Ultraprocessed plant-based foods: Designing the next generation of healthy and sustainable alternatives to animal-based foods

Numerous examples of next-generation plant-based foods, such as meat, seafood, egg, and dairy analogs, are commercially available. These products are usually designed to have physicochemical properties, sensory attributes, and functional behaviors that match those of the animal-sourced products they are designed to replace. However, there has been concern about the potential negative impacts of these foods on human nutrition and health. In particular, many of these products have been criticized for being ultraprocessed foods that contain numerous ingredients and are manufactured using harsh processing operations. In this article, the concept of ultraprocessed foods is introduced and its relevance to describe the properties of next-generation plant-based foods is discussed. Most commercial plant-based meat, seafood, egg, and dairy analogs currently available do fall into this category, and so can be classified as ultraprocessed plant-based (UPB) foods. The nutrient content, digestibility, bioavailability, and gut microbiome effects of UPB foods are compared to those of animal-based foods, and the potential consequences of any differences on human health are discussed. Some commercial UPB foods would not be considered healthy based on their nutrient profiles, especially those plant-based cheeses that contain low levels of protein and high levels of fat, starch, and salt. However, it is argued that UPB foods can be designed to have good nutritional profiles and beneficial health effects. Finally, areas where further research are still needed to create a more healthy and sustainable food supply are discussed.

Highly processed foods can be considered addictive substances based on established scientific criteria

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that an addictive-eating phenotype may exist. There is significant debate regarding whether highly processed foods (HPFs; foods with refined carbohydrates and/or added fats) are addictive. The lack of scientifically grounded criteria to evaluate the addictive nature of HPFs has hindered the resolution of this debate.

ANALYSIS

The most recent scientific debate regarding a substance's addictive potential centered around tobacco. In 1988, the Surgeon General issued a report identifying tobacco products as addictive based on three primary scientific criteria: their ability to (1) cause highly controlled or compulsive use, (2) cause psychoactive (i.e. mood-altering) effects via their effect on the brain and (3) reinforce behavior. Scientific advances have now identified the ability of tobacco products to (4) trigger strong urges or craving as another important indicator of addictive potential. Here, we propose that these four criteria provide scientifically valid benchmarks that can be used to evaluate the addictiveness of HPFs. Then, we review the evidence regarding whether HPFs meet each criterion. Finally, we consider the implications of labeling HPFs as addictive.

CONCLUSION

Highly processed foods (HPFs) can meet the criteria to be labeled as addictive substances using the standards set for tobacco products. The addictive potential of HPFs may be a key factor contributing to the high public health costs associated with a food environment dominated by cheap, accessible and heavily marketed HPFs.

Highly Processed Food Consumption and Its Association with Anthropometric, Sociodemographic, and Behavioral Characteristics in a Nationwide Sample of 2742 Japanese Adults: An Analysis Based on 8-Day Weighed Dietary Records

This cross-sectional study assessed highly processed food (HPF) consumption and its association with individual characteristics in a nationwide sample of Japanese adults. Eight-day weighed dietary records were obtained from 2742 free-living adults aged 18-79 years across Japan. HPFs were identified based on a classification method developed by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The basic characteristics of the participants were assessed using a questionnaire. On average, HPF contributed to 27.9% of daily energy intake. The contribution of HPF to the daily intake of 31 nutrients ranged from 5.7% for vitamin C to 99.8% for alcohol (median, 19.9%). Cereals and starchy foods were the main food groups that contributed to the total energy intake of HPF. Multiple regression analysis showed that the older group (60-79 years) had a lower HPF energy contribution than the younger group (18-39 y) (regression coefficient (β) = -3.55, p < 0.0001). Compared to current smokers, past and never-smokers had lower HPF energy contributions (β = -1.41, p < 0.02; and -4.20, p < 0.0001, respectively). In conclusion, HPFs account for approximately one-third of energy intake in Japan. Younger age and current smoking status should be considered in future intervention strategies to reduce HPF consumption.