Ultra-processed foods should be banned in schools and hospitals to stop them ‘pushing aside’ more nutritious alternatives, according to a leading researcher.
Professor Carlos Monteiro – whose work led to the Nova classification of food groups – said UPFs should be heavily taxed with revenue used to subsidise fresh produce.
He also urged officials to acknowledge their role in driving up illness and treat these ‘addictive’ and harmful foods in the same way as tobacco.
Speaking today at the International Congress on Obesity in Sao Paulo, Brazil, he will call for adverts for UPFs to be banned or heavily restricted, as well as products being heavily taxed.
He will suggest reformulating foods – by doing things like reducing sugar and salt – does not go far enough, arguing the way they are made makes them dangerous.
Ultra-processed foods should be banned in schools and hospitals and heavily taxed with revenue used to subsidise fresh produce, Professor Carlos Monteiro has said
Presenting research, he will say: ‘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 and addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies, and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.’
The UK is the worst in Europe for eating ultra-processed foods with it making up 57 per cent of the national diet.
These foods including breakfast cereals, mass-produced bread, ready meals and ice-cream, tend to be higher in fat, saturated fat and sugar, while lower in fibre, protein and micronutrients.
Previous research has suggested people who eat the most mass-produced foods are up to a quarter more likely to suffer heart attack and stroke.
Even foods marketed as ‘healthy’ options – such as fruit or protein bars and low-fat yoghurts- are likely to be damaging to health, studies have shown.
Calling for public health campaigns, Professor Monteiro said it was time for governments to take action, protecting those who are most vulnerable.
He will say: ‘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.’ However, others stated that comparing UPFs to tobacco or cigarettes is too ‘simplistic’.
Whereas tobacco is inherently bad, the dangers of UPFs are debated with some levels of processing useful and often necessary.
Dr Hilda Mulrooney, reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said taxes on sugar sweetened beverages in the UK have been shown to be successful in driving reformulation and changes in consumer behaviour, far more so than voluntary guidance for example, to reduce sugar content of children’s foods.
Studies have shown that even foods marketed as ‘healthy’ options – such as fruit or protein bars and low-fat yoghurts- are likely to be damaging to health
She said: ‘Treating food like tobacco is very simplistic. 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.’
Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, said: ‘The body of data we have from scientific evidence does not support some of the claims made – that ultra-processed food causes ill health.’
He said that by focusing on levels of processing, it could distract from the problems that make it more difficult to find solutions to address diet-related health problems.
He added: ‘Some ultra-processed foods are high in sugar, fat or salt and known to have an adverse effect on health – while others can be an important source of fibre, wholegrain or fish.
‘There is currently no scientific model that would support the claim that all have an adverse impact on health.’
