by Recently British Journal of Nutrition study investigated whether processed foods follow all dietary recommendations.
Study: Nutrients or processing? Analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, NOVA classification and package traffic light labeling. Image Credit: Niloo/Shutterstock.com
Background
The UK dietary guidelines recommend limited consumption of foods high in saturated fat, added sugar, and salt (HFSS). A higher intake of HFSS raises the risk of non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and mortality.
Typically, the public receives all relevant nutrition information through multiple strategies, including front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) and the Eating Well Guide.
This information helps consumers make informed decisions about the type of food to buy at the point of purchase.
It must be noted that FOPL systems differ across countries. For example, in some countries, nutritional information is non-interpretable on food labels, while other countries follow color-coded nutritional information.
In the UK, a system of multiple traffic lights (MTL) is followed, ie. color coding system. In European countries, nutritional information is provided by providing a Nutri Score.
According to the FOPL color coding system, green represents a low amber medium, while red represents a high nutrient content, ie fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar, and so on. Previous studies have shown that the food processing system affects health as well as nutrient content.
Many systems classify food and drink. For example, the NOVA classification focuses on categorizing foods and beverages into four groups, namely, minimally processed food (MPF), processed cooking 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 very tasty, cheap and long lasting.
Increased consumption of UPF has many adverse health effects, leading to increased risks of non-communicable diseases and all-cause mortality.
It is crucial to understand whether food processing must be considered as a criterion to guide consumer purchases.
About the study
The current study investigated whether the extent and purpose of food and beverage processing has an impact on nutrient content.
The NOVA classification of UK food and drink, considered in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) Year 12 Rolling Register database was assessed for overlap with FOPL nutritional characteristics and MTL scoring.
The food and beverage items considered in the NDNS were coded as MPF, PF, PCI, and UPF following the NOVA classification and the FOPL traffic light system.
A final sample of 2,980 food items was included in the analysis, over half of which were UPFs. About a third of the food items were classified as MPFs, 2% were PCI, and 9.5% were PFs.
Results of the study
Compared to MPFs, UPFs were found to have a healthier nutritional profile, but this was not the case for PFs.
UPFs contained higher amounts of total sugar, saturated fat, fat and salt than MPFs. UPFs were more likely to be categorized as hyper-palatable and were more energy dense.
UPFs and PFs contained similar amounts of salt, saturated fat, and fat, but UPFs had higher amounts of sugar. Additionally, UPFs had fewer green FOPL traffic lights.
It was noted that not all UPFs had 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 no FOPL red traffic light. UPFs were also seen to be more energy dense compared to PFs and MPFs. These results show that the FOPL MTL system covers only part of the purpose and scope of food processing.
Conclusions
This study showed that UPFs tend to have an unhealthier nutritional profile and higher energy density than MPFs.
They also had fewer green FOPL traffic lights. Compared to PFs, UPFs were considered more energy dense. UPFs were also seen to have poor nutritional quality even if they performed well in the traffic light system.
The results suggest a case for rethinking how processing might be used with UK dietary recommendations, given that some UPFs appear healthy according to FOPL MTL scores.
The main strength of this study lies in the large nationally representative database of food and drink items with matched information on nutrient composition.
The main limitation of the study relates to the criticism of the use and operability of the NOVA classification.
