Ultra-Processed Food: A Recipe For Ill-Health?

[Sly Saint]

Interesting article about the BBC Panorama documentary that was broadcast last night.

"Ultra-processed convenience foods contain chemicals that UK regulators say are safe, but Panorama investigates emerging scientific evidence of a link between some of these chemicals and cancer, diabetes and strokes."

In January, one of the most comprehensive studies on ultra-processed food - by Imperial College's School of Public Health - was published in The Lancet medical journal.

The study of 200,000 UK adults found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods may be linked to an increased risk of developing cancer overall, and specifically ovarian and brain cancers.

And, as of last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) is now cautioning against the long-term use of artificial sweeteners - citing potential health risks.

It follows dozens of studies linking increasing consumption of UPF to increased risk of developing serious illnesses.

The ongoing research has already published results showing UPF may drive an increased burden of cancer.

More recently, they have been looking into the impact of one specific ingredient - emulsifiers - which act as a glue in ultra-processed foods to hold everything together.

Emulsifiers are the Holy Grail for the food industry - they improve the appearance and texture of food, and help to extend the shelf life far beyond that of less-processed food.

They're everywhere, in mayonnaise, chocolate, peanut butter, meat products. If you eat, you're likely to be consuming emulsifiers as part of your diet.

BBC's Panorama was given exclusive access to Dr Touvier's early results.

They are yet to be peer reviewed - a crucial verification step for scientific studies - but she said they are still concerning.

"We observed significant associations between emulsifier intake and increased risk of cancer overall - and breast cancer notably - but also with cardiovascular diseases," she says.

Could the food industry itself be playing a role in pushing back on regulation?

The BBC Panorama team spent the past eight months investigating.

"Food companies are not public health agencies... their job is to sell products," food politics expert Prof Nestle told the BBC.

She said the food industry has been known to fund research, sponsor experts and disparage existing studies to prevent regulation.

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a body that receives funding from some of the world's largest food companies.

It says its mission is to "provide science that improves human health" - but it has previously published studies globally undermining regulation and public guidance on healthy diets. In 2012, the European Food Safety Agency was so worried about potential conflicts of interest, it insisted anyone associated with ILSI either had to resign from the institute or leave the agency.

Prof Alan Boobis, emeritus professor at Imperial College London, is an unpaid director of ILSI Europe and a former vice president of its board of directors. But he also heads up a group of UK scientists, known as the Committee on Toxicity which provides advice on the risk of chemicals in food to the FSA.

More than half the members of the committee have recent links to the food or chemicals industries. And over the past 10 years, the committee hasn't supported a single restriction on the use of any chemical additive in our food.

full article and link to Panorama prog
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65754290

 

[Solstice]

Chuckled a bit with this:

"Ultra-processed foods are among the most profitable foods companies can make," says Prof Marion Nestle, a food politics expert and professor of nutrition at New York University.

 

[Kitty]

Could the food industry itself be playing a role in pushing back on regulation?

Flaming Nora, BBC! Could bears poop in the woods?

Whole thing's terrifying, though, specially for the millions who have no practical alternative but to eat processed foods as a significant part of their diet.

 

[Midnattsol]

Flaming Nora, BBC! Could bears poop in the woods?

Whole thing's terrifying, though, specially for the millions who have no practical alternative but to eat processed foods as a significant part of their diet.

A large reason for why we need healthy convenience foods. If I didn't have someone who can cook for me when I'm not able to myself my nutrition status would be poor.

 

[Solstice]

A large reason for why we need healthy convenience foods. If I didn't have someone who can cook for me when I'm not able to myself my nutrition status would be poor.

The local butcher here makes homemade "stamppot". Think it's typically Dutch, but it's basically potatoes, some sort of vegetable, little bits of bacon and it mushed through eachother. Has a couple other relatively healthy dishes too that I can just pop in the microwave. All made from raw ingredients.

The stuff from the local supermarket however is complete garbage and tastes like it too. Always leaves me with a bad stomach.

Mostly my parents just cook though.

 

[Trish]

I'm sure they are right, and it is very concerning, but all articles like this do for me is make me feel guilty that I'm not able to provide healthy freshly cooked meals all the time for my daughter.

 

[Simbindi]

It's very expensive to eat hea1thi1y in the UK (not sure about other countries). If you have a reasonab1e income there are more 'convenient' options becoming avai1ab1e (such as diced or prepared frozen organic fruit and veg), but definite1y not for those on a 1ow income.

In the UK the government is increasing1y forcing sing1e parents of not just primary aged chi1dren, but preschoo1ers and todd1ers (and the second 'caregiver' parent of a working 1ow income coup1e) into work. There seems no consideration given to how this saps any energy for preparing fresh food and providing good qua1ity parenta1 interactions to encourage hea1thy eating in young chi1dren. I'm sure this wi11 create a tsunami of hea1th and socia1 prob1ems in the years to come.