Are all ‘ultra-processed’ foods nutritional demons? A commentary and nutritional profiling analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundThere has been a growing body of literature published on ultra-processed foods (UPF). This has been driven by an ambiguous definition that can be easily applied to observational work. Nutritionally, UPF have been given the umbrella label of being “energy-dense, high in unhealthy types of fat, free sugars and salt, and poor sources of protein, dietary fibre and micronutrients” (Monteiro et al., 2018). Unfortunately, such overarching statements are imprecise and not necessarily reflective of all modern food products. Scope and approachThis commentary evaluates the NOVA classification system and includes an analysis of 50 foods falling under its definition of being ‘ultra-processed’ yet classified as ‘healthy’ according to the UK Nutrient Profiling Model. Nutritional profiles were also compared against European Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 Nutrition Claims. Key findings and conclusionsNo statistically significant correlations were found between the number of ingredients and energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium, AOAC fibre and protein. The majority of UPFs identified were low in saturated fat (84 percent), low in sugar (80 percent) and a source of fibre (60 percent). Thirty eight percent were low salt and 30 percent a source of protein.Based on the findings of this commentary it is suggested that rigorous nutritional analyses should be conducted alongside ‘processing loads’. Overarching and tautological definitions could lead to the public avoiding all UPFs and have unintended consequences such as fibre and micronutrient shortfalls.