Organic food retailing: to what extent are foods processed and do they contain markers of ultra-processing?

Ultra-processing should be understood as a holistic issue, from food matrix, to dietary patterns, food scoring, and food systems

The ultra-processed food (UPF) concept first emerged 15 years ago, and is now studied worldwide in different contexts, for example, human health, food behavior, socio-economic, food consumption, food scoring, and food system sustainability. Briefly, UPFs are defined as containing at least one marker of ultra-processing (MUP). MUPs are (1) cosmetic additives, (2) aromas, (3) some highly processed carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and/or fiber, and (4) drastic processes directly applied to food such as extrusion cooking or puffing. The first three categories of MUPs are on the food packaging in the list of ingredients, and are extracted, then purified, from raw foods or coming from artificial syntheses, leading to a-matrix/a-cellular compounds. Therefore, the core paradigm to define MUP is extreme food matrix degradation, and for UPF, matrix artificialization. Besides, UPFs are more than just junk food, encompassing numerous industrialized foods, falsely presented as healthy, for example, animal-based food analogs, but also organic, vegan, gluten-free, micronutrient-enriched, and/or light foods. In this way, UPFs are "high-quality junk foods." Otherwise, UPF being a holistic and indivisible concept by essence, we propose in this review to analyze ultra-processing at four holistic levels corresponding to four important scientific issues: the food matrix, the dietary pattern, food system, and food scoring. We reached the main conclusion that UPFs should be first studied with a holistic and scientifically based approach, not a reductionist one. Otherwise, we take the risk of performing greenwashing and create still more new health threats at a global level.

Adherence to Healthy or Unhealthy Pro-Vegetarian Plant-Based Diets Have Different Impact on Prostate Cancer Severity: Preliminary Findings

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent malignancy affecting men worldwide, and plant-based diets have been widely advocated for their health benefits. The aim of this study was to test the association between general, healthy, and unhealthy pro-vegetarian plant-based diets and PCa severity on 118 consecutive patients undergoing prostatectomy in a university hospital in Italy. Food frequency questionnaires were used to calculate scores for dietary patterns. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to test the associations. A general plant-based diet was not associated with cancer severity, while patients reporting a higher adherence to a healthy plant-based diet were less likely to have a more severe PCa (for medium/high vs. low-risk PCa, OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.88; for high vs. medium/low-risk PCa, OR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39). Patients resulting in higher adherence to an unhealthy plant-based diet were more likely to be diagnosed with more severe PCa (OR = 6.15, 95% CI: 1.70, 22.24). In conclusion, plant-based dietary patterns may have a different impact on PCa severity depending on the quality of the foods included.

Ultraprocessed Foods and Obesity Risk: A Critical Review of Reported Mechanisms

Epidemiologic evidence supports a positive association between ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption and body mass index. This has led to recommendations to avoid UPFs despite very limited evidence establishing causality. Many mechanisms have been proposed, and this review critically aimed to evaluate selected possibilities for specificity, clarity, and consistency related to food choice (i.e., low cost, shelf-life, food packaging, hyperpalatability, and stimulation of hunger/suppression of fullness); food composition (i.e., macronutrients, food texture, added sugar, fat and salt, energy density, low-calorie sweeteners, and additives); and digestive processes (i.e., oral processing/eating rate, gastric emptying time, gastrointestinal transit time, and microbiome). For some purported mechanisms (e.g., fiber content, texture, gastric emptying, and intestinal transit time), data directly contrasting the effects of UPF and non-UPF intake on the indices of appetite, food intake, and adiposity are available and do not support a unique contribution of UPFs. In other instances, data are not available (e.g., microbiome and food additives) or are insufficient (e.g., packaging, food cost, shelf-life, macronutrient intake, and appetite stimulation) to judge the benefits versus the risks of UPF avoidance. There are yet other evoked mechanisms in which the preponderance of evidence indicates ingredients in UPFs actually moderate body weight (e.g., low-calorie sweetener use for weight management; beverage consumption as it dilutes energy density; and higher fat content because it reduces glycemic responses). Because avoidance of UPFs holds potential adverse effects (e.g., reduced diet quality, increased risk of food poisoning, and food wastage), it is imprudent to make recommendations regarding their role in diets before causality and plausible mechanisms have been verified.

Nutritional Quality and Degree of Processing of Children's Foods Assessment on the French Market

Food packaging marketing techniques which appeal to children (such as cartoon characters and brand mascots) affect children's choices, preferences, and eating habits. Several studies have assessed the nutritional quality of food intended to children in various countries and concluded that most were high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) and ultra-processed foods. The aim of this study is to analyse products intended for children over the age of 3 (foods and beverages with relevant marketing elements on the packaging) available on the French market as regards: (1) nutritional quality, based on the Nutri-Score labelling system, (2) compliance with expected nutritional profile suitable for children, according to the criteria of the WHO Europe Nutrient Profile Model, and (3) degree of processing, as defined by the NOVA classification, from packaging collected in 20 stores (hyper/supermarkets, hard-discount retail chains, and organic food stores). The marketing strategies most often used on children's products are cartoons (97.22%; n = 1120) and mascots (77.78%; n = 896). A total of 1155 products were included in the study, most of which were sugary foods: almost a quarter of the products in the sample (23.81%; n = 275) list a sweetener as the first ingredient, and most of them (89.52%; n = 1034) contain free sugars according to the WHO definition. All the products included in our study feature marketing elements targeting on the packaging, yet 94.88% do not meet the criteria of the WHO Europe Nutrient Profile Model. Most (58.68%; n = 676) belong to Nutri-Score groups D and E, with the highest proportion in group D (39.32%; n = 453) and are ultra-processed (87.97%; n = 1016), especially through the use of flavourings and ultra-processed sugars. Using the Nutri-Score, the WHO Europe Nutrient Profile Model, and the NOVA classification, this study suggests that a significant share of pre-packaged foods marketed to children do not have an adequate nutritional profile. As such, measures are needed to regulate what marketing elements aimed at children can be included on packaging, based on these criteria.