The debate around ultra-processed food continues to rage, hinging largely on whether or not it is a useful concept to describe a food’s healthiness.
Critics of the concept argue that it ignores nutritional composition and focuses primarily on processing, whilst its supporters say that UPFs have created a dietary pattern that has consistently been linked to poor health outcomes.
Yet even if lawmakers were to put the weight of their support squarely behind the latter group, legislating against UPFs would remain challenging.
A definition of UPFs would not be a magic bullet
Before ultra-processed foods can be regulated, lawmakers must know exactly what they are. This is easier said than done.
Key bodies around the world are currently attempting to draw up a workable definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of developing one, as is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), although the latter recently said it was proving more difficult than expected.
But even if a definition were successfully developed, could this provide the basis for regulation?
Let’s take the current definition, or at least that which is most commonly used. Ultra-processed foods commonly are defined by the Nova classification as foods which are made through industrial processes, composed of ingredients extracted from whole foods, combined with additives, and containing few ingredients commonly found in home kitchens.
There are, of course, many other existing definitions, and many more will no doubt come into existence before long. But the problem remains: unless the regulation is based on simple nutrient or ingredient thresholds, it will no doubt be far more complex than much existing regulation.
Many of the existing food standards in the Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations’ vast body of global food standards, are based on levels. Levels of certain ingredients and foodstuffs are easy to regulate – if they go over a certain threshold, they fall into the scope of the regulation.
UPFs, at least by Nova’s definition, are far more difficult to regulate in this way. Would such a regulation introduce maximum amounts for certain industrial processes? Would certain additives be regulated, or would they all? Would the new regulation take nutritional composition into account, or simply leave this to existing legislation?
One example exists already: California in the US has adopted its own definition. This largely involves additives, with less focus on processing itself, but also takes nutritional composition into account.
A new definition of UPFs may make regulation easier by laying down more precise measures of just what foods are ultra-processed, and which are not. But if it is to take into account the full concept of ‘ultra-processed’ rather than simply end up as more anti-HFSS legislation, similar to the UK’s targeting far, salt and sugar, it must address all the different aspects that make up the UPF concept.
Everything depends on context
Like all legislation, anti-UPF legislation would be required to take context into account.
A balance would have to be drawn between the evidence that an additive or process is linked to harm, and the context it is used. In some cases, an additive may be necessary for food preservation, for instance.
Furthermore, the regulation would need to take into account UPFs which are also nutrient-dense and may provide consumers with benefits that would outweigh the drawbacks.
Finally, a decision would need to be made on how far to go: whether simply to tax UPFs, restrict them from schools, or even ban particularly egregious examples.
This is not to say that such regulation is impossible, or that it should not be done. Many products that fall under existing definitions of UPF have very few nutritional benefits, and have been consistently linked to poor health outcomes.
Even for the food industry itself, regulation could be beneficial – the relentless bad press UPFs have built up over the years for the food industry would be, at least in part, assuaged by regulation.
But the complexity of drawing up such regulation must not be underestimated.
