Why we might never know the truth about ultra-processed foods

they are Bite noir Among many nutritional experts – large -scale foods such as chicken nuggets, packed snacks, fizzi drinks, ice cream or even chopped brown bread.

So-called ultra-processed foods (UPF) Account for 56% calorie consumption in BritainAnd this figure is more for children and people who live in poor areas.

UPFS is defined by how many industrial processes they are and the number of materials – often unattainable – on their packaging. Most are high in fat, sugar or salt; Many you will call fast food.

The one who units them is their synthetic look and taste, which has made them a target for some clean advocates.

There is an increasing body of evidence that these foods are not good for us. But experts may not agree with how they really affect us or why, and it is not clear that science is going to answer us soon at any time.

While recent research shows many comprehensive health problems, including cancer, heart disease, obesity and depression Joined together For UPFS, there is no evidence, as yet, that they are Reason By them.

For example, a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition in Chicago was presented with observation studies of over 500,000 people in the US. It was found that those who ate the most UPF had more than 10% more chance, even accounting for their body-mass index and overall quality of diet.

In recent years, a lot of other observation studies have shown a similar link – but it is not the same as proving. How Food is processed, causing health problems, or which aspect of those processes may be blamed.

So how can we get the truth about ultra-like food?

Such a study is certainly necessary to prove that UPFS causes health problems, a senior researcher of diet and obesity at the University of Oxford. Naris suggests Estabury.

This will require to compare a large number of people on two diets – a high in UPFS and a low in UPFS, but corresponds to calories and macronutrient materials. This will really be difficult to do.

Participants should be kept under lock and key so that their food intake can be managed tightly. The study will also need to nominate people with similar diets as an early point. This would be logically very challenging.

And to combat the possibility that people who eat less UPF can only have a healthy lifestyle such as exercising more or more sleep, groups will require very similar habits.

“It will be expensive research, but you can see a relatively quick change from the diet,” Dr. Estabury says.

Funding can also be difficult for this type of research. There may be an allegation of conflict of interest, as researchers motivated to run such tests, it may be an idea what they want to conclude before starting.

These tests cannot last for a very long time, anyway – a lot of participants are most likely. It would be impractical to say that hundreds of people stick to a strict diet for more than a few weeks.

And what can these imaginary tests be really proved anyway?

Lead Duane Melor for nutrition and evidence-based medicine at the University of Aston says that nutrition scientists cannot prove that specific foods are good or bad or what their effects on a person. They can only show potential benefits or risk.

“The data shows no more or less,” they say. Conversely claims are “bad science”, they say.

Another option will be to see the impact of the general food additives present in UPFS on a lab model of the human intestine – some scientists are busy doing.

A broad issue is, however – what really means as UPFS, the amount of confusion around it.

Generally, they include more than five materials, some of which you will find in a specific kitchen wardrobe.

Instead, they are usually made of cheap materials such as modified starch, sugars, oil, fat and protein isolates. Then, to make them more attractive to tastebuds and eyes, taste enhancer, color, emulsion, sweetness and glazing agents are added.

They range from clear (sugar breakfast grains, fizzi drinks, American cheese slices) to perhaps more unpredictable (supermarket humble, low -fat yogicharts, some muscles).

And it raises the question: How helpful is a label that puts a chocolate bar in the league similar to tofu? Can some UPF affect us differently from others?

To know more, BBC News spoke to a Brazilian professor, who came in 2010 with the word “Ultra-Prasad Food”.

Professor Carlos Monteer also developed a Nova classification system, ranging from “complete foods” (such as legumes and vegetables) at one end of the spectrum (eg legs and vegetables), ranging from “processed cooking materials” (eg butter) from “processed foods” (things like tinned tun and salty nuts).

The system was developed after obesity in Brazil as sugar consumption continued to fall, and Professor Monteiro wondered why. They believe that our health is not only affected by the nutrients of the food we eat, but also through industrial processes used to make and preserve it.

He says he did not expect the current heavy attention on UPFS, but he claims that “it is contributing to a paradigm change in nutrition”.

However, many nutritionists say that the fear of UPFS is hot.

Gunter Kuhanle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of reading, says that this concept is “vague” and the message that sends is “negative”, causing people to confuse and eat food.

It is true that in the present, there is no concrete evidence that the way food is processed causes damage to our health.

Processing is something that we do every day – chopping, boiling and cold are all processes, and those things are not harmful.

And when food is processed on a scale by manufacturers, it helps to ensure that the food is safe, preserved for a long time and it reduces waste.

Take the fingers of frozen fish as an example. They use the remaining bits of fish, provide children with some healthy food and save parents – but they still count as UPFS.

And what about meat-replacement products such as Quorn? Di, they do not look like the original component from where they are made (and so fall under the Nova definition of UPF), but they are seen as a healthy and nutritious.

“If you make a cake or brownie at home and compare it with one that already comes in a packet that is going to enhance the taste, do I think there is a difference between those two foods? No, I am not, ”Dr. Estabury tells me.

The Food Standards Agency, the body responsible for food security in England, accepts reports that people who eat a lot of UPF are at greater risk of heart disease and cancer, but say it will not take any action on UPFS until their evidence has a specific loss.

Last year, Nutrition (SACN) on the government’s Scientific Advisory Committee witnessed this report and concluded that “there were uncertainty around the quality of the evidence available”. There were also some concerns around the practical application of the Nova system in the UK.

For its share, Professor Monteer is most concerned about the processes associated with intense heat, such as the construction of breakfast grain flakes and puffs, which claims that he “degrees natural food matrix”.

He points to a small study, which describes this result in the loss of nutrients and therefore feels less complete, meaning that we attract more to meet the deficiency with extra calories.

It is also difficult to ignore the creeping spirit of self -religious and – it whispers – snowberries around UPFS, which can make people feel guilty of eating them.

Expert Dietician and Senior Research Fellow at University College London. Adrian Brown says it is not helpful to perform a type of food, especially when we eat and how it is a complex issue. “We have to be conscious of food morality,” they say.

A UPF -free life can be expensive – and it takes time, effort and plan to cook with scratches.

A Recently Food Foundation report It was found that more healthy foods were doubly expensive as less healthy foods per calorie, and Britain’s poorest 20% of the population would need to spend their disposable income on food to meet the government. Healthy diet recommendationsThis will be their wealthiest expenses of only 11%.

I asked Professor Monteero whether it is possible to live without UPFS.

“The question here should be: Is this possible to prevent increasing consumption of UPFS?” They say. “My answer is: it’s not easy, but it is possible.”

Many experts say that the current traffic light system (which gives high, medium and low -level sugar, fat and salt) on the food label, is simple and helpful as a guide when you shop.

Smartphone apps are now available for uncertain shopkeepers, such as the Yuka app, with which you can scan a barcode and get the breakdown of how healthy the product is.

And surely advice that you already know – eat more fruits, vegetables, whole and beans while cutting back on fat and sugars snacks. Sticking to him is a good idea, whether scientists ever prove to be upfs or not, are harmful.

BBC industry Our top journalists have a new home on the website and app for best analysis and expertise. Under a specific new brand, we will bring you new approaches that challenge beliefs, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make an understanding of a complex world. And we will also demonstrate thought-respective materials from BBC sounds and iPlayer. We are thinking small but big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking the button below.