FNCE: Skeptical About Dire Risks from Ultra-Processed Foods?

Public discourse about nutrition and health seems to go through waves of fear. There was the fear of fat that began in the 1980s. In the early 2000s, that wave subsided and the fear of sugar and carbs swept us all up with a fever to count carbs and especially, grams of added sugars. Though this wave of fear has not fully receded, fear of ultra-processed foods seems to have swept over it. But at FNCE on Sunday, we heard from Richard Mattes and Julie Hess that it might be okay to be a little skeptical about claims of dire risks from ultra-processed foods rolling through the land.

The apocalyptic headlines are getting to be a bit much.

Simple Promises, Complex Realities

Hess highlighted one of the problems, illustrated by her new publication in Current Developments in Nutrition. Simply stated, avoiding NOVA-classified ultra-processed foods offers no guarantee of a healthful diet. Hess and colleagues compared the diet quality, shelf stability, and costs of two similar nutrient-poor menus. Ultra-processed foods dominated one, mirroring the Standard American Diet. In the other, researchers replaced the ultra-processed foods with less processed alternatives.

But unfortunately, simply getting rid of the ultra-processed food did nothing to improve the diet quality of the less-processed menu. It did, however, result in higher food costs and a shorter shelf life for the food.

Simple promises about diet quality frequently collide with the complex reality of food and how it fits into healthy, happy lives.

Skeptical About Ultra-Processed Foods

Mattes encouraged us to be skeptical about sweeping claims of dire risks from ultra-processed foods. Broad guidance to avoid them, he said, carries the risk of being inefficient, ineffectual, and perhaps even harmful. His concern about potential harms has to do with unintended consequences for diet quality, food safety, and health disparities.

Too many people who want us to follow their dietary prescriptions are leaning heavily on the type of fear tactics that resonate in presidential politics. We don’t need that because it does more to mislead than to inform. A little skepticism might serve us well.

Click here for the new paper by Hess et al and here for an alternate perspective from Tamar Haspel in the Washington Post.

Lentil & Rice Snacks, photograph by Ted Kyle / ConscienHealth

Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.

October 7, 2024