A medical professional who coined the term ultra-processed food (UPF) has recommended that "heavy taxation" be applied to them, and that the proceeds be used to fund fresh products.
This coincides after he recommended a complete ban on UPF advertising as well as tobacco-style warning labels on product packaging.
At the International Congress on Obesity in Brazil, Professor Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will talk on the risks associated with this.
He told the Guardian: “Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs.”Prof Monteiro is set to say at the conference: “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.”
Ready meals, carbonated drinks, ice cream, and processed meals are examples of UPFs that are typically poorer in fibre, protein, and micronutrients and higher in fat, sugar, and saturated fat.
Additionally, Monteiro recommended using public health campaigns to educate the public about the risks associated with ultra-processed food products.
He added: “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/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 severe warning coincides with a sharp increase in the use of UPFs – such as cereals, protein bars, carbonated drinks, prepared meals, and fast food – around the world.
In February, a review discovered a direct correlation between UPFs and 32 detrimental health outcomes, including an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, poor mental health, and early death.
With 60 per cent of calories coming from UPF, the United States leads the world in this regard, whereas in Europe it's between 14 and 44 per cent.
When creating the "Nova" food classification system 15 years ago, Monteiro and his associates coined the term UPF. This evaluates the preparation and processing of food in addition to its nutritional value.
Food and drink are categorised by the system into four categories: minimally processed food, processed food, processed culinary ingredients, and ultra-processed food.
Monteiro will inform the conference that the food conglomerates who are selling UPFs are aware that their products need to be more convenient, more reasonably priced, and more delicious than freshly made meals in order to remain competitive.
The comparison of UPF to tobacco, according to Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a nutrition and health reader at London Metropolitan University, 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.”
