How do we differentiate not demonise - Is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Proceedings of a roundtable event.
How do we differentiate not demonise - Is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Proceedings of a roundtable event.
复制标题
我们如何区分而不是妖魔化——在食品不安全的时代，更健康的加工食品是否有作用？
DOI：
10.1111/nbu.12617
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
S. Stanner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Lockyer;A. Spiro;S. Berry;Jibin He;Shefalee Loth;A. Martinez;D. Mellor;M. Raats;M. Sokolovic;Santosh Vijaykumar;S. Stanner
“超加工食品”（UPF）的概念，与食品的“加工水平”，而不是营养成分的分类，以及它与健康结果的关系，目前是学术界的一个辩论话题，越来越多地在媒体上提到。英国营养基金会于2022年7月6日召开了一次虚拟圆桌会议，以收集关于使用UPF一词（和当前定义）进行公共卫生信息传递的意见，寻求建立共识和分歧的领域，并确定进一步研究的主题。一小群受邀的专家利益攸关方出席了会议，其中包括来自学术界、政策、行为科学、通信、卫生、食品科学、零售和消费者利益的代表。与会者的讨论集中到令人信服的主题，其中包括：使用UPF定义的问题，缺乏因果证据和明确的机制将加工本身与不良健康结果联系起来，以及可能导致消费者混淆的建议。人们一致认为，许多被归类为UPF的食物脂肪、糖和/或盐含量很高，公共卫生信息应继续关注在饮食中减少这些食物，因为尚不清楚报告的UPF高摄入量与健康状况不佳之间的关联是否反映了较差的饮食模式（由营养摄入量定义），营养与健康的关系已得到很好的确立。还强调了不一致的例子（即一些食物被归类为UPF，但在基于食物的膳食指南中推荐[以健康饮食模式为特征]）。这给围绕UPF的消费者沟通带来了挑战。人们还对潜在的意外后果表示关切，特别是对弱势群体而言，由于没有时间或设施从头开始准备和做饭，避免使用未成年人保护基金的建议可能会造成耻辱和内疚。它还可能影响营养素摄入量，因为一些被归类为UPF的食物代表了更实惠的重要营养素来源（例如包装全麦面包）。还讨论了UPF概念与目前改善公共卫生的战略（如重新制定）之间的不一致。该小组的结论是，目前在联合王国的政策（如膳食指南）中使用UPF概念是没有帮助的。总体而言，参与者认为更重要的是专注于提供有关选择更健康加工食品的实用建议，并使更健康的食品更容易获得，而不是促进避免UPF。后者可能会妖魔化所有根据目前定义被归类为UPF的食物，包括一些负担得起的营养丰富的食物。
The 'ultra-processed food' (UPF) concept, with classification of foods by 'level of processing' rather than nutrient profiles, and its relationship with health outcomes, is currently a topic of debate among academics and increasingly referred to in the media. The British Nutrition Foundation convened a virtual roundtable on 6th July 2022 to gather views on the use of the term (and current definitions of) UPF for public health messaging, seeking to establish areas of consensus and disagreement and identify topics for further research. A small group of invited expert stakeholders attended, including representatives from academia, policy, behavioural science, communications, health, food science, retail and consumer interests. Participants' discussions clustered into cogent themes which included: problems with the use of definitions for UPF, the lack of causal evidence and defined mechanisms linking processing per se with poor health outcomes, and advice that may result in consumer confusion. There was agreement that many foods classified as UPF are high in fat, sugars and/or salt and public health messages should continue to focus on reducing these in the diet since it is unclear whether reported associations between high intakes of UPF and poor health reflect poorer dietary patterns (defined by nutrient intakes), and nutrient-health relationships are well established. Examples of misalignment were also highlighted (i.e. some foods are classified as UPF yet recommended in food-based dietary guidelines [featuring in healthy dietary patterns]). This raises challenges for consumer communication around UPF. Concern was also expressed about potential unintended consequences, particularly for vulnerable groups, where advice to avoid UPF could create stigma and guilt due to lack of time or facilities to prepare and cook meals from scratch. It could also impact on nutrient intakes, as some foods classified as UPF represent more affordable sources of important nutrients (e.g. packaged wholemeal bread). Discordance between the concept of UPF and current strategies to improve public health, such as reformulation, was also discussed. The group concluded that the use of the concept of UPF in UK policy (e.g. dietary guidelines) would be unhelpful at present. Overall, participants felt that it was more important to focus on providing practical advice around selection of healthier processed foods and making healthier foods more accessible rather than promoting the avoidance of UPF. The latter may act to demonise all foods classified as UPF by current definitions, including some affordable nutrient-dense foods.