Groups oppose the introduction of dietary standards that emphasize processed foods.
WASHINGTON Many business groups have advised the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to exercise caution when include the issue of ultra-processed foods in its recommendations since the impacts on human health have not been adequately investigated by scientific study.
A portion of the video comments that were submitted to the DGAC for the committee’s third public meeting, which took place on September dealt with the topic of ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
The DGAC subcommittees asked hundreds of questions about dietary patterns, drinks, diet during pregnancy and kids, and food pattern modeling. One topic about ultra-processed foods sparked an especially strong reaction from a number of food industry groups.
A subcommittee studying dietary patterns and particular dietary pattern components throughout life stages asked the issue about ultra-processed food. Almost all ten of the subcommittee’s questions focus on opinions on the connection between “dietary patterns consumed” and the chance of developing different types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. However, the fourth query is about extremely processed foods:
Allison Cooke, vice president of the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), testified on behalf of the Food and Beverage Issue Alliance (FBIA), expressing concern about the lack of agreement in classifying processed foods and the disparities in categorization schemes used in scientific studies.
Because there is disagreement on the definition of UPFs and the research is primarily observational, “FBIA members caution the committee from making strong recommendations” regarding subcommittee 1’s inquiry, she stated. “The committee should ensure that consumer-facing messages clearly define which kinds of ultra-processed foods to avoid and that any definition of ultra-processed foods does not include otherwise healthy foods that promote nutrition security.”
Ms. Cooke advised against basing evidence reviews exclusively on the NOVA classification system, which divides foods into four groups according to the degree of processing involved in their production. She claimed that this system may overlook nutritional content and produce results that are inconsistent.
She stressed food processing’s advantages and cautioned against the development of a “good food-bad food system.”
The consequence of classifying foods inconsistently based on processing degree was demonstrated by The Grain Chain, a coalition of groups supporting the grain-based foods sector. They revealed that enhanced grains—which comprise 95% of all refined grains and are a significant, reasonably priced source of nutrition—have been mistakenly identified as UPFs, which is worrisome. Sam Schneider
The head of regulatory and scientific affairs of the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), Jennifer Norka, MPH, stated, “We recommend the committee to discontinue using the term until there is consensus on an evidence-based definition.”
“An important, but still developing area of nutrition research is studying the effects of ultra-processed foods on human health,” stated Mitch Kanter, PhD, chief science officer of The Alliance for Potato Research & Education.
After a formal definition has been established, Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, on behalf of the American Heart Association, asked that the committee broaden its study of UPFs to include cardiometabolic illnesses. Dr. Vadiveloo teaches nutrition and health sciences as an assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island’s Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences.
A number of comments requested that the committee take into account the advantages that come with food processing, such as increased nutrition, longer shelf life and less food waste, food safety and security, convenience, and affordability.