Despite mounting evidence of health risks, major food companies deploy tactics to dispute findings and influence regulations.

Brazilian nutritional scientist Carlos Monteiro coined the term “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) 15 years ago, revolutionizing the understanding of diet and health. Monteiro observed that, despite Brazilian households spending less on sugar and oil, obesity rates were rising. He linked this paradox to increased consumption of foods heavily processed with preservatives, flavourings, and altered nutrients.

Monteiro’s Nova food classification system assesses not just nutritional content but also the processing involved, setting the stage for extensive research connecting UPFs to obesity, cancer, and diabetes. Studies show that UPFs often lead to overeating and undernourishment by triggering the brain’s reward system, encouraging higher consumption to sustain pleasure.

In 2019, American metabolic scientist Kevin Hall conducted a randomized study comparing unprocessed and UPF diets over two weeks. Participants on the UPF diet consumed around 500 more calories daily, with increased fat and carbohydrate intake, less protein, and subsequent weight gain. This research fueled public health debates and academic inquiries, presenting a formidable challenge to the food industry’s lucrative UPF business model.

In response, the food industry launched an aggressive campaign against regulation, employing tactics similar to those used in the fight against junk food labelling and taxation. According to Open Secrets, food and soft drink companies spent $106 million on lobbying in 2023, nearly double the combined spending of the tobacco and alcohol industries. Much of this lobbying focused on food processing and sugar regulations.

The industry has adopted a strategy described as “deny, denounce, and delay” to counter scientific findings. By casting doubt on research and funding studies that exonerate UPFs, companies like Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mars, and Kraft Heinz aim to protect their interests. For instance, a review of studies critical of Monteiro’s Nova system revealed authors with connections to the UPF industry, underscoring a pattern of manufacturing doubt.

Public health experts face challenges translating scientific consensus on UPFs into effective policy. While countries like Belgium, Israel, and Brazil reference UPFs in dietary guidelines, widespread regulation remains limited. The UK’s Food & Drink Federation argues that the term “ultra-processed food” lacks a legal definition and that consumers struggle to understand it. This ambiguity complicates efforts to implement policies targeting UPFs.

Food companies portray themselves as committed to public health, citing innovations that make food affordable and accessible while also reformulating products to include whole grains and fibre while reducing sugar, salt, and fat. However, they remain silent on the health risks associated with UPFs. Trade bodies argue that existing food safety regulations, based on rigorous science, suffice.

The US government’s review of UPFs for potential inclusion in national dietary guidelines marks a significant development. Current guidelines focus on individual nutrients, allowing companies to formulate products that meet these requirements. This approach enables the continued inclusion of processed foods in programs like the US National School Lunch Program.

Industry resistance extends to legislative battles. In Mexico, companies such as Kellogg’s and Nestlé have sued the government over front-of-package warning labels. These labels, introduced in 2020, warn consumers about excess sugars, sodium, trans fats, and calories. The industry’s legal challenges highlight its efforts to prevent regulation that could impact profits.

Public awareness of UPFs has surged, with a February survey revealing that two-thirds of Europeans believe UPFs are unhealthy and pose long-term health risks. In the UK, 70% of adults reportedly try to avoid UPFs. This growing concern puts pressure on food companies to address public health issues related to their products.

Analysis:

The debate over ultra-processed foods encompasses numerous perspectives, reflecting complex socio-economic, political, and scientific dimensions. Politically, the influence of lobbying by food companies demonstrates the significant power these entities wield in shaping health policies. This influence raises questions about the role of corporate interests in public health decision-making and the need for more stringent regulations to protect consumers.

From a sociological perspective, the reliance on UPFs highlights disparities in access to nutritious foods. Socio-economic factors play a crucial role in dietary choices, with low-income populations often dependent on affordable, processed foods. Addressing UPF consumption requires policies that support access to fresh, minimally processed foods and education on healthy eating practices.

Economically, the profitability of UPFs presents a challenge to regulatory efforts. The food industry’s resistance to regulation is driven by the substantial revenue generated from these products. Balancing public health priorities with economic interests necessitates innovative approaches that encourage healthier food production while maintaining industry profitability.

On a local level, the impact of UPFs varies across regions, influenced by cultural dietary habits and availability of fresh produce. Local initiatives, such as community gardens and farmers’ markets, can play a vital role in promoting healthier eating habits and reducing reliance on UPFs.

Gender and minority perspectives also merit consideration. Studies show that women and minority groups often face higher rates of diet-related health issues, exacerbated by limited access to healthy food options. Targeted interventions that address these disparities are crucial for effective public health strategies.

The theoretical implications of the UPF debate extend to discussions on consumer autonomy and corporate responsibility. While the industry argues for personal choice and transparency, the overwhelming presence of UPFs in the market raises ethical questions about the manipulation of consumer preferences and the responsibility of companies to prioritize health over profit.

Overall, the battle over ultra-processed foods underscores the need for a multifaceted approach that integrates scientific evidence, regulatory measures, and public awareness to address the complex health challenges posed by these products. Ensuring equitable access to nutritious foods and holding the food industry accountable are essential steps in promoting long-term public health.