When it comes to public health guidance, caution is crucial, especially regarding ultra-processed foods. Experts suggest that instead of issuing blanket bans, we should focus on reducing the intake of foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt until more conclusive research emerges.
Many health professionals are advocating against outright bans on ultra-processed foods, citing potential social harms and a lack of direct evidence linking these foods to negative health outcomes. They argue for a balanced public health strategy that prioritizes the reduction of known dietary risks rather than vilifying all ultra-processed products.
In a recent perspective article, Professors Alexandra Johnstone from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health at the University of Aberdeen and Eric Robinson from the University of Liverpool highlight the risks of premature warnings to consumers. Advising individuals to avoid all ultra-processed food products could lead to social costs and may particularly affect those facing food poverty, at least in the short term.
The professors stress that until we have a clearer understanding of the relationship between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and health issues, public advice should concentrate on avoiding foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt. They caution that issuing formal warnings about UPFs in the UK, as some other countries have done, could be counterproductive and urge policymakers to reconsider how dietary guidance is framed.
