Stop using the term ‘overly processed’ when talking about nutrition. This is the stance of researcher Jenny Chapman, who was recently awarded a Churchill Fellowship to investigate the adoption, acceptance and trust of plant-based meat products.
Their findings, published earlier this month, build on surveys that suggest “over-processing” relationships are hindering the adoption of plant-based meat alternatives. However, according to Chapman, such associations need to be completely separated from nutrition.
“Public discourse focusing on the ‘ultra-processed’ nature of plant-based meat has reached the point of hysteria. “The messaging is worryingly disconnected from the science and leads to widespread misconceptions 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 many different reasons)
Chapman believes plant-based meat alternatives will have the most significant impact on alternative protein consumption, at least in the short term. The industry is currently struggling with declining demand, a trend often linked to price, taste and accessibility.
However, the researcher was not convinced that hitting the target on all three counts would be enough to achieve widespread adoption. Observing consumers describing plant-based meat products as ultra-processed food (UPF), Chapman also realized that such connotations were perceived as extremely negative.
In qualitative research that took him from the UK to the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Chapman found that the term ‘overprocessed’ meant different things to different people. “People regularly say they don’t like a food because it’s overly processed. Very rarely has anyone said this? like It’s a food because it’s ultra-processed.”
The researcher concluded that the vast majority of “overprocessed” relationships were negative. But when asked what exactly UPF respondents dislike, concerns emerge about environmental products’ plastic packaging, links to the erosion of indigenous food cultures, and the number of ingredients on the UPF product label.
“The problematic thing 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 they actually have very different ideas about what that concept means to them,” Chapman told FoodNavigator.
“That’s one of the reasons why there’s so much confusion about the term, because it’s used by different people to refer to different aspects of food.”
What is ultra-processed food? So is it ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’?
The most common definition of UPF comes from the Nova food classification system, developed in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.
The Nova system divides food processing levels into four classes: raw and minimally processed foods; processed kitchen materials; processed foods; and ultra-processed foods. This last category is by definition ‘industrial creation’.
Having delved into Monteiro’s work, Chapman explained that what Nova can tell you is whether a food was produced in a factory. “What it cannot, or at least is never intended to do, is give any indication of the nutritional value of a food,” he continued.
“Monteiro’s work reveals his concerns about changes in social structures in Brazil. He is concerned that people are no longer spending time in the kitchen cooking and has concerns about diabetes and obesity. “He identified something that he believes is responsible for all these problems: factory-produced food.”
Chapman concludes that the Nova system is therefore a sociopolitical framework rather than a nurturing framework. But this sociopolitical framework has since been applied to foods by nutrition scientists, suggesting that this was never the researcher’s intent.
“This is not a scientific definition…and has no place in nutritional science. “Monteiro’s original definition was never intended to group foods according to whether they are healthy or not.”
Chapman emphasized that he was not criticizing the Nova classification system because it did a ‘great job’ in the sociopolitical context. “But the fact that it has been misused has led to some unfair criticism [of certain food products].
“If we are interested in health, there is no point in using a sociopolitical definition and framework in a completely different academic field.”
Distinguishing plant-based meat from UPF’s ‘unhealthy’ connotations
So how does all this relate to the plant-based meat category? Plant-based meat alternative products are produced in a factory and are therefore ultra-processed in nature.
But if the Nova definition only applies in a sociopolitical context (rather than nutritional science), Chapman argues that plant-based meat products cannot be tarnished as ‘unhealthy’ simply because they are overly processed.
Not all agree. The meat industry-backed Center for Consumer Freedom in the US, for example, has been quite open in its criticism of the plant-based meat industry, highlighted in a series of ads in 2019 attacking ‘ultra-processed’ plant-based burgers that hide unappetising flavours. and unpronounceable components.
Of course, plant-based meat products may contain unpronounceable ingredients or E-numbers. But Chapman boils this down to the concept of ingredients lists, which he describes as ‘a reflection of what governments think we should know about that food’ rather than ‘an accurate scientific reflection of the molecules present’ in food. formulation.
A ‘binder’ ingredient listed in the ingredient list may concern consumers, but if shoppers understand that binders are used to prevent certain foods from separating (just like the egg in a brownie recipe), then this concern will likely disappear. “A lot needs to be done to reassure people that their food is safe,” we were told.
While food safety agencies do an ‘incredible’ job to ensure our food is safe, Chapman’s research has revealed a distrust of foods 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 both healthier and more sustainable foods and diets should be promoted, regardless of their degree of processing. She also suggests that nuances around nutrition and ‘hyper-processed food’ need to be carefully communicated.
Chapman’s guidelines for plant-based meat companies include:
- Proactively and honestly address ‘ultra-processed food’ concerns to counter misinformation through clear, jargon-free information on product websites about how products are made;
- Have online product pages that provide clear information about each component to clarify their functions;
- Ensure all staff are trained so they feel confident in understanding the range of current concerns around ‘ultra-processed food’
- Academics and policymakers, as well as industry representatives, should establish an interdisciplinary working group to find and implement ways to tackle ‘ultra-processed food’ and nutritional misinformation to enable consumers to make more informed decisions about healthier and more sustainable foods and diets.
If we know what it is not ‘unhealthy’, then what is‘healthy’?
In recent years, research has not looked favorably on UPF. Examples include studies linking UPF consumption to poor health outcomes, such as a higher risk of developing cancer and a higher death rate.
A well-known research study conducted by nutrition and metabolism scientist Kevin Hall and published in 2019 found that when people followed an ultra-processed diet, they consumed more than 500 kcal per day compared to those who followed an ultra-processed diet. processed foods, but are controlled for the same amount of fat, fiber, sugar, salt and carbohydrates.
Not all UPF research findings are negative
A recent study published in The Lancet concluded that UPF consumption may often be linked to multiple diseases. But it doesn’t apply to all UPFs: No links have been found between multiple illnesses and consumption of UPFs, including breakfast cereals, packaged bread and plant-based alternatives.
Chapman said the results were ‘interesting’ as the only randomized controlled trial to date specifically examining UPF. But the food systems researcher questions whether the two groups consume the same quality of food. “Hall added soluble fiber to drinks on the UPF diet, as there is much more fiber in the non-UPF diet.”
Chapman believes the study is a good start to discussions about fiber content, eating speed and satiety. “We need to focus on eating speed, fiber, and how different foods make us feel full or not. To me, the science is pretty mixed on the specific foods that people overeat, and that’s one of the criticisms we hear about processed foods. “We need to examine this issue in more detail.”
But ultimately the UPF framework turned into a ‘reframing of junk food’, the researcher said. “If people want to eat a minimally processed whole food diet, I think that’s great. But I also think recommending that people cook from scratch and buy their food from local grocery stores is problematic, classist, and unattainable for the majority.”
If the degree of processing of a food does not indicate that it is ‘healthy’, how do we know what ‘healthy’ is?
Chapman suggested that nutritional labeling on the front of the package might help. In the UK, where it is based, the voluntary choice scheme is called traffic light labelling. “I think this is excellent, but I would like to see the addition of a fiber component or a glycemic index.
“Foods in isolation are not healthy or unhealthy. It’s all about the context of someone’s diet. A plant-based meat product can be really high in fiber and therefore have a good glycemic index. However, if you consume it in a bun with chips and ketchup as a meal, this will be problematic in some ways.
“The focus needs to be on the food… This nuance is often lost in discussions.”