Soon British Journal of Nutrition The study investigated whether processed foods fit all dietary recommendations.
To work: Nutrients or processing? Analysis of food and drink products from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, NOVA classification and front-of-pack traffic light labeling. Image Credit: Niloo/Shutterstock.com
Background
UK dietary guidelines recommend limited consumption of foods high in saturated fat, added sugar and salt (HFSS). Higher HFSS intake increases the risk of non-communicable diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and death.
Typically, the public receives all nutritional information through multiple strategies, including front-of-package labeling (FOPL) and the Eatwell Guide.
This information helps consumers make informed decisions about purchasing a type of food at the point of purchase.
It should be noted that FOPL systems differ between countries. For example, in some countries food labels contain non-interpretive nutritional information, while others follow color-coded nutritional information.
In the United Kingdom, the multiple traffic light (MTL) system, i.e. a colour-coded system, is followed. In European countries, nutritional information is provided by providing a Nutri-Score.
According to the color-coded FOPL system, green represents low amber environment and red represents high nutrient content (i.e. fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar, etc.). Previous studies have shown that food processing system affects health as well as nutritional content.
Many systems classify food and beverage items. For example, the NOVA classification focuses on dividing foods and beverages into four groups; namely minimally processed food (MPF), processed kitchen ingredients (PCI), processed food (PF) and ultra-processed food (UPF).
UPFs are industrially formulated products with poor nutritional profiles. These contain ingredients that make the food extremely tasty, inexpensive and long-lasting.
Increased consumption of UPF has many adverse effects on health, which subsequently leads to increased risks of non-communicable diseases and all-cause mortality.
It is imperative to understand whether food processing should be considered as a criterion to guide consumers’ purchases.
About the study
The current study investigated whether the extent and purpose of processing food and beverages affect their nutritional content.
The NOVA classification of UK foods and drinks considered in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) Rolling Program Year 12 database was assessed based on overlap with FOPL nutritional properties and MTL scoring.
Food and beverage items considered in NDNS were coded as MPF, PF, PCI and UPF in accordance with the NOVA classification and the FOPL traffic light system.
A final sample of 2,980 food items was included in the analysis, more than half of which were UPFs. Approximately one-third of food items were classified as MPF, 2% as PCI, and 9.5% as PF.
Study findings
Compared to MPFs, UPFs were found to have a more unhealthy nutritional profile, but this was not true for PFs.
UPFs contained higher amounts of total sugars, saturated fat, fat, and salt than MPFs. UPFs were more likely to be classified as hyperpalatable and were more energy dense.
UPFs and PFs contained similar amounts of salt, saturated fat, and fat, but UPFs contained higher amounts of sugar. There were also fewer green FOPL traffic lights in UPFs.
It has been noted that not all UPFs have unhealthy nutrient profiles. More than 50% of UPFs did not have a red FOPL traffic light, and a significant number had FOPL MTL scores similar to MPFs.
However, compared to MPFs, UPFs showed poor nutritional profiles despite the absence of a red FOPL traffic light. UPFs were also found to be more energy intensive compared to PFs and MPFs. These findings suggest that the FOPL MTL system only partially captures the purpose and scope of food processing.
Results
This study showed that UPFs tend to have an unhealthy nutritional profile and higher energy density than MPFs.
There were also fewer green and more red FOPL traffic lights. Compared to PFs, UPFs were found to be more energy intensive. Even if UPFs performed well in the traffic light system, nutritional quality was found to be poor.
The findings suggest a need to rethink how processing can be used with UK dietary recommendations, given that some UPFs appear to be healthy based on FOPL MTL scores.
The main strength of this study centers around its large nationally representative database of food and beverage items with matching information on their nutritional composition.
The main limitation of the study is the criticisms regarding the use and operationalizability of the NOVA classification.