How do we differentiate not demonise - Is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Proceedings of a roundtable event.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Stacey Lockyer, Ayela Spiro, Sarah Berry, Jibin He, Shefalee Loth, Andrea Martinez-Inchausti, Duane Mellor, Monique Raats, Milka Sokolović, Santosh Vijaykumar, Sara Stanner
{"title":"How do we differentiate not demonise - Is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Proceedings of a roundtable event.","authors":"Stacey Lockyer,&nbsp;Ayela Spiro,&nbsp;Sarah Berry,&nbsp;Jibin He,&nbsp;Shefalee Loth,&nbsp;Andrea Martinez-Inchausti,&nbsp;Duane Mellor,&nbsp;Monique Raats,&nbsp;Milka Sokolović,&nbsp;Santosh Vijaykumar,&nbsp;Sara Stanner","doi":"10.1111/nbu.12617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 'ultra-processed food' (UPF) concept, with classification of foods by 'level of processing' rather than nutrient profiles, and its relationship with health outcomes, is currently a topic of debate among academics and increasingly referred to in the media. The British Nutrition Foundation convened a virtual roundtable on 6th July 2022 to gather views on the use of the term (and current definitions of) UPF for public health messaging, seeking to establish areas of consensus and disagreement and identify topics for further research. A small group of invited expert stakeholders attended, including representatives from academia, policy, behavioural science, communications, health, food science, retail and consumer interests. Participants' discussions clustered into cogent themes which included: problems with the use of definitions for UPF, the lack of causal evidence and defined mechanisms linking processing per se with poor health outcomes, and advice that may result in consumer confusion. There was agreement that many foods classified as UPF are high in fat, sugars and/or salt and public health messages should continue to focus on reducing these in the diet since it is unclear whether reported associations between high intakes of UPF and poor health reflect poorer dietary patterns (defined by nutrient intakes), and nutrient-health relationships are well established. Examples of misalignment were also highlighted (i.e. some foods are classified as UPF yet recommended in food-based dietary guidelines [featuring in healthy dietary patterns]). This raises challenges for consumer communication around UPF. Concern was also expressed about potential unintended consequences, particularly for vulnerable groups, where advice to avoid UPF could create stigma and guilt due to lack of time or facilities to prepare and cook meals from scratch. It could also impact on nutrient intakes, as some foods classified as UPF represent more affordable sources of important nutrients (e.g. packaged wholemeal bread). Discordance between the concept of UPF and current strategies to improve public health, such as reformulation, was also discussed. The group concluded that the use of the concept of UPF in UK policy (e.g. dietary guidelines) would be unhelpful at present. Overall, participants felt that it was more important to focus on providing practical advice around selection of healthier processed foods and making healthier foods more accessible rather than promoting the avoidance of UPF. The latter may act to demonise all foods classified as UPF by current definitions, including some affordable nutrient-dense foods.</p>","PeriodicalId":48536,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Bulletin","volume":"48 2","pages":"278-295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12617","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The 'ultra-processed food' (UPF) concept, with classification of foods by 'level of processing' rather than nutrient profiles, and its relationship with health outcomes, is currently a topic of debate among academics and increasingly referred to in the media. The British Nutrition Foundation convened a virtual roundtable on 6th July 2022 to gather views on the use of the term (and current definitions of) UPF for public health messaging, seeking to establish areas of consensus and disagreement and identify topics for further research. A small group of invited expert stakeholders attended, including representatives from academia, policy, behavioural science, communications, health, food science, retail and consumer interests. Participants' discussions clustered into cogent themes which included: problems with the use of definitions for UPF, the lack of causal evidence and defined mechanisms linking processing per se with poor health outcomes, and advice that may result in consumer confusion. There was agreement that many foods classified as UPF are high in fat, sugars and/or salt and public health messages should continue to focus on reducing these in the diet since it is unclear whether reported associations between high intakes of UPF and poor health reflect poorer dietary patterns (defined by nutrient intakes), and nutrient-health relationships are well established. Examples of misalignment were also highlighted (i.e. some foods are classified as UPF yet recommended in food-based dietary guidelines [featuring in healthy dietary patterns]). This raises challenges for consumer communication around UPF. Concern was also expressed about potential unintended consequences, particularly for vulnerable groups, where advice to avoid UPF could create stigma and guilt due to lack of time or facilities to prepare and cook meals from scratch. It could also impact on nutrient intakes, as some foods classified as UPF represent more affordable sources of important nutrients (e.g. packaged wholemeal bread). Discordance between the concept of UPF and current strategies to improve public health, such as reformulation, was also discussed. The group concluded that the use of the concept of UPF in UK policy (e.g. dietary guidelines) would be unhelpful at present. Overall, participants felt that it was more important to focus on providing practical advice around selection of healthier processed foods and making healthier foods more accessible rather than promoting the avoidance of UPF. The latter may act to demonise all foods classified as UPF by current definitions, including some affordable nutrient-dense foods.

我们如何区分而不是妖魔化——在食品不安全的时代,更健康的加工食品有作用吗?圆桌会议记录。
“超加工食品”(UPF)概念是根据“加工水平”而不是营养成分对食品进行分类,它与健康结果的关系目前是学术界争论的一个话题,媒体也越来越多地提到这一概念。英国营养基金会于2022年7月6日召开了一次虚拟圆桌会议,以收集关于在公共卫生信息传递中使用UPF一词(和当前定义)的意见,寻求建立共识和分歧领域,并确定进一步研究的主题。受邀的一小群利益攸关方专家出席了会议,其中包括来自学术界、政策、行为科学、通信、卫生、食品科学、零售和消费者利益的代表。与会者的讨论集中在一些令人信服的主题上,其中包括:使用普遍健康食品定义的问题,缺乏因果证据和将加工本身与不良健康结果联系起来的明确机制,以及可能导致消费者混淆的建议。人们一致认为,许多被归类为UPF的食物脂肪、糖和/或盐含量高,公共卫生信息应继续侧重于减少饮食中的这些食物,因为目前尚不清楚报告的高UPF摄入量与健康状况不佳之间的关联是否反映了较差的饮食模式(由营养摄入量定义),而营养与健康的关系已得到充分确立。还强调了不一致的例子(例如,一些食物被归类为UPF,但在基于食物的饮食指南中却被推荐[以健康饮食模式为特色])。这给围绕UPF的消费者沟通带来了挑战。还对潜在的意想不到的后果表示关切,特别是对弱势群体而言,建议他们避免UPF可能会因为缺乏时间或设施来从头开始准备和烹饪食物而造成耻辱和内疚。它还可能影响营养素摄入量,因为一些被归类为UPF的食物代表了更实惠的重要营养素来源(例如包装全麦面包)。会议还讨论了共同基金的概念与现行改善公共卫生的战略(如重新拟订方案)之间的不一致。该小组的结论是,目前在英国政策(如膳食指南)中使用UPF概念是没有帮助的。总的来说,与会者认为,更重要的是侧重于提供有关选择更健康的加工食品和使更健康的食品更容易获得的实用建议,而不是促进避免UPF。后者可能会妖魔化所有根据当前定义归类为UPF的食品,包括一些负担得起的营养密集食品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition Bulletin
Nutrition Bulletin NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.10%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Nutrition Bulletin provides accessible reviews at the cutting edge of research. Read by researchers and nutritionists working in universities and research institutes; public health nutritionists, dieticians and other health professionals; nutritionists, technologists and others in the food industry; those engaged in higher education including students; and journalists with an interest in nutrition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信