Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:23:31.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultra-processed foods: a concept in need of revision to avoid targeting healthful and sustainable plant-based foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2023

Mark J Messina*
Affiliation:
Soy Nutrition Institute Global, Washington, DC, USA
John L Sievenpiper
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences and Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Department of Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Patricia Williamson
Affiliation:
Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Research and Development, Cargill, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Jessica Kiel
Affiliation:
Scientific and Clinical Affairs, Baltimore, MD, USA
John W Erdman
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Division of Nutritional Sciences and Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Nutrition Society

We read with interest the invited commentary by Dr Mark Lawrence supporting the utility of the NOVA food classification system(Reference Lawrence1). However, we take issue with his perspective on our recently published article in which we make two fundamental points(Reference Messina, Sievenpiper and Williamson2). First, the common criticisms of ultra-processed foods (UPF) do not apply to soya-based meat and dairy alternatives more so than they do to their animal-based counterparts, meat and cows’ milk, despite the former being classified as UPF and the latter as unprocessed/minimally processed foods. Second, NOVA is overly simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soya. Simply put, soya burgers are not Twinkies, even though NOVA similarly classifies these products. Rather than focusing on the crux of our argument, Dr Lawrence notes the association of several authors with the soyafood industry, that is, classic ad hominem reasoning. Dr Lawrence also criticises us for not considering the ‘… broader public health, environmental and social implications of such innovations (e.g., soy burgers) relative to food processing innovations to promote existing non-UPF nutritious plant-source protein foods such as minimally processed legumes and nuts’. We fully support greater consumption of legumes and nuts and efforts to promote their intake. However, the products in question are designed to replace meat and dairy products not legumes and nuts. Therefore, the critical comparisons are between hamburgers and soya burgers and cows’ milk and soyamilk. We therefore standby our opinion that NOVA does a disservice to the public by suggesting that because soya burgers and soyamilk are NOVA-classified as UPF, they should be avoided. These foods can aid in the transition to and maintenance of plant-based diets.

Acknowledgements

John L. Sievenpiper has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, PSI Foundation, Banting and Best Diabetes Centre (BBDC), American Society for Nutrition (ASN), INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, National Dried Fruit Trade Association, National Honey Board (the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) honey ‘Checkoff’ program), International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, The United Soybean Board (the USDA soy ‘Checkoff’ program), The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers) and The Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council). He has received food donations to support randomised controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Peanut Institute, Barilla, Unilever/Upfield, Unico/Primo, Loblaw Companies, Quaker, Kellogg Canada, WhiteWave Foods/Danone, Nutrartis and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from Diabetes Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, International Sweeteners Association, Nestlé, Pulse Canada, Canadian Society for Endocrinology and Metabolism (CSEM), GI Foundation, Abbott, General Mills, Biofortis, ASN, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, INC Nutrition Research & Education Foundation, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre (CEFS), Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Calorie Control Council, International Glutamate Technical Committee and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Perkins Coie LLP, Tate & Lyle, Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung Zucker e.V., Danone and Inquis Clinical Research. He is a member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel and former member of the Soy Nutrition Institute (SNI) Scientific Advisory Committee. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves or has served as an unpaid scientific advisor for the Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program (FNSP) and the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of ILSI North America. He is a member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His wife is an employee of AB InBev. Jessica Kiel is employed by Medifast Inc., a nutrition and weight management company based in Baltimore, Maryland that uses soya protein in many of its products. John W. Erdman, Jr. is a scientific advisory to the Soy Nutrition Institute Global.

Mark Messina is employed by the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organisation that receives funding from the United Soybean Board and industry members who are involved in the manufacture and/or sale of soyafoods and/or soyabean components.

All authors participated in the writing of this letter, and read and approved the final submitted version.

Footnotes

This article has been co-published with permission in British Journal of Nutrition and in Public Health Nutrition.

References

Lawrence, M (2022) Ultra-processed foods: a fit-for-purpose concept for nutrition policy activities to tackle unhealthy and unsustainable diet. Br J Nutr, 14 (ahead of print).Google Scholar
Messina, M, Sievenpiper, JL, Williamson, P et al. (2022) Perspective: soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, despite classification as ultra-processed foods, deliver high-quality nutrition on par with unprocessed or minimally processed animal-based counterparts. Adv Nutr 13, 726738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed