The row over the role ultra-processed food (UPF) plays in driving negative health outcomes heated up again this week after a government advisory body published a non-committal position statement on the issue.
As well as looking at how UPF (which includes foods like biscuits, cakes, and chicken and vegan nuggets) is classified, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) considered the evidence associating different forms and levels of processing with health outcomes including overweight and obesity and chronic non-communicable diseases. It found that most systematic evidence reviews have found that increased consumption of processed food, and specifically UPF, was associated with a greater risk of these adverse health outcomes. However, the committee stopped short of calling for government intervention to reduce people’s exposure to UPF. It cited uncertainties around the quality of evidence available, noting that “studies are almost exclusively observational and confounding factors or key variables such as energy intake, body mass index, smoking and socioeconomic status may not be adequately accounted for”.
It also referred to limitations in the NOVA classification system – the main system used to classify UPF globally – stating that “the categories are very broad and capture a wide range of foods” and they “group together foods with differing nutritional attributes”.
It concluded that while associations between higher consumption of UPF and adverse health outcomes were “concerning”, the evidence to date “needs to be treated with caution” and it called for more research to be undertaken.
Some campaigners expressed frustration at what they saw as a fudge. Soil Association head of food policy Rob Percival said: “It is concerning that the committee has failed to acknowledge the need for precaution, given the rapid trend towards these foods dominating British children’s diets.” He also raised concern that “the sticky fingers of the ultra-processed food industry can be seen all over this position statement”, highlighting the food industry ties of certain committee members.
Campaigners, along with farmers, were more welcoming of new government plans announced this week to regulate the dairy supply chain to ensure farmers get a fair deal. Regulations set to come into force later this year will enable farmers to challenge prices, stop contract changes being imposed on them without agreement and ensure they are able to more easily raise concerns over unfair contracts.
A review into the egg sector is planned for later this year. Here, tensions are running high between producers and ministers over trade deals that allow imports of eggs produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK. The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC), Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA have joined forces to urge the UK government to reconsider its decision to exclude eggs as a sensitive sector in the recently agreed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). They said the deal allows the import of eggs from countries using conventional battery cage systems that were made illegal in the UK in 2012 and warned that egg products could be imported from countries like Mexico, which almost exclusively relies on battery cages for egg production.
“Shoppers will be horrified to learn that eggs in their food products could soon be coming from battery cages more than a decade after they were banned here,” said BEIC chief executive Mark Williams. “To rubber stamp a deal which effectively sanctions the importation of eggs from conventional (battery) caged systems which are outlawed here is not only counter-intuitive, but it also completely undermines the countrywide standards that are adhered to by the UK egg industry.”
The EU this week stole a march on the UK government after the European Commission proposed legally binding targets to reduce food waste by 2030, including a 30% reduction for households, restaurants, and retail. Although this falls short of the 50% reduction targeted under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, it does mean member states would be legally obliged to reduce overall levels of food waste.
Pressure is likely to fall on the UK to follow suit, however reports suggest that one of the more progressive food policies pledged by the government – to make the reporting of food waste mandatory for businesses – is under threat. The Grocer reported that Defra has ditched the proposal, citing a letter to campaigners sent by environment minister Rebecca Pow. Campaigners subsequently clarified that the plans have been delayed rather than cancelled; nevertheless Martin Bowman, senior policy and campaigns manager at Feedback, urged Defra to publish its response to a previous consultation on mandatory food waste reporting which closed almost a year ago.
