JENNY CHAPMAN - WRITTEN EVIDENCE (FDO0037)

1. I am a Churchill Fellow and author of a 2024 report into “ultra-processed food” (“UPF”).

2. I interviewed experts in food science and nutrition in countries including the UK, the USA, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark and conducted a systematic literature review.

3. I am submitting evidence as an individual with expertise in the area. I have no conflicts of interest. I have never worked for nor received funding from the food industry. The Churchill Fellowship has no links to the food industry.

4. I am submitting evidence to highlight widespread misunderstandings surrounding “UPFs” and key pieces of evidence relevant to the Committee’s questions.

5. My evidence relates to the following questions:

●       The definition of a) ultra-processed food (UPF) and b) foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) and their usefulness as terminologies for describing and assessing such products.

●       How consumers can recognise UPF and HFSS foods, including the role of labelling, packaging and advertising.

6. I can provide further information about the evidence provided and I consent to the information below being published by the Committee.

Main ideas

7. The most commonly used definition of “UPF” is a sociopolitical framework which indicates where a food is made.

8. The “UPF” definition was never intended to group foods on the basis of nutrition and is therefore unable to do so.

9. The “UPF” definition is subjective and unfit for use in nutrition policy, including labelling.

Context

10.                    The most commonly used definition of “UPF” is a sociopolitical framework which indicates where a food is made.

10a. Although other definitions of “UPF” exist, they are almost never used in nutrition science, during academic discussions, in policy debates and in media reports. The “UPF” definition and wider concept used today is almost exclusively based on the 2009 and 2017 papers by Carlos Monterio and others.

10b. Monterio’s Nova classification allows for the classification of foods into four categories. Nova 3 foods are those made in home kitchens or small cafes. Nova 4 foods (“UPFs”) are those made in factories (Monterio uses the phrase “no domestic equivalents” to indicate this).  

10c. Although the phrase “ultra-processed” appears, much of Monteiro’s definition relates to food formulation (i.e. ingredients). It also touches on packaging and marketing, alongside a brief mention of food processing.

10d. Monterio was motivated to classify foods on the basis of their location of production due his concerns surrounding cultural and sociopolitical changes in his native Brazil

“home cooking has decreased in favour of snacking”

“specialist food retailers are being rapidly displaced by supermarkets” 

“social life in and out of the home is weakened by ultra-processed products”

“the shared experiences of acquiring, preparing, cooking and enjoying food together … become increasingly lost … meal tables and all that goes with them are used less often, or even not at all. The kitchen becomes less used and the dining room … may disappear”

All quotes from The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing - Monterio et al. (2017)

11.                    The “UPF” definition was never intended to group foods on the basis of nutrition and is therefore unable to do so.

11a. As Monterio stated in the title of his seminal 2009 paper (Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing), his “UPF” definition is explicit in not considering the nutritional profile of foods and ingredients.

11b. The “UPF” category is heterogenous. It contains healthy foods (e.g., supermarket tofu, wheat bran cereals, baked beans, plant-based meat), important functional foods (e.g., gluten-free bread, infant formula) and unhealthy HFSS ‘junk’ food known to lead to chronic disease (e.g., chocolate, sugar sweetened beverages, processed meat products). All these foods are produced in factories but this does not mean that they are unhealthy.

11c. Although the Nova classification was explicitly designed for use in sociopolitical research as opposed to science, many nutritionists have attempted to conduct cohort studies (and in one case, a randomised control trial) using the Nova classification, which has understandably led to widespread confusion in and outside the nutrition science community.

11d. Scientists have shown that it is possible to eat a healthy diet where most of the calories come from “UPFs” - Hess et al. (2023) Dietary Guidelines Meet NOVA: Developing a Menu for A Healthy Dietary Pattern Using Ultra-Processed Foods

11e. Academics are starting to recognise the significant limitations of the “UPF” category in nutrition science and recent work has subdivided “UPFs”, finding different health outcomes for subgroups.

“Among UPF subgroups, associations were most notable for animal-based products, and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages. Other subgroups such as ultra-processed breads and cereals or plant-based alternatives were not associated with risk.”

[edited for clarity - datapoints removed]

Cordova et al. (2023) Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study

12.                    The “UPF” definition is subjective and unfit for use in nutrition policy, including labelling.

12a. Monterio’s five paragraph long definition is subjective, using phrases such as “some of” and “usually”.

12b. There is widespread, documented disagreement in the nutrition community regarding which foods are and are not “UPFs”. 

“Throughout the discussions blurred lines in the characterisation of processing, processed foods, and unhealthy foods were observed. Participants agreed that consensus is important, but difficult.”

Sadler et al. (2022). “Even we are confused”: A thematic analysis of Professionals’ perceptions of processed foods and challenges for communication.

“Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.”

                  Braesco et al. (2022) Ultra-processed foods: how functional is the NOVA system?

5 April 2024