More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages

Criticisms of so-called "ultra-processed" foods are largely missing the reason why food is processed in the first place: offering shelf-stable nutritional value at an affordable price, writes Megan Kastner, policy manager for product policy at the US Consumer Brands Association. The misconception that fewer ingredients means healthier food is scientifically incorrect and disregards the population with food sensitivities, Kastner adds.

The term Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) has moved mainstream into the consumer mindset, for better and worse. Expert SA food scientist and consultant, Nigel Sunley, has penned this article for SAAFoST’s Food Advisory Consumer Service, outlining the concept and its inherent scientific weaknesses.

Reformulation strategies at leading food companies typically involve reducing salt, fat, and sugar. A more effective approach, claims famed pediatric endocrinologist, Dr Robert Lustig, is informed by three core principles underpinning metabolic health: protect the liver, feed the gut, support the brain.

In countries such as the UK, US and Canada, ultra-processed foods now account for 50% or more of calories consumed. This is concerning, given that these foods have been linked to a number of different health conditions, including a greater risk of obesity and various chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and dementia.

In the wake of the obesity pandemic, the concept and demonisation of "ultra-processed foods" has moved into the popular - and academic/professional - mindset. Here one of SA's leading food scientists, Nigel Sunley unpicks this thorny topic in an article based on a presentation he made at the SAAFoST Congress, Cape Town, in early September.