Healthy Executive

Get ready for a food revolution! Health experts are sounding the alarm louder than ever on the dangers of ultra-processed food (UPF) and calling for a united effort to protect public health. From scientists to dieticians, they propose strategies to counter the relentless marketing of UPF, break the food industry's influence over policymaking, and ensure that healthy choices are not only accessible but also enticing and affordable.

According to Duane Mellor, a dietician and senior lecturer at Aston College, the current profit-driven and cost-oriented food system can be transformed, despite the challenges it poses. It's time to tackle this pressing issue head-on.

Recent studies have raised concerns about the nation's diet and its link to UPF consumption. Elevated blood pressure, heart attacks, and strokes have been associated with these highly processed foods. Governments worldwide have been jolted into action by these findings. Previous research has also revealed higher rates of heart disease, obesity, and certain types of cancer among those who consume excessive amounts of UPF. To categorize foods based on their level of processing, researchers often use the Nova classification, developed by Brazilian experts:

1. Group one comprises minimally processed or unprocessed foods, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and fresh meat and fish.

2. Group two includes processed ingredients like salt, sugar, and oils.

3. Group three covers processed foods, including canned fruits and vegetables.

4. Group four consists of ultra-processed foods, such as sweet and savory snacks, ready-made meals, sodas, and other items that often contain little or no real food from group one. Shockingly, UPF makes up about half of the UK's diet.

While the Nova classification may have its flaws, Mellor highlights that it sometimes includes items like wholemeal and wholegrain bread from stores as UPF, which may not necessarily be a significant concern. Moreover, many UPF products are high in salt, fat, and sugar, for which dietary guidelines already exist. Despite certain limitations in UPF research, there is a growing consensus that action is needed now. Experts like Chris van Tulleken advocate for clear black warning labels on UPF, similar to what has been implemented in Chile and Mexico.

While some criticize the lack of conclusive evidence linking UPF to health issues, others argue that the available evidence justifies precautionary measures. The debate continues, but the need for action is apparent. The reasons why UPF may harm health are still being unraveled. These foods tend to be high in fat, salt, and sugar while lacking in fiber and essential nutrients. They contain various additives like emulsifiers, preservatives, gelling agents, and artificial colors and flavors.

A notable study led by Kevin Corridor at the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases found that people consuming UPF tended to overeat and gain weight compared to those consuming less processed foods. Processing itself may be a contributing factor, as it can strip away nutrients and make calories easier for the body to absorb. Mellor suggests that public health campaigns should shift their focus towards promoting healthy diets rather than solely emphasizing the harms of UPF.

He envisions the creation of community cooking spaces where people can make and purchase affordable, high-quality meals using ingredients that would otherwise go to waste. Despite strong industry interests, the challenge is significant. Van Tulleken emphasizes the need to eliminate industry influence, equating UPF corporate funding to tainted money from the tobacco industry. The call for change is echoing throughout society, and the fight against UPF is far from over. Brace yourselves for a healthier future!

*Composed from different sources and altered so that it is more fascinating to perusers