Ultraprocessed foods: mechanisms of harm and harm reduction
Lead Research Organisation:
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Abstract
Globally, about one in four deaths are related to unhealthy diets. Unhealthy diets cause obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Around two-thirds of UK adults and one-third of children live with overweight or obesity. Obesity and chronic diseases are more common in people living in poorer households.
Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are industrially produced using methods that cannot be replicated at home. On average, UPFs make up at least half of the food people in the UK eat, with people living in poorer households eating more UPFs. About half of UPFs are also high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). Most current UK dietary policies support people to eat fewer HFSS foods.
Many studies find links between eating UPFs and obesity and chronic diseases, although sometimes only for some types of UPFs. Some countries now tell citizens to avoid UPFs. In the UK, the current scientific evidence is not yet considered strong enough to include UPFs in guidance. This is partly due to uncertainty about the biological mechanisms linking UPFs to diseases.
There is a high level of political and public interest in UPFs. If guidance to eat fewer UPFs were to be introduced, we would quickly need to know the best intervention mechanisms to support people to eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs without exacerbating existing inequalities. There is also uncertainty about what these are.
To address these uncertainties, we will bring together an interdisciplinary team to study the:
· biological mechanisms linking UPF consumption to obesity and chronic diseases
· intervention mechanisms to support everyone to eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs
We will start by exploring the overlap between UPFs and other food classifications, such as HFSS, to help determine what, if anything, is unique about UPFs and which types of UPFs are most harmful. We will study how eating different UPFs influences blood chemicals to identify particularly harmful UPFs and biological mechanisms of harm. We will look at how changes in UPF consumption relate to changes in markers of disease such as body weight and blood pressure.
Next, we will explore how current approaches to support people to eat less HFSS food influence UPF intake. We will study the UK soft drinks tax, calorie counts on restaurant menus, and restrictions on less healthy food advertising. These operate via intervention mechanisms such as changing price (soft drinks tax), providing information (calorie counts) and reducing prompts to buy (food advertising restrictions). We will consider our results with those of others to create a comprehensive understanding of the best intervention mechanisms to support everyone to eat fewer harmful UPFs.
Most approaches to supporting healthy eating focus on restricting less healthy foods by taxing, labelling or restricting advertising. These ‘negative’ interventions can be less acceptable than more ‘positive’ approaches such as subsidising healthier foods. We will use ‘systems thinking’ to work with stakeholders to generate new ideas for interventions to help people eat more non-UPFs. We will estimate impacts on disease and cost-effectiveness.
Greater clarity on biological mechanisms linking UPFs to disease will help governments decide whether new guidance is needed. Greater clarity on the most effective mechanisms to help everyone eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs will help governments know how to act. We will share our results with policymakers.
Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are industrially produced using methods that cannot be replicated at home. On average, UPFs make up at least half of the food people in the UK eat, with people living in poorer households eating more UPFs. About half of UPFs are also high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). Most current UK dietary policies support people to eat fewer HFSS foods.
Many studies find links between eating UPFs and obesity and chronic diseases, although sometimes only for some types of UPFs. Some countries now tell citizens to avoid UPFs. In the UK, the current scientific evidence is not yet considered strong enough to include UPFs in guidance. This is partly due to uncertainty about the biological mechanisms linking UPFs to diseases.
There is a high level of political and public interest in UPFs. If guidance to eat fewer UPFs were to be introduced, we would quickly need to know the best intervention mechanisms to support people to eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs without exacerbating existing inequalities. There is also uncertainty about what these are.
To address these uncertainties, we will bring together an interdisciplinary team to study the:
· biological mechanisms linking UPF consumption to obesity and chronic diseases
· intervention mechanisms to support everyone to eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs
We will start by exploring the overlap between UPFs and other food classifications, such as HFSS, to help determine what, if anything, is unique about UPFs and which types of UPFs are most harmful. We will study how eating different UPFs influences blood chemicals to identify particularly harmful UPFs and biological mechanisms of harm. We will look at how changes in UPF consumption relate to changes in markers of disease such as body weight and blood pressure.
Next, we will explore how current approaches to support people to eat less HFSS food influence UPF intake. We will study the UK soft drinks tax, calorie counts on restaurant menus, and restrictions on less healthy food advertising. These operate via intervention mechanisms such as changing price (soft drinks tax), providing information (calorie counts) and reducing prompts to buy (food advertising restrictions). We will consider our results with those of others to create a comprehensive understanding of the best intervention mechanisms to support everyone to eat fewer harmful UPFs.
Most approaches to supporting healthy eating focus on restricting less healthy foods by taxing, labelling or restricting advertising. These ‘negative’ interventions can be less acceptable than more ‘positive’ approaches such as subsidising healthier foods. We will use ‘systems thinking’ to work with stakeholders to generate new ideas for interventions to help people eat more non-UPFs. We will estimate impacts on disease and cost-effectiveness.
Greater clarity on biological mechanisms linking UPFs to disease will help governments decide whether new guidance is needed. Greater clarity on the most effective mechanisms to help everyone eat less harmful UPFs and more non-UPFs will help governments know how to act. We will share our results with policymakers.