the disproportionate health risks faced by disadvantaged groups and the overall cost of poor diet to individuals and healthcare systems.
