Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are becoming more and more prevalent in diets worldwide, despite the known risks they pose to our health. This has led nutritional scientist Prof Carlos Monteiro to call for warning labels on UPFs, similar to those found on tobacco products.
Prof Monteiro, from the University of São Paulo, expressed his concerns about the increasing consumption of UPFs at the International Congress on Obesity. He emphasized that these highly processed foods are not only displacing healthier options but also contributing to the global rise in obesity and chronic diseases like diabetes.
The consumption of UPFs such as cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals, and fast food is on the rise globally. In countries like the UK and US, more than half of the average diet consists of ultra-processed foods, with some individuals consuming up to 80% of their diet in UPFs.
Studies have shown that UPFs are linked to various harmful health effects, including heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, mental health issues, and premature death. Prof Monteiro and his colleagues developed the Nova food classification system, which categorizes food based on the level of processing it undergoes before consumption.
Prof Monteiro believes that public health campaigns similar to those against tobacco are necessary to educate the public about the dangers of UPFs. He suggests banning or heavily restricting advertisements for UPFs and introducing warning labels on packaging to inform consumers about the health risks associated with these products.
Furthermore, Prof Monteiro recommends banning the sale of UPFs in schools and healthcare facilities, implementing heavy taxation on these products, and using the revenue to subsidize fresh, unprocessed foods. He highlights the need for food companies to prioritize profit over health by making UPFs more convenient, affordable, and tastier than whole foods.
While some experts agree with Prof Monteiro’s stance on UPFs, others like Dr Hilda Mulrooney from London Metropolitan University argue that comparing UPFs to tobacco is oversimplifying the issue. Dr Mulrooney points out that unlike cigarettes, we need certain nutrients like fat, sugar, and salt for various functions in our bodies, not just for taste.
She emphasizes that reformulating certain types of foods to reduce these components may not be as straightforward as banning tobacco products. Dr Mulrooney acknowledges the need to address the overconsumption of UPFs but stresses the importance of a balanced approach to improving dietary habits.
In conclusion, the debate around ultra-processed foods and their impact on health is ongoing. While warning labels and public health campaigns may help raise awareness about the risks associated with UPFs, addressing the root causes of unhealthy eating habits will require a more comprehensive and nuanced approach.
