Explore the vast range of titles available.

This first paper in a three-part Lancet Series combines narrative and systematic reviews with original analyses and meta-analyses to assess three hypotheses concerning a dietary pattern based on ultra-processed foods. The first hypothesis—that this pattern is globally displacing long-established diets centred on whole foods and their culinary preparation as dishes and meals—is supported by decades of national food intake and purchase surveys, and recent global sales data. The second—that this pattern results in deterioration of diet quality, especially in relation to chronic disease prevention—is confirmed by national food intake surveys, large cohorts, and interventional studies showing gross nutrient imbalances; overeating driven by high energy density, hyper-palatability, soft texture, and disrupted food matrices; reduced intake of health-protective phytochemicals; and increased intake of toxic compounds, endocrine disruptors, and potentially harmful classes and mixtures of food additives. The third and final hypothesis—that this pattern increases the risk of multiple diet-related chronic diseases through various mechanisms—is substantiated by more than 100 prospective studies, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and mechanistic studies, covering adverse outcomes across nearly all organ systems. The totality of the evidence supports the thesis that displacement of long-established dietary patterns by ultra-processed foods is a key driver of the escalating global burden of multiple diet-related chronic diseases. Two companion papers in this Series specify policy actions and wider public health strategies to promote, protect, and support diets based on fresh and minimally processed foods and prevent their displacement by ultra-processed foods.

Dietary patterns high in ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been associated with poor diet quality and health outcomes, and are displacing healthier dietary patterns—meals and dishes prepared with fresh and minimally processed foods—in most parts of the world. In the second paper of this Series, we propose a set of government policies aimed at halting and reversing the rise of UPFs worldwide. To date, policies have mainly focused on reducing consumption of foods high in added fats, sugar, and sodium, many of which are UPFs. However, we propose that these efforts be strengthened and expanded to address a broader set of food system drivers influencing the production, marketing, and consumption of UPFs. This Series paper addresses four food policy domains that correspond to the key dimensions of food system drivers of UPF production, marketing, and consumption: UPF products, UPF food environments, UPF manufacturers, fast-food corporations, and supermarket corporations retailers, and food supply chains. For each domain, we explore policy options and focus on large-scale food system measures that target areas in greatest need of change, and their potential impacts. We also examine policies to protect, incentivise, and support dietary patterns based on fresh and minimally processed foods, particularly for lower income households. Which policy actions governments decide to prioritise will depend on each country's level of UPF consumption, along with many other issues unique to each country. We emphasise the importance of advancing this agenda in all countries, irrespective of their development status, to promote healthier diets among populations.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the consumption of ultra-processed foods in Australia and its association with the intake of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases (NCDs).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingNational Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (2011-2012).Participants12,153 participants aged 2+ years.Main outcome measuresAverage dietary content of nutrients linked to NCDs and the prevalence of intake outside levels recommended for the prevention of NCDs.Data analysisFood items were classified according to the NOVA system, a classification based on the nature, extent and purpose of industrial food processing. The contribution of each NOVA food group and their subgroups to total energy intake was calculated. Mean nutrient content of ultra-processed food and non-ultra-processed food fractions of the diet were compared. Across quintiles of the energy contribution of ultra-processed foods, differences in the intake of nutrients linked to NCDs as well as in the prevalence of intakes outside levels recommended for the prevention of NCDs were examined.ResultsUltra-processed foods had the highest dietary contribution (42.0% of energy intake), followed by unprocessed or minimally processed foods (35.4%), processed foods (15.8%) and processed culinary ingredients (6.8%). A positive and statistically significant linear trend was found between quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption and intake levels of free sugars (standardised β 0.43, p<0.001); total (β 0.08, p<0.001), saturated (β 0.18, p<0.001) and trans fats (β 0.10, p<0.001); sodium (β 0.21, p<0.001) and diet energy density (β 0.41, p<0.001), while an inverse relationship was observed for dietary fibre (β -0.21, p<0.001) and potassium (β -0.27, p<0.001). The prevalence of non-recommended intake levels of all studied nutrients increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food intake, notably from 22% to 82% for free sugars, from 6% to 11% for trans fat and from 2% to 25% for dietary energy density, from the lowest to the highest ultra-processed food quintile.ConclusionThe high energy contribution of ultra-processed foods impacted negatively on the intake of non-ultra-processed foods and on all nutrients linked to NCDs in Australia. Decreasing the dietary share of ultra-processed foods would substantially improve the diet quality in the country and help the population achieve recommendations on critical nutrients linked to NCDs.

BackgroundRapid simultaneous increases in ultra-processed food sales and obesity prevalence have been observed worldwide, including in Australia. Consumption of ultra-processed foods by the Australian population was previously shown to be systematically associated with increased risk of intakes of nutrients outside levels recommended for the prevention of obesity. This study aims to explore the association between ultra-processed food consumption and obesity among the Australian adult population and stratifying by age group, sex and physical activity level.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of anthropometric and dietary data from 7411 Australians aged ≥20 years from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011–2012 was performed. Food consumption was evaluated through 24-h recall. The NOVA system was used to identify ultra-processed foods, i.e. industrial formulations manufactured from substances derived from foods and typically added of flavours, colours and other cosmetic additives, such as soft drinks, confectionery, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, microwaveable frozen meals and fast food dishes. Measured weight, height and waist circumference (WC) data were used to calculate the body mass index (BMI) and diagnosis of obesity and abdominal obesity. Regression models were used to evaluate the association of dietary share of ultra-processed foods (quintiles) and obesity indicators, adjusting for socio-demographic variables, physical activity and smoking.ResultsSignificant (P-trend ≤ 0.001) direct dose–response associations between the dietary share of ultra-processed foods and indicators of obesity were found after adjustment. In the multivariable regression analysis, those in the highest quintile of ultra-processed food consumption had significantly higher BMI (0.97 kg/m2; 95% CI 0.42, 1.51) and WC (1.92 cm; 95% CI 0.57, 3.27) and higher odds of having obesity (OR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.27, 2.04) and abdominal obesity (OR = 1.38; 95% CI 1.10, 1.72) compared with those in the lowest quintile of consumption. Subgroup analyses showed that the trend towards positive associations for all obesity indicators remained in all age groups, sex and physical activity level.ConclusionThe findings add to the growing evidence that ultra-processed food consumption is associated with obesity and support the potential role of ultra-processed foods in contributing to obesity in Australia.

Food corporations have exploited the dominant model in nutrition science to shape the way their ultra-processed products are defended, promoted, and regulated. Gyorgy Scrinis examines their scientific strategies and suggests ways to reframe the debate

Objective To analyze the contribution of ultra-processed foods to the intake of free sugars among different age groups in Australia. Methods Dietary intakes of 12,153 participants from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (2011–12) aged 2+ years were evaluated. Food items collected through two 24-h recalls were classified according to the NOVA system. The contribution of each NOVA food group and their subgroups to total energy intake was determined by age group. Mean free sugar content in diet fractions made up exclusively of ultra-processed foods, or of processed foods, or of a combination of un/minimally processed foods and culinary ingredients (which includes table sugar and honey) were compared. Across quintiles of the energy contribution of ultra-processed foods, differences in the intake of free sugars, as well as in the prevalence of excessive free sugar intake (≥ 10% of total energy) were examined. Results Ultra-processed foods had the highest energy contribution among children, adolescents and adults in Australia, with older children and adolescents the highest consumers (53.1% and 54.3% of total energy, respectively). The diet fraction restricted to ultra-processed items contained significantly more free sugars than the two other diet fractions. Among all age groups, a positive and statistically significant linear association was found between quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption and both the average intake of free sugars and the prevalence of excessive free sugar intake. Conclusion Ultra-processed food consumption drives excessive free sugar intake among all age groups in Australia.

PurposeTo investigate intake levels of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases in Australia using the novel combination of food processing and nutrient profiling metrics of the PAHO Nutrient Profile Model.MethodsDietary intakes of 12,153 participants from the Australian Health Survey (2011–12) aged 2 + years were evaluated. Food items reported during a 24 h recall were classified using the NOVA system. The Pan-American Health Organization Nutrient Profile Model (PAHO NPM) was applied to identify processed and ultra-processed products with excessive content of critical nutrients. Differences in mean intakes and prevalence of excessive intakes of critical nutrients for groups of the population whose diets were made up of products with and without excessive content in critical nutrients were examined.ResultsThe majority of Australians consumed daily at least three processed and ultra-processed products identified as excessive in critical nutrients according to the PAHO NPM. Individuals consuming these products had higher intakes of free sugars (β = 8.9), total fats (β = 11.0), saturated fats (β = 4.6), trans fats (β = 0.2), and sodium (β = 1788 for adolescents and adults; β = 1769 for children 5–10 years; β = 1319 for children aged < 5 years) (p ≤ 0.001 for all nutrients) than individuals not consuming these foods. The prevalence of excessive intake of all critical nutrients also followed the same trend.ConclusionThe PAHO NPM has shown to be a relevant tool to predict intake levels of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases in Australia and, therefore, could be used to inform policy actions aimed at increasing the healthiness of food environments.

By contrast, ultra-processed foods are mostly enabled, produced and sold by a small number of transnational corporations, some of whose turnovers exceed the revenues of many countries and make annual profits of US$ billions.3 These corporations use their power to formulate, mass manufacture, distribute and aggressively market their products worldwide.4 These corporations shape scientific findings by funding in-house and university-based research, so as to defend and promote ultra-processed foods.5 They also exercise political power by intensive lobbying, donations and sponsorships, and until now have dissuaded most governments from adequately regulating their products and practices.6 Time-series food sales data indicate the explosive growth in manufacturing and consumption of ultra-processed foods worldwide.7 National dietary surveys show that ultra-processed foods already make up 50% or more of total dietary energy intake8 in high-income countries, with even higher consumption among children and adolescents.9 In middle-income countries, they now represent between 15% and 30% of total energy intake8 but sales of ultra-processed foods are increasing fastest in these countries.10 The pandemic of obesity and related diseases and its link with ultra-processing According to WHO, worldwide prevalence of obesity has nearly tripled since the mid-1970s, and now over 650 million adults are obese, and 1.9 billion adults and over 370 million children and adolescents are overweight or obese (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight). Three meta-analyses of findings from epidemiological studies, including large, long-duration, carefully conducted cohort studies, show dose-response associations between consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity, abdominal obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidaemias, metabolic syndrome, depression, cardio and cerebrovascular diseases and all-cause mortality.12–14 Analysis of national dietary or food purchase surveys in middle-income or high-income countries shows that the higher the dietary share of ultra-processed foods, the higher the obesogenic dietary nutrient profiles. Participants gained 0.9 kg at the end of the 2 weeks with the ultra-processed diet and lost 0.9 kg at the end of the non ultra-processed diet, mostly of body fat.15 A longitudinal ecological study of 80 countries from 2002 to 2016 shows a direct association between changes in annual per capita volume sales of ultra-processed foods and corresponding changes in population adult body mass index.16 Taken together, the totality of evidence summarised here shows beyond reasonable doubt that increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is a major contributor to the pandemic of obesity and related diseases. There is also mounting evidence of the harmful effects of the ultra-processed food industry on the planet, through its global demand for cheap ingredients that destroy forests and savannah, its displacement of sustainable farming, and its resource-intensive manufacturing and packaging.17 Policy responses To begin with, the UN Food Systems Summit should urge international and national health and food and nutrition authorities to review their dietary guidelines to emphasise preference for fresh or minimally processed foods and avoidance of ultra-processed foods, in line with guidelines developed, for example, by the WHO/Pan American Health Organization,18 and issued in several Latino-American countries, and now also in France, Belgium, and Israel.

Background Many of the harms created by the global soft drink industry that directly influence human and planetary health are well documented. However, some of the ways in which the industry indirectly affects population health, via various socio-economic pathways, have received less attention. This paper aimed to analyse the extent to which market power and corporate wealth and income distribution in the global soft drink market negatively impact public health and health equity. In doing so, the paper sought to contribute to the development of a broad-based public health approach to market analysis. A range of dimensions (e.g., market concentration; financial performance; corporate wealth and income distribution) and indicators (e.g., Herfindahl Hirschman Index; earnings relative to the industry average; effective tax rates; and shareholder value ratios) were descriptively analysed. Empirical focus was placed on the two dominant global soft drink manufacturers. Results Coca-Cola Co, and, to a lesser extent, PepsiCo, operate across an extensive patchwork of highly concentrated markets. Both corporations control vast amounts of wealth and resources, and are able to allocate relatively large amounts of money to potentially harmful practices, such as extensive marketing of unhealthy products. Over recent decades, the proportion of wealth and income transferred by these firms to their shareholders has increased substantially; whereas the proportion of wealth and income redistributed by these two firms to the public via income taxes has considerably decreased. Meanwhile, the distribution of soft drink consumption is becoming increasingly skewed towards population groups in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Conclusions Market power and corporate wealth and income distribution in the global soft drink market likely compound the market’s maldistribution of harms, and indirectly influence health by contributing to social and economic inequalities. Indeed, a ‘double burden of maldistribution’ pattern can be seen, wherein the wealth of the shareholders of the market’s dominant corporations, a group over-represented by a small and wealthy elite, is maximised largely at the expense of the welfare of LMICs and lower socioeconomic groups in high-income countries. If this pattern continues, the appropriate role of the global soft drink market as part of sustainable economic development will require rethinking.