Ultra-processed foods: how does policy respond?

UPFs are industrially formulated edible substances derived from natural foods or synthesised from other organic compounds. They contain additives, colourings and preservatives that trigger a dopamine and endorphin release in the brain. UPFs tend to be calorie-dense and nutritionally poor. But it is not simply that they are high in salt, fat and sugar; evidence suggests that UPFs make us more likely to overeat. And they can cause inflammation and damage our gut microbiome due to the industrial additives and processing techniques used in their manufacture.

Because UPFs can be mass-produced and are not reliant on growing seasons or successful harvests, they are usually more affordable for the consumer. However, UPFs also provide an unprecedented opportunity for profit for the food industry. Multinational food producers can now manufacture products that are cheaper, tastier and faster to make than traditionally grown foods, and have a much longer shelf life.

The policy response: taxing soft drinks

Efforts to curb the seemingly unrelenting growth in consumption of UPFs have had some success. In the UK, the government introduced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in 2017. Also known as the Sugar Tax, it aimed to reduce sugar consumption by 20% by encouraging manufacturers to reformulate their soft drinks to contain less sugar.

Early assessments showed positive associations between the introduction of the tax and a reduction in obesity rates among children, with the greatest reduction seen among the most economically deprived groups. Sugar consumption among children was then halved in the three years following the introduction of the tax. Additionally, the tax raised £334 million in revenue in the 2021–22 financial year.

Similar taxes have been introduced around the world. Mexico introduced a sugar tax in 2014; by 2016, purchasing of sugar-sweetened beverages had fallen by 37%. South Africa introduced the Health Promotion Levy on sugary drinks in 2018, which led to a 57% reduction in consumption of these beverages, especially among lower socioeconomic groups.

Sugary drinks are perhaps the most easily identifiable UPF products. But UPFs are not limited to sugary and carbonated drinks – they include breakfast cereals, crisps, mass-produced bread, flavoured yoghurts, many canned goods and countless other products. UPFs can be found in virtually every aisle of our supermarkets.

Are government responses getting to the root of the problem?

While we have seen that national consumer taxes can be beneficial to curbing sugar intake and the consumption of UPFs, the lens of scrutiny has tended to focus on the life choices of everyday people rather than pointing towards the boards of corporations. In addition to taxation, there is a need to tackle the marketing of UPFs and lobbying by ‘big food’ corporations to curb obesity and its associated comorbidities.

Targeted policy is needed to encourage manufacturers to produce healthier products, rather than putting the onus on consumers. And sugar alone is not the culprit of rising obesity rates; artificial and calorie-dense nutrient profiles also contribute to the overconsumption of these products.

Attention should be paid to the political and commercial power that ‘big food’ holds on policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Multinational food companies spend millions on lobbying governments, often influencing political decision-making in their favour. To protect public health, policymakers should be better equipped and prepared to resist the lobbying power of these corporations.

Can international food marketing guidelines instigate meaningful action?

In 2023, for the first time in history, the World Health Organization (WHO) set clear guidelines to encourage governments to adopt tougher policies and regulations on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

It is now up to national policymakers and legislators to heed the call of the WHO, tighten regulatory constraints on the advertisement of UPFs, and protect and educate their populations. We know that measures like this can work, as seen in the effective anti-smoking legislation and tobacco control policies from around the world.

The trend of malnutrition continues to be worrisome; while rates of underweight have steadily gone down since 1990, rates of obesity continue to grow and the number of people living with obesity globally is four times what it was 30 years ago. Let these numbers be a call to action to governments and leaders around the world for more aggressive policies to tackle the growing lobbying power of the food industry.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of The Health Policy Partnership.