Ultra-processed foods should be banned in schools and hospitals to prevent them from “leaving 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 pay heavy taxes and the revenue would be used to subsidise fresh produce.
He also urged officials to recognize their role in increasing disease and to 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 UPF advertisements to be banned or heavily restricted, as well as for heavy taxes to be placed on the products.
He will suggest that reformulating foods (reducing sugar and salt) is not enough, arguing that the way they are made makes them dangerous.
Ultra-processed foods should be banned in schools and hospitals and heavily taxed with revenues intended to subsidize fresh produce, Professor Carlos Monteiro said.
Presenting the research, he will say: ‘Both tobacco and UPF cause numerous serious diseases and premature mortality; Both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they make with their attractive and addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies and lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.’
The UK is the worst country in Europe when it comes to consumption of ultra-processed foods, accounting for 57 percent of the national diet.
These foods, including breakfast cereals, mass-produced bread, convenience foods, and ice cream, tend to be higher in fat, saturated fat, and sugar, while being low in fiber, protein, and micronutrients.
Previous research has suggested that people who eat the most mass-produced foods are up to a quarter more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes.
Even foods marketed as “healthy” options, such as fruit or protein bars and low-fat yogurts, are likely to be harmful to your health, studies have shown.
Calling for public health campaigns, Professor Monteiro said it was time for governments to take action to protect the most vulnerable.
It will say: “Sales of UPF in schools and health facilities should be banned, and UPF should be heavily taxed and the revenue generated should be used to subsidize fresh food.” However, others stated that comparing UPFs to tobacco or cigarettes is too “simplistic.”
While tobacco is inherently bad, the dangers of UPF are debated and some levels of processing are useful and often necessary.
Dr Hilda Mulrooney, professor of nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said taxes on sugary drinks in the UK have been shown to be successful in driving reformulation and behavioral changes. consumers, much more than voluntary guidelines, for example, to reduce sugar. Content of baby foods.
Studies have shown that even foods marketed as “healthy” options, such as fruit or protein bars and low-fat yogurts, are likely harmful to your health.
She said: ‘Treating food like tobacco is very simplistic. There are no safe cigarettes, not even second-hand ones, so banning them is relatively simple, since the argument in favor of health is very clear.
‘However, we need a variety of nutrients that include fat, sugar and salt, and they have multiple functions in foods (structural, shelf life), not just flavor and hedonic properties.
“Some kinds of foods are not as easy to reformulate to reduce, and they are not the same as tobacco because we need food, just not in the quantities that most of us consume.”
Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, said: “The body of data we have from scientific evidence does not support some of the claims made – that ultra-processed foods cause health problems.”
He said focusing on processing levels could distract from issues that make it difficult to find solutions to address diet-related health problems.
He added: “Some ultra-processed foods are high in sugar, fat or salt and are known to have an adverse effect on health, while others can be an important source of fibre, whole grains or fish.”
“There is currently no scientific model to support the claim that they all have an adverse impact on health.”