UPF clampdown risks national dietary crisis, warn scientists

The “premature” calls for a clampdown on ultra-processed foods risks sparking a national dietary crisis, leading scientists have warned.

A report by professors Alexandra Johnstone from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen and Eric Robinson, of the University of Liverpool, claims the evidence against tens of thousands of products in the firing line is “overwhelmingly” circumstantial. The report urges ministers not to extend restrictions beyond the definitions of HFSS, or risk the anti-UPF bandwagon doing more harm than good.

The claims come as health secretary Wes Streeting considers what action to take on UPF foods, following a series of alarming claims over the possible harms caused by a huge range of everyday foods.

In June, Baroness Joan Walmsley, chair of the paused House of Lords inquiry into diet and obesity, accused the food industry of “getting away with murder” and said the evidence was clear that ultra-processed and HFSS foods had contributed to childhood obesity, which was threatening the health of future generations.

However, today’s report claimed the backlash against UPFs posed a “major challenge” to providing informed dietary choices to the UK population, and called for ministers to ensure they only committed to “evidence-based” policies.

“There has been a surge in stories linking consumption of ultra-processed foods to a broad range of negative health outcomes,” says the report.

“The overwhelming majority of evidence linking UPFs to worse health is observational, where cause and effect are inferred. There is a paucity of direct causal evidence.”

The article, published by the peer-reviewed PLOS medicine journal, concludes: “Based on the balance of current evidence, we do not believe it is appropriate to be advising consumers to avoid all UPFs, and we await further evidence to inform consumer guidance on the need to limit consumption of specifics foods based on their degree or type of processing.

“We know with certainty that foods which are energy-dense and/or high in saturated fat, salt or sugar are detrimental to health, and we should continue to advise consumers to limit consumption of these foods. Likewise, we should be encouraging consumption of health-promoting foods, like fruits, vegetables and whole grains.”

The scientists also warned the attention on UPFs could distract from government efforts to clamp down on more defined HFSS products.

“Mechanistic uncertainty over food processing and health should not prevent immediate and much-needed public health policy to regulate the food industry in order to dramatically reduce the advertisement, availability and dominance of foods high in energy and/or saturated fat, salt or sugar on national diets,” they found.

Read more: UPF vs HFSS - making sense of the new health agenda

Concern over UPFs has risen rapidly to the top of the health agenda in recent months, with National Food Strategy author Henry Dimbleby in February calling for a 24-hour total ban on advertising of all UPFs. They have also been under long-running attack from campaigners such as Chris van Tulleken, author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People.

In March, research published in the BMJ evaluating “existing meta-analyses” from almost 10 million people, claiming to be the largest review of its kind to date, linked UPFs to more than 30 harmful effects, including heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes.

However, food industry bosses have warned the term ‘UPF’ is causing huge confusion among consumers. Johnstone, who is also leading a £1.6m research project funded by UKRI into food systems and obesity, said she was concerned that hysteria over UPFs could backfire on the wider health of diets.

“We must guard against the possibility that the people in our society who are already most at risk of not being able to afford to eat healthily are not put in an even worse position, as we continue to investigate the links between some ultra-processed foods and poor health,” she said.

“We need more high-quality mechanistic research in humans, using controlled diets, to tease out the effects of nutrient profile and ultra-processing per se. Diet reformulation and diet quality are two key aspects of our food environment and, alongside affordability, these remain food system challenges.”

Robinson added: “Foods classed as ultra-processed which are high in fat, salt and/or sugar should be avoided, but a number of ultra-processed foods are not.

“We should be thinking very carefully about what advice is being given to the public, as opposed to providing simplified and potentially misleading messages that grab headlines.”