“超加工食品”(UPF)概念,根据“加工水平”而不是营养概况对食物进行分类,以及它与健康结果的关系,目前是学术界争论的话题,越来越多地在媒体上提及。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,以收集有关将UPF术语(和当前定义)用于公共卫生信息的意见。寻求建立共识和分歧的领域,并确定进一步研究的主题。一小组受邀的专家利益攸关方出席了会议,包括学术界的代表,政策,行为科学,通讯,健康,食品科学,零售和消费者利益。参与者的讨论集中在令人信服的主题中,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困惑的建议。人们一致认为,许多被归类为UPF的食物含有高脂肪,糖和/或盐以及公共卫生信息应继续关注减少饮食中的糖和/或盐,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经建立。还强调了错位的例子(即一些食物被归类为UPF,但在基于食物的饮食指南中推荐[以健康的饮食模式为特征])。这对围绕UPF的消费者沟通提出了挑战。还有人对潜在的意外后果表示关切,特别是对于弱势群体,由于缺乏时间或设施来从头开始准备和做饭,避免UPF的建议可能会造成污名和内。它也会影响营养摄入量,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(例如包装的全麦面包)。UPF的概念与当前改善公共卫生的策略之间的不一致,比如重新制定,也讨论了。该小组得出的结论是,目前在英国政策(例如饮食指南)中使用UPF的概念将无济于事。总的来说,参与者认为,更重要的是,围绕选择更健康的加工食品和使更健康的食品更容易获得,而不是提倡避免使用UPF.后者可能会妖魔化按当前定义分类为UPF的所有食品,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.