by Don’t use the term ‘ultra-processed’ when talking about nutrition. This is the position of researcher Jenny Chapman, who was recently awarded a Churchill Fellowship to investigate the uptake, adoption and trust of plant-based meat products.
Her findings, published earlier this month, build on surveys that suggest ‘ultra-processing’ associations are hindering the adoption of plant-based meat alternatives. But according to Chapman, such associations should be completely decoupled from nutrition.
“Public discourse focusing on the ‘ultra-processed’ nature of plant-based meat has reached the point of hysteria. Messages are worryingly disconnected from science and there is a widespread misconception 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 very different reasons)
Chapman is betting that plant-based meat choices will have the most significant impact on alternative protein consumption, at least in the short term. The sector is currently struggling with reduced demand, a trend often linked to price, taste and accessibility.
But the researcher is not convinced that hitting the mark on all three scores is enough to achieve large-scale adoption. After noting that consumers identified plant-based meat products as ultra-processed food (UPF), Chapman also noted that such connotations were perceived as extremely negative.
In qualitative research that took her from the UK to the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Chapman found that the term ‘ultra-processed’ means different things to different people. “People regularly say they don’t like food because it’s ultra-processed. Rarely did anyone say them good food because it’s ultra-processed.”
The researcher concluded that the vast majority of ‘ultra-processed’ associations were negative. But when asked directly about what UPF respondents disliked, concerns about the plastic packaging of the products, links to the erosion of indigenous food cultures, and the number of ingredients on UPF product labeling.
“The problem with 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 in fact they are they have very different ideas about what that concept means to them,” Chapman told FoodNavigator.
“That’s one of the reasons why there’s a lot of confusion about the term, because different people are using it to refer to different aspects of food.”
What is ultra-processed food? And does it mean ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’?
The most common definition of UPF comes from the so-called Nova food classification system, developed in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
The Nova system divides the levels of food processing into four classifications, from raw foods and minimally processed foods; with processed cooking ingredients; processed foods; and ultra-processed foods. This last category is by definition an ‘industrial creation’.
Nova can tell you whether food was produced in a factory, Chapman explained after taking on Monteiro’s work. What it cannot, or at least what it was not intended to do, is give any indication of the nutritional value of food, she continued.
“Monteiro’s work reflects his concern about changes in social structures in Brazil. He worries that people are no longer spending time in the kitchen cooking and he worries about diabetes and obesity. He identified something that he believes is responsible for all these issues: food produced in factories.”
Thus, according to Chapman, the Nova system is a sociopolitical framework, rather than a nutritional one. But that sociopolitical framework has since been applied to food by nutritional scientists, which the researcher insists was never his intention.
“It is not a scientific definition … and it has no place in nutritional science. Monteiro’s original definition was not intended to group foods on the basis of whether they were healthy or not.”
Chapman emphasized that she is not critical of Nova’s classification system, as it does a ‘great job’ in a socio-political context. “But the fact that it has been misused has led to a very unfair criticism [of certain food products].
“If we’re interested in health, it doesn’t make sense to use a sociopolitical definition and framework in a completely different academic field.”
Decoupling plant-based meat from ‘unhealthy’ UPF symptoms
So how does all this relate to the plant-based meat category? Well, plant-based meat alternative products are produced in a factory, and therefore are essentially ultra-processed.
But if Nova’s definition is only relevant in a socio-political context (rather than nutritional science), Chapman argues that plant-based meat products cannot be condemned as ‘unhealthy’ simply because they are ultra-processed.
Not all agree. The meat industry-backed Center for Consumer Freedom in the US has been very public in its criticism of the plant-based meat industry, highlighted in a series of ads in 2019 attacking hidden ‘ultra-processed’ plant-based burgers unappetizing. and unpronounceable ingredients.
Of course, plant-based meat products can contain so-called non-redundant ingredients, or E-numbers. But Chapman puts this down to the concept of ingredient lists, which she described as ‘a reflection of what governments think we need to know about that food’, rather than an ‘accurate scientific representation of the molecules present in the food. forms.
A ‘binder’ ingredient on an ingredients list might be off-putting to consumers, but if shoppers understood that binders are used to stop certain foods from separating – just like an egg in a cake recipe – it’s likely that the worry that. “There is a lot to do to reassure people that their food is safe,” we were told.
Although food safety agencies are doing an ‘incredible’ job to ensure our food is safe, Chapman’s research revealed a lack of trust in foods deemed ‘unnatural’. “Plant-based meat companies need to reassure people that the ingredients they’re using are safe, that there’s nothing to worry about.”
What can the industry do to better promote plant-based meat consumption?
Researcher Jenny Chapman believes that healthier and more sustainable foods and diets should be promoted, regardless of the degree of processing. She also argues that nuance should be carefully communicated when it comes to nutrition and ‘ultra-processed food’.
Chapman’s guidelines for plant-based meat companies include:
- Proactively and honestly address ‘ultra-processed food’ concerns to combat misinformation through clear, jargon-free information on product websites about how products are made;
- Have online product pages that provide clear information about each ingredient to explain their function;
- Ensure that training is provided to all staff so that they are confident in understanding the range of concerns surrounding ‘ultra-processed food’.
- And industrial processors, together with academics and policy makers should form an interdisciplinary working group to find and implement ways to overcome ‘ultra-processed food’ and nutrition misinformation to empower consumers to make informed decisions to become better informed about healthier and more sustainable foods and diets.
If we know what was … not‘unhealthy’, then what yes‘healthy’?
In recent years, research on UPF has not looked favorably. Examples include studies linking UPF consumption to poor health outcomes such as a greater risk of developing cancer and a higher mortality rate.
A famous research study by nutrition and metabolism scientist Kevin Hall, published in 2019, found that when people followed an ultra-processed diet, they consumed up to 500 kcal per day more than when they followed a diet free of ultra-processed. processed foods, but controlled for the same amount of fat, fiber, sugar, salt and carbohydrates.
Not all UPF research results are negative
A recent study published in The Lancet concluded that the consumption of UPFs can often be linked to multiple diseases. But not for all UPFs: no link was found between multiple diseases and the consumption of UPFs including breakfast cereals, packaged bread, and plant-based alternatives.
As the only randomized controlled trial to date looking specifically at UPF, the results are ‘interesting’, Chapman said. But the food systems researcher questions whether the two groups were eating the same quality of nutrients. “Because the non-UPF diet had much more fiber, Hall added soluble fiber to the UPF diet drinks.”
Chapman believes the study is a good opening for conversations about fiber content, eating speed and satiety. “We need to focus on eating speed and fiber and how different foods make us feel full or not. For me, the science is very mixed about certain foods that overweight people eat and this is one of the criticisms we hear about processed foods. We need to look into this further.”
But ultimately, the UPF framework has turned into a ‘reframing of junk food’, the researcher said. “If people want to eat a whole food diet that’s minimally processed, I think that’s great. But I also think it’s problematic, classist and out of reach for most to suggest that people should cook from scratch and buy their food from local green grocers.
If the extent to which a food is processed does not indicate its ‘healthiness’, how do we know what is ‘healthy’?
Nutrition labeling on the front of the package can help, Chapman suggested. In the UK, where it is based, the voluntary choice scheme is referred to as traffic light labelling. “I think it’s great, but I would love to add a fiber component, or a glycemic index.
“Foods alone are not healthy or unhealthy. It is in the context of someone’s diet. A plant-based meat product can be very high in fiber, so it has a good glycemic index. But if you’re eating it with chips and ketchup in a bun as a meal, aspects of that will be problematic.
“The focus needs to be on the meal… That nuance is often lost in the discussion.”
