Talk of ultra-processed food and the problems it creates is all over the place. But what exactly is it?
Good question
It’s what used to be called ‘junk food’. Only bigger. Because not only has the market got bigger (more products, more people buy it), but some of the foods that used to be considered ‘not junk’ are really (always were!) junk. However, it is becoming increasingly controversial, with a lot of debate about what is, or is not, ultra-processed food (UPF), and how it should, or should not, be classified.
There are multiple different classification systems for the levels of food processing from different countries and organisations around the world. The most widely used system of classification is the NOVA system (a name, not an acronym). It was developed by Brazilian scientist Carlos Monteiro in 2009 and was the first system to try to define what UPF is.
NOVA
The system separates foods into four categories:
- Category 1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods
Things like meat or poultry, milk, eggs, fish, fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and pulses. These can be fresh, dried, frozen, ground or crushed, pasteurised or vacuum packed. Any processing done is only to extend the shelf life of foods without adding anything extra to them.
- Category 2. Processed culinary ingredients
Category 2 consists of things like salt, oils and fats like butter, extra virgin olive oil and coconut oil, sugar, herbs and spices. Ingredients that are commonly found in many kitchens, which are created or extracted using traditional processes like pressing, refining, extracting and mining (salt). They are used in the preparation, seasoning and cooking of Category 1 foods.
- Category 3. Processed foods
These are foods that have been processed by traditional methods like canning, pickling, bottling, fermenting, salting and smoking. So, tinned or pickled vegetables, jams, chutney and other preserves, yoghurt and other fermented milk products like cheese and kefir, bread and salamis, which, when made in the traditional manner, are fermented, and salted and smoked meat and fish. Things like pastries, biscuits and snacks also fall into this category if they are made in a traditional way from foods only found in groups one and two. Category 3 foods are made from a combination of foods and ingredients from Categories 1 and 2 with the aim of increasing shelf life and making foods tastier.
- Category 4. Ultra-processed foods
These are foods made with ingredients created by techniques that are very far from traditional. Things like high fructose corn syrup, invert sugar, maltodextrin and dextrose, which are created by using enzymes and chemicals to split up the carbohydrates in corn or wheat (sometimes called fractionation) to make new forms of sugar. Or the various forms of mono – and diglycerides of fatty acids, emulsifiers that enable water and fat to stay mixed and are created by splitting naturally occurring fats into different elements. Or hydrolysed protein, flavour enhancers created by fractionating proteins found in soy, wheat, milk or even the waste left over from meat and fish processing.
Why the additives?
Some Category 4 ingredients are made by mixing chemicals to generate something entirely new. Many food additives, like colours, flavours, emulsifiers, stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agents, bulking agents and preservatives, fall into this type of ingredient, many of which have only become part of the human diet within the last 50 years.
Many of the additives used in UPFs are there to make the foods more palatable, so the texture feels nice in the mouth, or the food tastes desirable, or even to hide unpleasant tastes and smells that occur as a result of the processing of some of the other ingredients.
So far, so reasonably straightforward. Where does the controversy come in?
Where’s the dispute?
Although there is general agreement that ultra-processed food has a range of negative impacts on health, there is a lot less agreement about what foods fall into the ultra-processed category. The NOVA system is not universally recognised as providing a clear definition of what constitutes UPFs because there are always exceptions to the rule. It doesn’t help that the categories and what fits into them are slightly different in all of the various systems. That inconsistency makes it easier for the food industry to push back and deny that certain foods fit the UPF classification.
Some elements of the food industry argue that certain foods also contain nutrients that are considered beneficial, regardless of the addition of additives and fractionated ingredients, and therefore those foods cannot be considered ultra-processed.
Bread …
The food industry is arguing that mass-produced bread is not a UPF. Because white flour in the UK is legally required to be fortified with calcium, iron, thiamin (vitamin B1) and niacin (vitamin B3), and white bread is the main source of these nutrients for an awful lot of people in the UK. This is true: 71% of the bread consumed in the UK is mass-produced sliced white. Industry also tries to claim that bread is a key source of fibre for most people. But sliced white – which most people eat – contains a (sarcasm alert) whopping 3.4g of fibre for every 100g of bread … wholemeal contains a slightly better 12g of fibre per 100g.
Mass-produced bread is manufactured using a process called the Chorleywood method. This significantly reduces the amount of time needed to produce bread and makes bread a lot lighter and fluffier than traditionally made bread. It also makes use of a lot of processed seed oils, which are not great for health, as well as additives and processing aids that definitely fall into Category 4 of the UPF classification.
The gluten connection
Sensitivity to gluten (the protein in wheat that provides the stretchy quality that allows bread to rise) has increased in the population since the Chorleywood method was first introduced in 1961. This may be due to the differences in production. Traditional methods allow time for fermentation to take place, which changes the chemical structure of the gluten. Bread produced by the Chorleywood method is so rapid that those changes don’t have time to happen, and mass-produced bread has been linked to an increased risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Mass-produced white bread is also very low in fibre, something that is key to our health, and low-fibre bread has been linked to an increased risk of heart disease.
So, is mass produced bread a UPF? Well, it certainly isn’t great for anyone’s health. And it contains quite a few ingredients that would sit under the UPF classification. Of course, not all bread falls into this category. Artisanal and homemade bread made with traditional methods of yeast fermentation, or sourdough, don’t carry the same issues – or contain the same additives! But mass-produced bread is probably something to steer clear of if you can.
And yoghurt?
The food industry is also fighting to defend yoghurt against the label of UPF.
The food industry argues that yoghurt is a good source of protein and calcium, which it is. They also argue that yoghurts that contain live cultures are beneficial to gut health. Again, very true. But …
Natural yoghurts only contain milk and the bacteria which have fermented that milk to create yoghurt, and so they don’t fall into the UPF category. The case for flavoured or fruit yoghurts is a lot less clear-cut. Flavoured varieties contain a range of ingredients that fall into the Category 4 classification of the NOVA system. Things like modified tapioca starch, modified corn starch, modified manioc starch, stabilisers, thickeners, acidity regulators, preservatives and flavourings. Most also contain up to 7% sugar, although some that are labelled ‘no added sugar’ use artificial sweeteners instead. Even organic varieties include things like organic maize starch, which is produced by a series of processes, including using enzymes to release the starch from cells.
So, is fruit yoghurt a UPF? Probably. Even though it does provide some protein and calcium, the undesirable ‘extras’ push it over the edge. If you fancy some fruit yoghurt, buy the plain stuff and add some fruit to it; it will be a lot healthier. And as for plant-based alternatives to dairy based yoghurts, virtually every ingredient in them, regardless of whether they are plain or flavoured, would qualify as ultra-processed. Most contain significantly less protein than the genuine article, and even the natural ones contain a fair amount of sugar. Like most plant-based foods devised to try to create an alternative to the real thing, these all sit in the UPF box.
OK – who’s making a fuss?
Oddly enough, scientists. Some have concerns that the idea of UPF is too vague, with too many holes in because some foods in a category may fit the bill whilst others do not. That makes sense – some types of bread or yoghurt are definitely ultra-processed, but those made in a traditional manner are more likely to sit in Category 3 of the NOVA classification.
Others say that just because a food might be ultra-processed, this doesn’t necessarily mean it is unhealthy. Quite a few scientists say that the research being done isn’t rigorous enough, because the classification of UPF is too hazy, and that a lot of the research isn’t taking other factors, like lifestyle, into account. Interestingly, quite a lot of these individuals have worked for, still work for, or get funding from the big food companies. Companies like McDonald’s, Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.
In both cases, a tighter way of defining UPFs would be useful.
Company pushback
Recent research by the charity Bite Back found that two-thirds of food and drink sales in the UK for seven out of ten of the world’s largest food and drink manufacturers qualify as unhealthy ultra-processed food. The top ten food and drink companies own hundreds of smaller companies, most of which are well-recognised household names; an infographic of those companies and how they all sit together can be found here.
The companies pushing UPFs are trying to rebuff objections to their products, undermining research and dismissing evidence of health concerns linked to these ‘foods’. Not dissimilar to the way in which the tobacco industry behaved throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
We cannot trust a government of any stripe to sort this out. With over 689 government policies to tackle obesity between 1999 and 2020, all of which have failed to have any significant impact, the track record of successive governments over the last couple of decades is unimpressive. Time to step away from the shiny packaging and go back to eating real food.
T C Callis’ articles are very well researched, and always come with a wealth of references. If you are interested in following up anything in the article, don’t hesitate to contact us at Kent & Surrey Bylines for more information.
