Lancet Delivers Harshest Criticism Yet of Ultraprocessed Foods
Key Takeaways
- The authors say a "UPF industry” is “infiltrating government agencies [and] promoting corporate-friendly ... forms of regulation."
- Says this rise in ultraprocessed foods "is driven by powerful global corporations who employ sophisticated political tactics to protect and maximise profits."
- "The UPF industry ... and co-dependent actors have expanded and restructured food systems almost everywhere, in favour of ultra-processed diets."
- “A coordinated, well resourced global response is essential — one that confronts corporate power, reclaims public policy space, and restructures food systems."
Ultraprocessed foods received their most severe criticism yet last week in The Lancet. The highly regarded, peer-reviewed medical journal on Nov. 18 published a three-paper series that cites a “UPF industry” that is “infiltrating government agencies … promoting corporate-friendly governance models [and] forms of regulation … and framing debate, generating favourable evidence, and manufacturing scientific doubt.”
Generally, the series of reports reviews the evidence about the increase in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) in diets globally and highlights the association with many non-communicable diseases.
“This rise in ultra-processed foods is driven by powerful global corporations who employ sophisticated political tactics to protect and maximise profits,” said The Lancet’s summary of the report. (There will be a lot of English spellings in this report on the report.)
“Education and relying on behaviour change by individuals is insufficient. Deteriorating diets are an urgent public health threat that requires coordinated policies and advocacy to regulate and reduce ultra-processed foods and improve access to fresh and minimally processed foods.”
For now, let’s skip to the third report, with the lengthy title “Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response.” That’s where the harshest criticisms lie.
It hearkens back to many countries’ control of tobacco use and marketing decades ago. Then it goes after an unspecified evil cabal sounding much like Big Tobacco of the 1980s. As the authors summarize their report:
“First, we show that the UPF industry is a key driver of the problem, as its leading corporations and co-dependent actors have expanded and restructured food systems almost everywhere, in favour of ultra-processed diets. The higher profitability of UPFs compared with other types of food fuels this growth, by financially incentivising the ultra-processed business model over alternatives, and generating resources for continued expansion.
“Second, we highlight that the main barrier to advancing policy responses is the industry's corporate political activities, coordinated transnationally through a global network of front groups, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and research partners, to counter opposition and block regulation. These activities include direct lobbying, infiltrating government agencies, and litigation; promoting corporate-friendly governance models, forms of regulation, and civil societies; and framing debate, generating favourable evidence, and manufacturing scientific doubt.
“Third, we present strategies for reducing the UPF industry's power in food systems and for mobilising a global public health response. Reducing the UPF industry's power involves disrupting the ultra-processed business model and redistributing resources to other types of food producers; protecting food governance from corporate interference; and implementing robust conflict of interest safeguards in policy making, research, and professional practice.”
Needless to say, the series provides a different vision for the food system with emphasis on local food producers, preserving cultural foods transitions and providing economic benefits for communities.
Now, backtracking: The first paper, “Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence,” repeats nothing you haven’t already heard. It creates and supports three hypotheses:
1.That ultraprocessed foods globally are displacing long-established diets centred on whole foods and their culinary preparation as dishes and meals.
2.That this pattern results in deterioration of diet quality, especially in relation to chronic disease prevention (confirmed by, among other evidence, gross nutrient imbalances; overeating driven by high energy density, hyper-palatability, soft texture and disrupted food matrices; reduced intake of health-protective phytochemicals; and increased intake of toxic compounds, endocrine disruptors and potentially harmful classes and mixtures of food additives.
3.This pattern increases the risk of multiple diet-related chronic diseases through various mechanisms.
The second paper is titled “Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultraprocessed food production, marketing, and consumption.” It scrutinizes UPF manufacturers, fast-food corporations, supermarket/retail corporations and food supply chains. “We also examine policies to protect, incentivise, and support dietary patterns based on fresh and minimally processed foods, particularly for lower income households.
“We emphasise the importance of advancing this agenda in all countries, irrespective of their development status, to promote healthier diets among populations.”
Now, back to that third paper; its summary ends:
“A coordinated, well resourced global response is essential — one that confronts corporate power, reclaims public policy space, and restructures food systems to prioritise health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit.”
One of the 20 authors of the first paper is Prof. Carlos Monteiro, MD, from the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. He was the author of the 2009 paper that first used the term ultraprocessed foods, the last of four groups of food based on their amount of processing and added ingredients.
The second paper’s authors include professors Marion Nestle and Barry Popkin, well-regarded critics of the food & beverage industry. Monteiro, Nestle and Popkin also contributed to the third paper.
About the Author
Dave Fusaro
Editor in Chief
Dave Fusaro has served as editor in chief of Food Processing magazine since 2003. Dave has 30 years experience in food & beverage industry journalism and has won several national ASBPE writing awards for his Food Processing stories. Dave has been interviewed on CNN, quoted in national newspapers and he authored a 200-page market research report on the milk industry. Formerly an award-winning newspaper reporter who specialized in business writing, he holds a BA in journalism from Marquette University. Prior to joining Food Processing, Dave was Editor-In-Chief of Dairy Foods and was Managing Editor of Prepared Foods.