Healthy Executive

Super processed foods (UPFs) have been making waves recently, and it's not just a passing fad. Individuals from various backgrounds, including celebrity chefs, medical experts, and politicians, are expressing concerns about UPFs. However, the issue with UPFs goes beyond nutrition; it encompasses a complex interplay of language and politics that leaves much to be desired.

The undeniable threat posed by UPFs is multifold. These heavily processed food items contribute to the rising rates of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, the terminology used to describe them is often inadequate and ambiguous.

Consider this: as you peruse this article, I am enjoying a sandwich made from ingredients that have undergone several industrial processes. Is it considered super processed? Surprisingly, no. On the other hand, cracking open a can of Diet Coke, devouring a bag of crisps, or heating up a pre-packaged chicken tikka masala definitely falls into the super processed category.

The recent definitions of UPFs are based on the Nova classification, which categorizes foods according to the extent and purpose of their processing, rather than solely their nutrient content. This system, recognized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and widely accepted, divides foods into four categories, with UPFs at the extreme end. These foods contain ingredients that you would typically not add at home, often including novel chemicals for flavor, sweetness, and preservation. Examples include processed bread, ready-made meals, reconstituted meat, and most breakfast cereals. Navigating the supermarket aisles can be challenging with these definitions. An ambiguous and loose language becomes politically charged when we examine the intersection of food and business.

Food processing aims to improve taste, appearance, and shelf life. However, as food becomes more complex, with hidden processes and ingredients, there is an opportunity for companies to cut costs and boost profits. A common way for consumers to identify UPFs is through heavy marketing; after all, marketing requires money, which often leads to cheaper ingredients and artificial additives. It's the result of market forces, and addressing this issue requires political intervention.

The alarming reality is that UPFs, due to their mass production and low-cost ingredients, often become the only affordable option for many people, especially during times of economic hardship. In the UK, over half of the calories consumed by the average individual now come from UPFs.

The current uproar is not about discovering a new food category or health risk; it's about shedding light on the timeless truth that the act of selling food, one of the oldest human trades, can be disappointingly vague. "Processing" covers a wide spectrum, from artisan bakeries to companies that enhance or preserve staple foods to industries whose profits endanger the health of millions. UPFs are simply a way of describing the extreme end of this spectrum.

Ultimately, a political definition is the most appropriate one in this context. It may expose uncomfortable truths, but it provides clarity and a more satisfying perspective when it comes to addressing this issue.

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