Food Selection by According to Food Processing: Fabulous or Flawed

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The categorization of food by the degree of food processing has been recommended Monteiro and colleagues (1) and certain public health groups (2) as a system to help consumers select foods to address rising rates of obesity and chronic disease. This paper will apply traditional definitions of food processing from food science texts and regulatory bodies to specific food examples to show that the placement of foods in the Monteiro system has little to do either with the number of processing steps or the complexity of the technology employed. This is especially true because additional criteria that are not based on processing, such as the addition of sugar and salt or the place where the food is processed, are added. It will show that some foods in the minimally processed categories undergo many processing steps and that a number of these foods may not be readily incorporated into regular diet plans because they require much time and cooking skill to be included. It will review both popular and public health literature to show inconsistencies in use of the terms ‘processed’ and ‘ultra‐processed.’ This can provide some evidence showing that such as system may not only have the potential to increase consumer confusion, but also may not improve diet selection. Further, it will compare the nutritional risks and benefits of the Monteiro system with those of current, well‐researched dietary guidance systems such as MyPlate, The New Nordic Diet, or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH). It will show that the vetted approaches achieve optimal, affordable diets with foods from all food groups and levels of processing. This paper will focus on the concern that diets around the world have very inadequate intakes of dietary fiber, especially cereal fiber, and whole grain. Since the Monteiro categorization of nearly all breads and most cereals, which have been documented in epidemiological studies as the major contributors of cereal fiber and whole grain, and most grain‐based foods except grain kernels, such as brown rice, as processed or ultra‐processed, there is concern that intake of cereal fiber and nutrients delivered by grain‐based foods might decrease. This may be especially true as baking or home preparation of whole grains classed as ‘minimally processed’ requires time and cooking skill.This paper will review data from epidemiological studies showing processed and ultra‐processed foods (as categorized by Monteiro) provide the most calories and sugar in the diet. However, it will give evidence that diet patterns, such as DASH, meeting current recommendations can include processed foods and not have excess sugar, salt or calories. Further, it will show consumer and health professional understanding of a system based on processing needs to be tested to demonstrate that it both is useful as a teaching tool and results in better dietary choices than vetted dietary recommendations, which promote caloric and food group balance; include adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables; suggest limitation for sugars and salt; and focus on healthy, fiber‐rich, grain‐based foods from any level of processing.Support or Funding InformationGrains Foods Foundation