Stop using the term “ultra-processed” when talking about food. This is the view of researcher Jenny Chapman, who was recently awarded a Churchill Fellowship to investigate the adoption, acceptance and trust of plant-based meat products.
Her findings, published earlier this month, build on research suggesting that ‘ultra-processing’ associations hinder the adoption of plant-based meat alternatives. But according to Chapman, such associations should be completely disconnected from diet.
“The public discourse focusing on the ‘ultra-processed’ nature of plant-based meat has reached a point of hysteria. The reporting has become worryingly disconnected from the science and is leading to a widespread misunderstanding that plant-based meat is unsafe and unhealthy,” said the food systems researcher. “This has no basis in fact.”
Consumers don’t want to eat ultra-processed foods (for very different reasons)
Chapman is betting that plant-based meat alternatives will have the biggest impact on alternative protein consumption, at least in the short term. The sector is currently experiencing reduced demand, a trend that is often related to price, taste and accessibility.
But the researcher is not convinced that scoring on all three points is enough to achieve large-scale adoption. After seeing consumers identify plant-based meat products as ultra-processed foods (UPF), Chapman also noticed that such connotations were perceived as extremely negative.
In qualitative research that took her from Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Chapman discovered that the term “ultra-processed” means different things to different people. “People regularly said that they don’t like a food because it is ultra-processed. Very rarely did anyone say so like it a food because it is ultra-processed.”
The researcher concluded that the vast majority of ‘ultra-processed’ associations were negative. But when asked what exactly respondents didn’t like about the UPF, concerns came about the products’ plastic packaging, its links to the erosion of indigenous food cultures and the number of ingredients on the labeling of UPF products.
“What’s problematic about having a term that means different things to different people is that when disagreements arise, people often think they are talking about the same concept, but in reality they have very different ideas about what that concept means. means them. Chapman told FoodNavigator.
“That’s one of the reasons why there’s a lot of confusion about the term, because it’s used by different people to refer to different aspects of food.”
What is ultra-processed food? And does it mean ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’?
The most common definition of UPF comes from the so-called Nova food classification system, developed in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The Nova system divides the levels of food processing into four classifications, from raw and minimally processed foods; into processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; and ultra-processed foods. This last category is by definition an ‘industrial creation’.
What Nova can tell you is whether a food is produced in a factory, Chapman explained after delving deeply into Monteiro’s work. What it can’t do, or at least was never intended to do, is provide any indication of a food’s nutritional value, she continued.
“Monteiro’s work reveals his concerns about changes in social structures in Brazil. He worries that people no longer spend time in the kitchen and worries about diabetes and obesity. He identified something that he thinks is responsible for all these problems: food produced in factories.”
The Nova system is therefore a socio-political framework rather than a nutritional framework, Chapman concludes. But that socio-political framework has since been applied to food by food scientists, which, according to the researcher, was never the intention.
“It is not a scientific definition…and has no place in nutritional science. Monteiro’s original definition was never intended to group foods based on whether they were healthy or not.”
Chapman emphasized that she is not critical of the Nova rating system because it does a “great job” in a sociopolitical context. “But the fact that it is being abused has led to very unfair criticism [of certain food products].
“If we are interested in health, it makes no sense to use a sociopolitical definition and framework in a completely different academic sphere.”
Dissociating plant-based meat from the ‘unhealthy’ connotation of UPF
How does all this relate to the plant-based meat category? Well, plant-based meat alternatives are produced in a factory and are therefore inherently ultra-processed.
But if the Nova definition is only relevant in a socio-political (rather than nutritional science) context, Chapman argues that plant-based meat products cannot be tarnished as ‘unhealthy’ purely because they are ultra-processed.
Not everyone agrees. For example, the meat industry-backed Center for Consumer Freedom in the US has been very vocal in its criticism of the plant-based meat industry, as highlighted in a series of ads in 2019 attacking “ultra-processed” plant-based burgers that hide unappetizing meat. and unpronounceable ingredients.
Naturally, plant-based meat products can contain so-called unpronounceable ingredients, or E numbers. But Chapman puts this down to the concept of ingredient lists, which she described as “a reflection of what governments think we need to know about that food,” rather than being an “accurate scientific reflection of the molecules present ‘ in the food. wording.
A “binder” ingredient on an ingredients list may cause concern for consumers, but if shoppers understood that binders are used to keep certain foods from breaking apart – just like an egg in a cake recipe – then that concern would likely disappear. “Much needs to be done to reassure people that their food is safe,” we were told.
Although food safety agencies do an ‘incredible’ job of ensuring our food is safe, Chapman’s research revealed a distrust of food deemed ‘unnatural’. “Plant-based meat companies need to reassure people that the ingredients used are safe and there is nothing to worry about.”
What can the industry do to better promote plant-based meat consumption?
Researcher Jenny Chapman believes that foods and diets that are both healthier and more sustainable should be promoted, regardless of their level of processing. She also states that there must be careful communication about nutrition and ‘ultra-processed food’.
Chapman’s guidelines for plant-based meat companies include:
- Proactively and honestly addressing concerns about ultra-processed foods to counter misinformation through clear, jargon-free information on product websites about how products are made;
- Provide online product pages that provide clear information about each ingredient to clarify their function;
- Ensure all staff receive training so they are confident they understand the many concerns surrounding ‘ultra-processed foods’
- And industry leaders should join academics and policymakers in creating an interdisciplinary working group to find and implement ways to overcome misinformation about “ultra-processed foods” and nutrition so that consumers can make better-informed decisions about healthier and more sustainable foods and diets .
If we know what is not ‘unhealthy’, what then? is‘healthy’?
In recent years, research has not assessed UPF positively. Examples include studies linking UPF consumption to poor health outcomes, such as a greater risk of developing cancer and a higher mortality rate.
A well-known study conducted by nutrition and metabolism scientist Kevin Hall, published in 2019, found that when people followed an ultra-processed diet, they consumed over 500 kcal per day more than when they followed a diet free of ultra-processed foods. processed foods, but controlled for the same amount of fat, fiber, sugar, salt and carbohydrates.
Not all UPF research results are all negative
A recent study published in The Lancet concluded that consumption of UPFs can often be linked to multimorbidity. But not for all UPFs: no association was found between multimorbidity and the consumption of UPFs, including breakfast cereals, packaged bread and plant-based alternatives.
Because it is the only randomized controlled trial conducted specifically on UPF to date, the results are “interesting,” Chapman said. But the food systems researcher questions whether the two groups consumed the same quality of nutrients. “Because there was so much more fiber in the non-UPF diet, Hall added soluble fiber to the UPF diet drinks.”
Chapman believes the research is a good opening for conversations about fiber content, eating speed and satiety. “We need to focus on the speed of eating and fiber and how different foods make us feel full or not. To me, the science is very mixed on certain foods that people overeat and this is one of the criticisms we hear about processed foods. We need to investigate this further.”
But ultimately, the UPF framework has transformed into a “reframing of junk food,” lamented the researcher. “If people want to follow a minimally processed diet, I think that’s great. But I also think that suggesting that people have to cook from scratch and buy their food from local greengrocers is problematic, classic and not feasible for the majority.
If the extent to which a food has been processed does not indicate how ‘healthy’ it is, how do we know what ‘healthy’ is?
Listing nutrients on the front of the package may help, Chapman suggested. In Britain, where it is based, the voluntary choice system is called traffic light labelling. “I think it’s excellent, but I would like to see the addition of a fiber component or a glycemic index.
“Foods in themselves are neither healthy nor unhealthy. It’s all about the context of one’s diet. A plant-based meat product can contain a lot of fiber and therefore have a good glycemic index. But if you eat it as a meal with chips and ketchup in a sandwich, certain aspects of it will be problematic.
“The focus should be on the meal… That nuance is often lost in discussions.”