Ultra-processed foods have become a staple in modern diets and are most widely consumed in Western countries like the United States. These packaged and modified foods are often linked to several health issues including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. Containing an array of additives such as artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives, over time, these foods have raised alarms due to their poor composition and low nutritional value. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines “processed food” as any food that has undergone changes to its natural state such as freezing, cooking or packaging. Ultimately, this classifies nearly all foods in supermarkets as “processed,” because most require at least some degree of processing, so they do not deteriorate or lose nutrients over a short period of time. To determine the level of processing these foods undergo, instead of using “undefined terms such as ‘fast’, ‘convenient’, or ‘junk’ food (a system which cannot be a basis of scientific assessment),” the NOVA classification system was created to properly categorize them into four levels ranging from unprocessed to ultra-processed foods (Monteiro et al. 4). Since the establishment of this new system, the identification of ultra-processed foods is facilitated as they often include high levels of added sugar, sodium, artificial flavors, and fats that contribute to one’s rising caloric intake without providing essential nutrients (McManus). While these foods are convenient and cheap, they are created to be highly palpable, promoting and displacing healthier options in many diets. Some argue though, that despite the overshadowing negativity surrounding processed food, things such as fruits, vegetables, and fortified grains, reach their optimal value when frozen or pasteurized as they slow nutrient degradation. However, to most experts, the nutritional quality of ultra-processed foods remains variable, with many offerings little to no nutritional value, leading to rising concerns surrounding their long-term health effects as their consumption continues to rise. Along with worries about public health, the role of regulatory policies in controlling the additives in ultra-processed foods is being questioned.
Awareness of health risks associated with food additives is improving significantly, with much supporting research that suggests the effects of substances found in ultra-processed foods, and how they negatively impact people’s overall physical and mental wellbeing. A study conducted by food safety and epidemiology expert, Thibault Fiolet and other colleagues, explored the connection between ultra-processed foods and how they relate to cancer. It is stated that the consumption of these types of foods is so prevalent that “ultra-processed food products contribute to between 25% and 50% of total daily energy intake,” meaning, majority of people rely on these products to fuel them almost entirely throughout the day (Fiolet et al. 1). The analysis further determines that additives found in ultra-processed foods like titanium dioxide, a white food pigment banned in Europe (not banned by the FDA in the U.S.), and sodium nitrate (not banned in the U.S.) are suspected carcinogens proven by their effects “in animal or cellular models” (Fiolet et al. 2). As a result, “sugary products and drinks [with these types of additives] were associated with an increased risk of overall cancer [and more specifically] associated with risk of breast cancer” (Fiolet et al. 6). This emphasizes the need for deeper investigation into these substances by the FDA and other food control associations due to the concerns that “more than 250 different additives” are allowed to be incorporated in food products across the U.S. and Europe; especially considering that titanium dioxide contains properties that promote the development of “chronic intestinal inflammation” in addition to its link to cancer (Fiolet et al. 7). However, the FDA’s oversight on additives and even genetically modified foods is limited as it has regarded food additives and GM foods as “generally safe and thus subjecting them to minimal scrutiny” (Francis et al. 105). The ignorance of the matter and lack of thorough safety standards leaves gaps in the food safety assessments and raises concerns about the FDA’s ability to properly assess the safety (or lack thereof) of food additives in ultra-processed foods, emphasizing the need for more effective safety protocols.
Although ultra-processed foods are cast in a negative light, it is proven that people often turn to them because they are a cheaper alternative in comparison to unprocessed natural foods. Therefore, the consumption of these foods is sometimes highly influenced by socioeconomic factors that lead to a disproportionate health impact within lower-income populations. In exploring the issue, a study conducted by Dr. Hosseinpour-Niazi and others, observes the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among adults in Tehran and the effects that ultra-processed foods (UPF) pose to daily life. Through dietary assessments, it was discovered that the lower socioeconomic groups experienced increasingly more physical health decline with the greater intake of UPF, with life factors such as employment status and physical activity playing a significant part. This further reinforces that the “association between ultra-processed foods and physical health [is] modified by lifestyle and socioeconomic factors,” demonstrating that those with limited resources and lower educational attainment are more susceptible to UPF-health related risks due to their low cost and convenience (Hosseinpour-Niazi et al. 6). A similar claim made by researcher Courtney Baltz, focuses on public health policy examining the rising obesity rate linked to UPF. Despite the health risks UPF pose, she notes that “for socio-economic reasons and for issues arising from food deserts, eliminating ultra processed foods entirely is not an effective or economically sound policy decision” (606). Meaning, complete removal of these foods would be detrimental to lower-income households, many of which are impacted by a lack of access to unprocessed foods and rely on ultra-processed foods as an accessible option for affordability and convenience. As a solution, Baltz advocates for government interventions such as a sugar tax on processed foods, which would make sugary products less appealing, while generating funds to lower the cost of more natural and healthier options. Together, both studies reveal that although ultra-processed foods are unhealthy and contribute to dietary issues, they make up the majority of foods that people consume daily, simply because they may not have access to better options due to socioeconomic barriers. Though the situation is not simple to resolve, it is still possible to improve this by putting in place policy changes to create guidelines that better control the quality of UPF, which could lead to healthier dietary patterns in everyone despite different income levels.
Instead of settling for cheaper chemically infused foods, several changes can be implemented through reformulation and removal of harmful additives. In the BMJ: British Medical Journal, accredited researcher Jean Adams, highlights that a key challenge with ultra-processed foods is their nutritional profile as they “tend to be higher in energy density, sugar, sodium and saturated fats than less processed alternatives” (Adams 1). To address this, Dr. Connie Weaver, a leading nutrition expert at Purdue University, states that structural changes are necessary, and “greater effort needs to be made to create processed foods with lower amounts of saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars while still consuming nutrients” (Weaver et al. 1532). Such changes would alter food production systems and globally promote access to healthier, minimally processed options. Many countries have already begun making efforts towards reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods as this is now a part of “national dietary guidance in Brazil and Canada” (Adams 3). Although the push for change has started, it is difficult to enforce as people often resort to these foods because they do not prepare food at home, whether it’s due to a “lack of time, poor access to affordable ingredients and adequate kitchen facilities, [or] high costs of cooking fuel” (Adams 3). Because of this, measures have been taken to facilitate and encourage home cooking such as providing “Meal kits with premeasured ingredients and illustrated recipe cards [which] may support home food preparation by reducing the time, energy, and motivation needed to cook” (Adams 3). Additional strategies include fortifying processed foods with essential vitamins and minerals paired with the reduction of added sugars and highly inflammatory fats to mitigate the health risks associated with their consumption. Through these efforts, processed foods could be reformulated to better public health and reduce chronic diseases without sacrificing their role in providing accessible and convenient food options, making them less harmful to public health and minimizing the probability of long-term health problems.
As the food industry continues to evolve and ultra-processed foods become a vital component to countless diets, strategies for addressing the risks associated with them must progress as well. With food companies driven by profits and the lack of strict regulations of food additives, the quality of processed foods is on a progressive decline, contributing to a growing global health crisis. Low-income communities are disproportionately reliant on UPFs due to their affordability and convenience because often, they cannot afford anything better, casting a barrier towards access to healthy food. This must not be ignored, and public health officials need to work collectively to reduce UPF consumption while making healthier food more accessible and affordable. The collective effort combining regulatory action and economic intervention, is necessary for the improvement of access to natural unprocessed foods, and the annihilation of carcinogenic additives in processed foods, to ensure a healthier future for all.
Works Cited
Adams, Jean. “Public Health Response to Ultra-Processed Food and Drinks.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 369, 2020, pp. 1–5. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27237958. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
Baltz, Courtney. “TaxRx: Ultra-Processed Foods, Added Sugar, and the Social Cost of Obesity.” Food and Drug Law Journal, vol. 75, no. 4, 2020, pp. 596–632. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27007750. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
Fiolet, Thibault, et al. “Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk: Results from NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 360, 2018. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26958943. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
Francis, Leslie, et al. “FDA’s Troubling Failures to Use Its Authority to Regulate Genetically Modified Foods.” Food and Drug Law Journal, vol. 71, no. 1, 2016, pp. 105–34. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26661095. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
Hosseinpour-Niazi, Somayeh, et al. “The association between ultra-processed food consumption and health-related quality of life differs across lifestyle and socioeconomic strata.” BMC Public Health, vol. 24, no. 1, 22 July 2024, p. NA. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, dx.doi.org.libproxy.wc.edu/10.1186/s12889-024-19351-7. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
McManus, Katherine D. “What Are Ultra-Processed Foods and Are They Bad for Our Health?” Harvard Health, Harvard Medical School, 9 Jan. 2020, www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-are-they-bad-for-our-health-2020010918605.
Monteiro, Carlos A et al. Ultra-Processed Foods, Diet Quality and Human Health. 1st ed., FAO, 2019. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Country of Origin Labeling: Common Questions & Answers.” Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/cool/common-questions-answers. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.
Weaver, Connie M et al. “Processed foods: contributions to nutrition.” The American journal of clinical nutrition vol. 99,6 (2014): 1525-42. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.089284. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.
Leave a Reply