{"id":66789,"date":"2025-01-20T07:21:25","date_gmt":"2025-01-20T05:21:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/?p=66789"},"modified":"2025-03-30T23:16:57","modified_gmt":"2025-03-30T21:16:57","slug":"deny-denounce-delay-the-battle-over-the-risks-of-ultra-processed-foods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/deny-denounce-delay-the-battle-over-the-risks-of-ultra-processed-foods\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cDeny, Denounce, Delay\u201d: the battle over the risks of ultra-processed foods"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The ten largest food producers in the world \u2013 see Olivier Dauvers\u2019 ranking at the end \u2013 are almost all <\/b>manufacturers of ultra-processed foods<\/b><\/a> (UPF).<\/b><\/p>\n

The exceptions are JBS<\/a> and Tyson, which produce meat and derivatives (although there are UPF ready meals among their products), AB InBev and Heineken, which produce beer, while Lactalis produces milk and cheeses (in Italy, it owns brands such as Invernizzi, Cademartori, Locatelli, and also Galbani).<\/p>\n

In response to the recently proposed United States <\/b>Food and Drug Administration<\/b><\/a> (FDA) bill regarding mandatory <\/b>front-of-package labelling<\/b><\/a> (see the new label below), the <\/b>Food Industry Association<\/b> (FMI) \u2013 the association of U.S. food producers \u2013 stated that<\/b> \u201cthis would require a complete redesign of most packaging labels and would replace other important information such as date markings, leading to significant cost increases with only limited corresponding public health benefits.\u201d<\/b>
\n<\/b>The label would need to be placed on the front of packages, warning of added salt, sugar, and saturated fats.<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_single_image image=”67168″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_separator][vc_column_text]However, the fight over junk food (UPF)<\/a> labelling will be difficult and long because, paradoxically, the food industry\u2014dominated by global conglomerates such as Nestl\u00e9, PepsiCo, Mars, and Kraft Heinz<\/b>\u2014loves to present itself as committed to public health<\/b>. \u201cOur entire strategy is centered on nutrition, health, and well-being,\u201d said Paul Bulcke, president of Nestl\u00e9, to investors during the company\u2019s annual meeting in April [2024].<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Industry supporters emphasize that innovations in food processing during the 20th century not only made food more accessible and affordable, but also created beneficial products such as sugar-free sweeteners and protein-enriched milk. Food processing has allowed for recipe reformulation to add whole grains and fibre while reducing sugar, salt, and saturated fats, Nestl\u00e9 stated in a declaration. \u201cWe must not lose sight of the fundamental role we play in providing safe, nutritious, high-quality, and affordable products worldwide.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement, PepsiCo declared its intention \u201cto improve the basic nutritional profile of our products\u201d and to use a more diversified range of ingredients to \u201cmeet many dietary needs and preferences.<\/b>\u201d<\/p>\n

Below are some examples from PepsiCo\u2019s product range.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”67170″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_separator][vc_column_text]Kraft Heinz <\/b>[Mondelez] did not respond to requests for comment. Meanwhile, while researchers have uncovered more links between UPF and adverse health outcomes, companies have largely remained silent on these risks\u2014leaving trade associations representing them to vociferously challenge the validity of the research.
\nThe United Kingdom\u2019s Food & Drink Federation argues that there is no legal definition of processed or ultra-processed food and that consumers struggle to understand the difference. A spokesperson commented: \u201cOur concern with the concept of ultra-processed food is that it is not linked to current government dietary guidelines or food safety regulations, which are backed by rigorous science and evaluated by expert, independent committees.\u201d<\/p>\n

David Chavern, president of the U.S. Consumer Brands Association, asserts that food companies were \u201ctrying to bring rationality to the debate.\u201d According to Chavern, the research has an \u201canti-corporate wrapper\u201d that creates a false impression that companies are hiding something from consumers. \u201cThe industry prides itself on being incredibly transparent. There is widespread disclosure of ingredients on the packaging,\u201d he adds. For decades, the industry has quietly invested money in leading food science and nutrition departments around the world.<\/b><\/p>\n

For example, researchers in human nutrition at Reading University in the United Kingdom received \u00a3262,832 in funding from the food giant Mars<\/b> between 2018 and 2023, according to a recent Freedom of Information request. In the same period, PepsiCo<\/b> provided \u00a361,756 to researchers. \u201cWe collaborate with the food industry so that we can conduct more research that has an immediate impact on people\u2019s diets and health,\u201d said Robert Van de Noort, vice-chancellor of Reading University. \u201cWe want our work to be seen on supermarket shelves, not just in libraries.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Mars stated that the funding was intended to support a wide range of scientific projects, largely to support Reading\u2019s research infrastructure on cocoa, while PepsiCo claimed to have financed research on shelf life and product quality, among other topics.<\/p>\n

Anna Gilmore, co-director of the 21st Century Public Health Centre at the University of Bath, asserts that ties with scientists help the industry \u201ccreate doubt\u201d by funding analyses that exonerate companies or suggest that the case against them is unproven<\/b>. A 2018 review of studies criticizing Monteiro\u2019s NOVA system<\/a> found that the vast majority of authors had links to the UPF industry.<\/p>\n

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s Agricultural Research Service conducted another study demonstrating that it was possible to create a healthy diet with 91 percent of calories coming from UPF. The authors had contacts with the soybean industry, with the sauce and flavor company McCormick<\/b>, and with the owner of the Atkins Simply Good Foods diet brand.<\/p>\n

Current food guidelines for the U.S. National School Lunch Program do not exclude processed foods. Regulatory bodies also have some of these industry ties. A review of conflicts of interest in U.K. food regulation found that 9 out of 15 members of the government\u2019s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition had received funding from UPF companies.<\/b>[\/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_single_image image=”67177″ img_size=”full”][vc_separator][vc_column_text]The SACN concluded last summer that there were \u201cuncertainties about the quality of the available evidence\u201d on UPF, since the studies were primarily observational and confounding factors such as energy intake, body mass index, smoking, and socioeconomic status might not have been taken into account. \u201cResistance and counterattacks are no surprise,\u201d says Tim Lang, a professor at the Centre for Food Policy at City University, who co-directed the review. He asserts that an \u201cepidemiological transition\u201d driven by the food industry has been underway for decades, during which countries are moving away from simple, whole-food diets as they become wealthier. \u201cIt\u2019s what the food industry celebrated and flogged. And now they\u2019re hoisted by their own petard. All the things they hailed as successes are now seen as flaws,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n

A similar story unfolded in the United States, where Kevin Hall\u2019s study prompted the US government to examine the effects of UPF on public health for a potential inclusion in the next cycle of national dietary guidelines. A lobbyist from a major Washington-based food trade group told the FT that the group\u2019s main objective is to keep UPF out of these guidelines.<\/p>\n

In the United States, current guidelines are based on individual nutrients, which means companies can formulate foods to meet the requirements. For example, the food served in the subsidized National School Lunch Program includes processed foods such as Kraft Heinz<\/b>\u2019s Lunchables and PepsiCo<\/b>\u2019s Walking Tacos. \u201cI imagine they won\u2019t say there is solid evidence,\u201d says Aviva Musicus, Scientific Director at the US Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group. Since the studies used the Nova classification and are based on prospective cohort studies, they do not show definitive causality. Moreover, according to another nonprofit organization, US Right To Know, nine out of 20 members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the guidelines, had conflicts of interest with food, pharmaceutical, or weight-loss companies, or with industry groups.<\/p>\n

According to public statements, in 2022 Fatima Cody Stanford, a panel member, received tens of thousands of dollars in consultancy fees<\/b> from obesity<\/b><\/a> drug manufacturers including Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly<\/b>. Stanford did not respond to requests for comment, but the U.S. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion noted that all candidates for the committee are carefully screened for potential conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

In 2023, PepsiCo spent millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government. According to a revelation last July, the producer of Doritos and Tostitos spent $1.27 million on\u2026 the next dietary guidelines, sweeteners, and food labelling, among other issues.<\/b>[\/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_single_image image=”66826″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

US to regulate labeling of ultra-processed foods but food industry is sure to push back citing “significant cost increases”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":68050,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,4,1],"tags":[47,48,26,37],"class_list":["post-66789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-food-and-health","category-health","category-solidarity","tag-nutrition","tag-obesity","tag-poverty","tag-vulnerable-individuals"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66789"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66789\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68079,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66789\/revisions\/68079"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/68050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fondazioneguidovenosta.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}