According to global health experts, ultra-processed foods (UPF) pose a significant threat to public health and require immediate attention.
More than 40 experts from around the world published their research in top medical journal The Lancet, blaming UPF for poor diets globally and a rise in diseases ranging from obesity to cancer.
“This is about the evidence we have today … about ultra-processed foods and human health,” Carlos Monteiro, a lead researcher at the University of Sao Paulo, said in an online briefing on Tuesday.
“What we know now justifies global public action.”
Researchers blame the food industry
UPF currently represent more than half of all calories eaten in the United States, Australia and the UK, the researchers said.
He blamed large corporations for changing the global diet in recent decades by using aggressive marketing to sell products made with inferior ingredients and artificial methods.
The eight UPF makers – Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento Económico Mexicano, Mondelez and Kraft Heinz – account for 42% of the sector’s $1.5 trillion (€1.3 trillion) assets in 2021, the paper said.
“The main drivers of global growth in UPF are the growing economic and political power of the UPF industry, and the restructuring of food systems for profitability,” the researchers wrote.
“The core of the industry includes UPF manufacturers, but also a broader network of co-dependent actors who collectively drive the production, marketing, and consumption of UPF.”
The authors urge countries to place warnings on package labels, restrict marketing, and tax some UPFs.
politics of food
The term “ultra-processed foods” has often faced some criticism, with some scientists calling it “too simplistic”.
Disagreement over UPF has given rise to an intense debate among the scientific community.
The author accepts criticism Knife The series is saying that more evidence is needed, but they also say that the signal is already strong enough for governments to take action.
The researchers also argued against criticism of their work on UPF and said that efforts to “create scientific doubt” on the topic were similar to tactics used by the tobacco industry.
Edited by: Zack Crellin