The online session began with an insightful presentation from Paul Sheldrake, group application and technical director for the Healy Group.
Sheldrake set the scene, elaborating on the current industry challenges and general mood around ultra processed foods (UPFs). He also highlighted some of the ways the raw ingredients supplier is helping to support the sector as it attempts to cater to ‘clean label’ demands.
“Lots of work is being done trying to sort fact from fiction and emotion. We have to remember there is no legal definition, which is a real headache,” he said on the topic of trying to create healthier foods.
The aforementioned health committee has now set out several recommendations; among them that further research on negative health outcomes and UPFs is undertaken. Studies are already underway and, as usual, the industry is working on its own solutions in the interim. The question is – what kind of change does UPF require – is it totally drastic or more of the same (i.e. focused on fats, salts and sugars)?
“The noise around all the processed food is beginning to have implications for ingredients suppliers like us. It’s presenting both challenges and opportunities within the supply chain,” explained Genna Freeman-Dennis, application specialist for the Healy Group.
“We have seen highlighted demand for specialised functional ingredients and we’re tasked with finding more natural products to mimic these ultra processed foods.”
With terminology such as HFSS, clean label and UPF circulating, it’s easy to become muddled. And while industry will generally have a decent grasp on the concept of UPFs, definitions and opinions still vary. That confusion intensifies among consumers who are no doubt flummoxed by a whirlwind of contradicting content from reliable and not-so-reliable sources. And to add further complications, we’re likely to see differing demands from retailers and other customers.
“There’s going to be a customer and a consumer perspective on it,” raised Alan Jones, head of R&D innovation and regulation for Baker & Baker.
“In terms of our customers who we produce for, we’re already starting to see this, and I think we’ll continue to see more and more of it. I think most of our customers will develop their own approach – and that will lead to complexity.
“I think it’ll probably go down the ‘clean label’ route. We’ll probably be asked to justify why we’re using ingredients which are not in the kitchen cupboard or why we’re using additives. And that’s an absolutely fair challenge because we should really only be using additives or different ingredients if they are adding functionality.”
Both Jones and Matt McAuliffe, plant-based & futures innovation director for The Compleat Food Group, emphasised the importance of education going forward.
“Less than 1% of the population are eating in line with the Eat Well diet – it’s the biggest challenge we’ve got in this industry,” McAuliffe shared.
Elin Roberts, co-founder and co-CEO and Better Nature had similar thoughts, adding that the debate is not clear cut and that a lack of understanding from some consumers could lead to other issues, such as avoiding foods which are good for you.
“That makes me a bit nervous because I think people are making quite big choices around their health without actually fully understanding it,” she said.
The panel’s definitions and stance on UPFs
Elin Roberts
My definition of a UPF is a food that no longer resembles its natural form through extensive processing and this is often done to maximise outputs, minimise costs and with a limited care for human health. My view on the debate is I think I don’t think that we can avoid UPF altogether. I think they play a key role in terms of convenience, long shelf life.
We live in a very convenience focused world. However, our reliance on them at the moment is completely excessive.
Matt McAuliffe
My definition of a UPF is a product that contains ingredients that you don’t have readily available in your store cupboards at home.
My position around UPF could be compared to how we used to talk about fats – and the fact that they were all [deemed] bad. However, through research, we’ve learned this wasn’t the case. There are good fats and bad fats. We’ve got ample scientific based research, that says a diet rich in saturated fat, salt and sugar is bad for you, and that following a balanced diet remains the best for yours and the planet’s health.
Genna Freeman-Dennis
Ultra processed foods include items that are industrially manufactured. These food and drinks contain multiple ingredients which include additives, preservatives, and artificial flavours. These foods are often high in salt, fat and sugar. The food and drinks that claim to be lower in salt, fat and sugar are also often ladened with artificial ingredients in replace of the reduced ingredients. Ultra Processed products undergo several stages of processing which in turn alters the original ingredients, where their original form are completely altered.
The addictive nature of these hyper palatable foods which are engineered for taste and convenience, encourages over consumption. This excessive consumption contributes to the rise of chronic diseases. These products are marketed as time saving and affordable are giving a misleading perception of convenience.
Not only are UPF’s a significant contribution to health crisis, there are environmental concerns, social inequality and the loss of food cultures. There needs to be a systematic change. The food industry should be regulated more strictly, with education to the general public and promoting access to healthy, minimally processed foods.
Alan Jones
There is no universally accepted definition for Ultra Processed Foods which means that it is open to interpretation. Ultra Processed Foods are foods that have probably had unusual processes or relatively new technologies applied to their ingredients or to the finished product itself. They probably (typically) consist of numerous ingredients and could include one or more additive(s). They probably (often) consist of ingredients that are not available in a normal kitchen cupboard and are likely to have a long shelf life, be convenient and be relatively cheap.
UPF has no agreed definition and has many different models although NOVA is the most commonly applied. UPF is an attempt to identify a missing link which is responsible for obesity and other significant poor health outcomes. It assumes that the scientifically tested principles and understanding of the field of nutrition, HFSS products, dietary guidelines, the testing of additives and the novel foods / technologies regulations, are not effective as the health outcomes linked to any interventions applied to date have not had the desired results. It is an umbrella approach that assigns products to a UPF category whereby all products in this category should be avoided and are equally culpable for the stated poor health outcomes regardless of any health benefits they may bring – without evidence to support this position.
It is also a topic that encourages consumers to eat fresh, healthy, home cooked and minimally processed meals. It is something that we as consumers and especially we in the food industry should be taking seriously and we should encourage further, more scientific research to understand the matter in more depth, to agree a UPF definition and to ascertain whether nutritionally beneficial UPFs should be excluded or not. Ultimately the aim should be to understand exactly what it is within the UPF umbrella that is causing these poor health outcomes and who it is impacting most and why. Then Government, the Food industry, Retailers, NGOs and all other relevant stakeholders can work together to address the issues and give a joined up guidance rather than yet more conflicting and confusing messages to an already bewildered consumer.
Kate Halliwell
I don’t actually have my own definition of UPF because I don’t find it particularly useful to have one. And that’s not to be dismissive; I’m of course really aware of this debate, I follow the science behind it really closely.
There are lots of definitions and we’ve seen a little bit of a variety – even among the panel members. Nova [classification] is definitely the one that is most commonly quoted, but for me, usually when people are talking about UPF, they’re talking about them because of the impact on health.
The scientific evidence base as it stands is really clear: that we have strong evidence that it’s the nutrient content that really impacts [health]. So if I’m talking to companies about health. and what they might do with their products to help improve the nation’s health, then I don’t talk about UPF, I talk about fruit and vegetables, fibre, saturated fat, [and] sugars and salt.
What we have at the moment is a lot of observation studies [on UPFs]. What they do show is that people who eat the highest levels of UPFs – and the definition differs – have been linked to an array of poor health outcomes. That’s everything from cancer to heart disease.
It’s really concerning that you can see that association – but is [just] an association. What those studies can never show you is what’s actually causing it [i.e. the root cause].
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have said we have to proceed with real caution on the evidence base as it stands. The Government has committed to funding more research and I think that’s really important because if there is another thing that we need to layer on our dietary guidelines, it’s really important we understand that. But they have also said that at the moment there isn’t enough evidence to put it into the dietary guidelines and they’re going to keep maintain a watching brief on it.
What now?
The scenario we need to avoid is similar to that of emission calculators, wherein the industry has worked in silos to bridge the gap in regulation. While these efforts are to be commended, it has also resulted in a fluctuation of data and processes – meaning there is no real comparison or benchmark.
“There’s lots of innovation happening in the industry – but there’s a lot more to do,” Kate Halliwell, chief scientific officer for the FDF commented. “To help that we need to be clear about what it is that we are meant to be doing.
“We have health issues in this country which are related to the food we eat and so, of course as food companies, we have responsibilities there. But what’s going to drive that and how do we unlock private sector investment to help drive that even further than we’ve already come?”
For Halliwell, she believes more is needed from government in the form of support for SMEs and guidance on how private investment can unlocked, alongside an overarching food strategy that provides clear, long-term goals.
Should we exclude certain businesses from the conversation?
One of the recommendations that came out the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s report was to exclude food businesses that derive more than a certain proportion of sales from less healthy products from policy discussions.
Roberts believes incentives and legislation are important to driving healthier food innovation, arguing that for many businesses the incentive is simply to create tasty products so people eat more. Of course, taste is important, and we’ll still need products to be tasty, but also nutritionally high in quality.
“Incentives to create health options are really important because I think at the end of the day, a lot of food businesses, they’re businesses for profit,” Roberts contended.
Levelling the playing field was a key topic of conversation from many of those who attended the House of Lord sessions.
“We can create all the healthiest options in the world, but if consumers don’t actually eat them or buy them, then what’s the point?” Roberts continued. “There are so many products in the supermarket that are not very healthy. And that’s not just about UPFs.
“A lot of smaller businesses – we have that more mission driven approach – they are really trying to create healthier options. But if they’re competing against these big businesses which are more incentivised to create the less healthy options.
“I think sometimes we rely too much on the goodwill of people rather than putting legislation in place.”
Roberts said she agrees with the notion of excluding certain businesses from shaping policies around health.
“I think the more you sort of dig into nutrition research, you see how much of it is funded by big organisations that are obviously going to be quite biased,” she argued.
“I’m sure there are wonderful people that are working in these big organisations, but they do have responsibility to make a profit. That is why they exist. They have shareholders.
“It would add another incentive for them to increase the percentage of their products that are healthy.”
But Baker & Baker’s Jones disagreed: “A number of the products that we produce are HFSS and UPF, and if we’re excluded from that [conversations] then it could be argued that we could lose some incentive.
“Over the last eight or so years we ran a huge sugar reduction campaign, and we spent a lot of money in terms of investment and running trials and changing products. Now we’ve taken out about 1,000 tonnes of white sugar per year from our products. So from a nutritional point of view, our products are healthier than they were, which can only be a good thing.
“When we make things like changes like that, it’s just imperative that the quality is not impacted. It takes a lot of effort and a lot of resource to make that happen.”
Compleat Food Group’s McAuliffe and the FDF’s Halliwell held similar views to Jones.
“I’d rather we were all held to task – whether that’s mandatory health reporting [or otherwise], which we’d happily participate in. It’s a big subject – but I think we need to all be around the table,” McAuliffe said.
“The Government doesn’t make our food,” flagged Halliwell. “So the thought that government would then try and make policies without talking to the people that actually make food, that understand the process, that understand the ingredients that are going in, I think that would be extraordinary and actually would lead, unintentionally, to really poor policy outcomes. Of course, you may want to put parameters around that [their participation].”
