The SACN report published in 2023 by the UK government [1] included an evaluation of evidence showing an association between ultra-processed food (UPF) and health outcomes, it’s an important document as it underpins current UK guidelines regarding the health implications of consuming UPFs in our daily diet.
The report uses the NOVA classification system (outlined last week) in combination with nutritional data sourced from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) [2].
The report gives a summary of international guidelines including those provided by the WHO (World Health Organisation) which although does not specifically mention UPFs, does suggest that it is the individual government’s responsibility to reduce incentives for the food industry to continue production of processed foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt to help protect the health of the population.
A review carried out in 2022 [3] found that 91 of 105 countries assessed had national dietary guidelines that included some advice on the discouragement of processed food consumption including France, Brazil, New Zealand and Canada.
The evidence reviewed within the report focused on two areas; using the NDNS to estimate the UK exposure to UPFs and a systematic review to assess current research within the area.
The NDNS and NOVA classification assessment revealed the following statistics regarding the consumption of UPFs within the UK population:
Proportion UPF contributes to total dietary energy intake
Children 1.5 – 11 years 63.5%
Adolescents 12-18 years 68%
Adults (Male) 54.6%
Adults (Female) 52.8%
Adults (low income) 56%
Adults (higher income) 51.3%
The systematic review looked at ten papers that focused on the following health outcomes:
Overweight & obesity (2)
Chronic non-communicable diseases e.g Type II Diabetes (6)
Depression (2)
Mortality risk (4)
Maternal & child health e,g gestational diabetes (2)
Most reported an association between increased consumption of UPFs and increased risk of the health outcomes listed.
Although this data paints a bleak picture the limitations included that the systematic reviews were mostly observational (common within nutritional research) which is not considered strong enough evidence as cofounding factors might not be accounted for. And concerns over the NOVA classification and it’s practical application to the UK population, for these reasons the conclusions made were that other dietary recommendations already in place are adequate to cover UPFs and there is a need for stronger research to be carried out in the form of good quality randomized controlled trials which could provide direct links and specific mechanisms.
Next week I’ll provide examples of UPFs for easier recognition and an update on some new and exciting research.
References
1. UK, G., SACN statement on processed foods and health., O.o.H.I.a. Disparities, Editor. 2023.
2. Roberts, C., et al., National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Results from Years 7 and 8 (combined) of the Rolling Programme (2014/2015 to 2015/2016). 2018.
3. Koios, D., P. Machado, and J. Lacy-Nichols, Representations of Ultra-Processed Foods: A Global Analysis of How Dietary Guidelines Refer to Levels of Food Processing. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2022. 11(11): p. 2588-2599.
MLT Nutrition 