Scientists warn: These foods pose dangers similar to smoking—find out why
- Replies 14
In a world where convenience often trumps quality, the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has become a global health concern.
Some experts are now calling for tobacco-style warnings to alert consumers to their potential dangers.
Professor Carlos Monteiro, a nutritional scientist from the University of São Paulo, is leading the charge.
Monteiro advocated for drastic measures to curb the consumption of these foods, which he believes are as harmful as cigarettes.
‘UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,’ he said.
‘UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods worldwide and causing a deterioration in diet quality due to their several harmful attributes. Together, these foods are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes.’
Monteiro and his colleagues introduced UPF 15 years ago when they developed the Nova food classification system.
This system considers not only the nutritional content of food but also the extent and purpose of its processing.
UPFs, which fall into the fourth group of the Nova system, are characterised by their heavy processing and include items such as sugary cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals, and fast food.
The problem with UPFs isn't just their poor nutritional value; it's also their design.
These foods are engineered to be more convenient, affordable, and tastier than freshly prepared meals, encouraging overconsumption and higher profits for food manufacturers.
Monteiro drew a parallel between UPFs and tobacco, noting that both are produced by corporations that prioritise profits over public health, using aggressive marketing and lobbying to resist regulation.
He suggested a multi-faceted approach similar to anti-tobacco campaigns to combat the UPF epidemic.
‘Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs,’ he said.
‘Such campaigns would include the health dangers of consumption of UPFs.’
‘Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs.’
‘Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidise fresh foods.’
Monteiro addressed the issue, emphasising that food giants marketing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) aim to make their products more convenient, affordable, and tastier than freshly prepared meals to stay competitive.
‘To maximise profits, these UPFs must have lower cost of production and be overconsumed,’ he stated.
‘Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they obtain with their attractive/addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.’
However, not everyone agrees with the direct comparison to tobacco.
Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, pointed out that while there's no such thing as a safe cigarette, our bodies require a range of nutrients to function properly.
‘There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, even second-hand, so banning them is relatively straightforward in that the health case is very clear.’
‘However, we need a range of nutrients including fat, sugar and salt, and they have multiple functions in foods – structural, shelf-life – not just taste and flavour and hedonic properties.’
‘It is not as easy to reformulate some classes of foods to reduce them, and they are not the same as tobacco because we need food – just not in the quantities most of us are consuming.’
In contrast, a new study has found that some ultra-processed foods can be beneficial and do not increase the risk of diseases such as cancer and heart disease.
The study suggests that regular consumption of fibre-rich bread and cereals, despite being classified as UPFs, can reduce the risk of these diseases. You can explore the study here.
Have you noticed the impact of UPFs on your health or the health of loved ones? How do you navigate the balance between convenience and nutrition? Share your opinions in the comments below.
Some experts are now calling for tobacco-style warnings to alert consumers to their potential dangers.
Professor Carlos Monteiro, a nutritional scientist from the University of São Paulo, is leading the charge.
Monteiro advocated for drastic measures to curb the consumption of these foods, which he believes are as harmful as cigarettes.
‘UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,’ he said.
‘UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods worldwide and causing a deterioration in diet quality due to their several harmful attributes. Together, these foods are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes.’
Professor Carlos Monteiro warned that ultra-processed foods replaced healthier diets and that tobacco-style warnings were needed. Credit: Shutterstock
Monteiro and his colleagues introduced UPF 15 years ago when they developed the Nova food classification system.
This system considers not only the nutritional content of food but also the extent and purpose of its processing.
UPFs, which fall into the fourth group of the Nova system, are characterised by their heavy processing and include items such as sugary cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals, and fast food.
The problem with UPFs isn't just their poor nutritional value; it's also their design.
These foods are engineered to be more convenient, affordable, and tastier than freshly prepared meals, encouraging overconsumption and higher profits for food manufacturers.
Monteiro drew a parallel between UPFs and tobacco, noting that both are produced by corporations that prioritise profits over public health, using aggressive marketing and lobbying to resist regulation.
He suggested a multi-faceted approach similar to anti-tobacco campaigns to combat the UPF epidemic.
‘Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs,’ he said.
‘Such campaigns would include the health dangers of consumption of UPFs.’
‘Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs.’
‘Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidise fresh foods.’
Monteiro addressed the issue, emphasising that food giants marketing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) aim to make their products more convenient, affordable, and tastier than freshly prepared meals to stay competitive.
‘To maximise profits, these UPFs must have lower cost of production and be overconsumed,’ he stated.
‘Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they obtain with their attractive/addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.’
However, not everyone agrees with the direct comparison to tobacco.
Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, pointed out that while there's no such thing as a safe cigarette, our bodies require a range of nutrients to function properly.
‘There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, even second-hand, so banning them is relatively straightforward in that the health case is very clear.’
‘However, we need a range of nutrients including fat, sugar and salt, and they have multiple functions in foods – structural, shelf-life – not just taste and flavour and hedonic properties.’
‘It is not as easy to reformulate some classes of foods to reduce them, and they are not the same as tobacco because we need food – just not in the quantities most of us are consuming.’
In contrast, a new study has found that some ultra-processed foods can be beneficial and do not increase the risk of diseases such as cancer and heart disease.
The study suggests that regular consumption of fibre-rich bread and cereals, despite being classified as UPFs, can reduce the risk of these diseases. You can explore the study here.
Have you noticed the impact of UPFs on your health or the health of loved ones? How do you navigate the balance between convenience and nutrition? Share your opinions in the comments below.
Last edited:
.png){kind=icon}
Reason enough for me to have a degree of mistrust in some UPF's.
