The Lancet concluded that global corporations, not individual decisions, are driving the rise of ultra-processed foods, which is why a global public health response is urgently needed.
MADRID, Nov 19. (EUROPA PRESS).- The increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods (AUP) in the global diet represents an urgent health challenge that requires coordinated policies and awareness actions to address it, according to a new series of three articles, prepared by 43 experts international and published in The Lancet.
The series exposes the tactics used by production companies of AUP to boost its consumption and hinder effective policies. Additionally, it proposes a roadmap for change toward impactful government regulation, community mobilization, and healthier, more accessible, and affordable diets.
The serious health problem
Professor Carlos Monteiro, from the University of São Paulo, Brazil, writes: “The growing consumption of ultra-processed foods is transforming the diet worldwide, displacing fresh and minimally processed foods. This change in diet is driven by powerful global corporations that generate enormous profits by prioritizing ultra-processed products, with the support of intense marketing and a strong political lobby to stop effective public health policies that promote healthy eating.”
Professor Camila Corvalán, from the University of Chile, adds: “To meet this challenge, governments must take the initiative and implement bold and coordinated policies, from including UPF indicators on the front labeling of packaging to restricting their marketing and implementing taxes to finance greater access to nutritious and affordable foods.”
Dr Phillip Baker, from the University of Sydney, Australia, adds: “We need a strong global public health response, similar to coordinated efforts to challenge the tobacco industry. This includes protecting political space from political pressure and building strong coalitions to promote healthy, fair and sustainable food systems and confront corporate power.”
AUPs, as classified by Nova, are innovative branded products made from inexpensive industrial ingredients, such as hydrogenated oils, protein isolates or glucose/fructose syrup, and cosmetic food additives (e.g., colors, artificial sweeteners, and emulsifiers). They are designed and marketed to displace fresh, minimally processed foods as well as traditional meals, while maximizing business profits.
The first article in the new series of The Lancet reviews the scientific evidence on ultra-processed foods (AUPs) and health, since Professor Carlos Monteiro and his team developed the Nova classification in 2009. The series presents consistent evidence that UPAs are displacing entrenched dietary patterns, worsening diet quality and being associated with an increased risk of multiple diet-related chronic diseases.
Various national surveys indicate that the proportion of UPA in diets is increasing. The estimated energy contribution of ultra-processed foods (AUP) to total household food purchases or daily food intake tripled in Spain (from 11 percent to 32 percent) and China (from 4 percent to 10 percent) over the past three decades, and increased (from 10 percent to 23 percent) in Mexico and Brazil over the previous four decades. In the United States and the United Kingdom, it has increased slightly over the past two decades, remaining above 50 percent.
The evidence reviewed in the Series shows that diets high in UPA are linked to overnutrition, poor nutritional quality (excess sugar and unhealthy fats, and too little fiber and protein), and increased exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.
Additionally, a systematic review conducted for the Series, covering 104 long-term studies, found that 92 of them reported increased associated risks of one or more chronic diseases, and meta-analyses showed significant associations for 12 health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and premature death from all causes.
The authors of the series acknowledge valid scientific criticisms of Nova and ultra-processed foods, such as the lack of long-term clinical and community trials, the nascent understanding of their mechanisms, and the existence of subgroups with different nutritional values, as key areas for future research. However, they argue that future research should not delay immediate and decisive public health action, justified by current evidence.
Professor Mathilde Touvier, from the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) in France, details: “While there is a healthy debate about UPAs within the scientific community, this must be distinguished from attempts by vested interests to undermine current evidence. The growing body of research suggests that diets rich in ultra-processed foods harm health globally and justifies the need for policy action.”
Coordinated policies to regulate its production
The second article in the series outlines coordinated policies to regulate and reduce the production, marketing and consumption of UPAs, and to hold large companies accountable for their role in promoting unhealthy diets.
The article explains how improving diet worldwide requires specific policies on ultra-processed foods that complement current legislation to reduce the high fat, salt and sugar content of foods. Professor Barry Popkin, from the University of North Carolina (USA), explains: “We request that ingredients that indicate the presence of ultra-processed foods (for example, colours, flavorings and sweeteners) be included on the front labeling, along with excess saturated fats, sugar and salt, to avoid
substitution of unhealthy ingredients and allow for more effective regulation.
The authors propose stricter marketing restrictions, especially for advertising aimed at children, in digital media and at the brand level, as well as the banning of ultra-processed foods in public institutions such as schools and hospitals, and the limitation of their sale and shelf space in supermarkets. One successful example is Brazil’s national school feeding program, which has eliminated most AUPs and will require 90 percent of food to be fresh or minimally processed by 2026.
The authors emphasize that, in addition to regulating AUPs, policies must expand access to fresh foods. This could be achieved by taxing certain AUPs to fund fresh food subsidies for low-income households.
Professor Marion Nestle, New York University, USA, comments: “Improving diets globally requires policies tailored to each country’s particular situation and the extent to which UPAs are embedded in everyday eating habits. While priorities may differ, urgent action is needed everywhere to regulate ultra-processed foods, alongside existing efforts to reduce their high fat, salt and sugar content.”
Who is driving the rise of ultra-processed foods?
The third article in the series explains how global corporations, not individual decisions, are driving the rise of ultra-processed foods, and that a global public health response to this challenge is urgent and feasible. The authors highlight how ultra-processed food companies use cheap ingredients and industrial methods to reduce costs, along with aggressive marketing and attractive designs to drive consumption.
With global annual sales of $1.9 trillion, ultra-processed foods are the most profitable food sector. Ultra-processed food manufacturers alone account for more than half of the $2.9 trillion in dividends distributed to shareholders of all publicly traded food companies since 1962. These profits fuel growing corporate power in food systems, providing resources to UPA companies to expand production, marketing, and political influence, transforming diets globally.
The series reveals how AUP companies employ sophisticated political tactics to protect their profits: blocking regulations, shaping scientific debates, and influencing public opinion. They coordinate hundreds of interest groups around the world, lobby politicians, make political donations, and engage in litigation to delay policy implementation.
The authors advocate for a coordinated global public health response to protect policymaking from industry interference, end industry ties to health professionals and organizations, and build a global advocacy network for action against ultra-processed foods.
Professor Karen Hoffman, from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, insists: “Just as we confronted the tobacco industry decades ago, we now need a bold and coordinated global response to curb the disproportionate power of ultra-processed food corporations and build food systems that prioritize people’s health and well-being.”
The series ends by pointing out that addressing the problem of ultra-processed foods requires a different vision for our food systems: creating systems that support diverse local food producers, preserve cultural culinary traditions, promote gender equity, and ensure that the economic benefits of food production return to communities rather than shareholders.