1. Please check and comment entries here.
Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Ultra-Processed Food Availability

    Definition

    UPF are described as “processed ingredients typically combined with the sophisticated use of additives to make them edible, palatable and habit forming”.

    1. Introduction

    Over time, changes in the food environment lead to modifications in the population’s health [1]. Broad changes in dietary and physical activity patterns, obesity trends and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are part of the concept of nutritional transition, of which the fourth stage emphasizes the change from the consumption of processed to ultra-processed food (UPF) [2][3][4].
    UPF are described as “processed ingredients typically combined with the sophisticated use of additives to make them edible, palatable and habit forming” [5][6][7]. Although this definition dates from 2010, before this, these foods were already referred to in the literature, either as an independent food group or as particular foods. Food processing often leads to increased nutrient bioavailability, either for beneficial (lycopene from tomato) or deleterious effect, such as the increase in the proportion of sugars [8][9]. Processed and UPF are generally less satiating than fresh foods [10][11].
    Reference reports have stated that consumption of processed foods and drinks such as “fast food”, “convenience foods”, soft drinks, sugary drinks, processed meat and others is associated with obesity and several chronic non-communicable diseases [1][12]. The latest updates to dietary guidelines recommend a decrease in the frequency of UPF consumption. The updated Mediterranean Dietary Pyramid (MDP), which represents environmental sustainability, has processed meat and sweets on the top, suggesting that they should only be consumed occasionally [13][14][15].
    The guidelines for the collection of information on food processing through food consumption surveys indicate that such information can be used for different purposes, including assessment of the relationship between food processing and obesity and NCDs and monitoring time trends in the consumption of processed foods [16]. The information sources for studying such relationships need to be based on dietary data, which may be evaluated either by using estimates based on direct or indirect assessment methods. Direct methods include 24-h recall, food frequency questionnaires and other individual-based dietary assessment. Individual-level assessments measure food intake, while indirect methods refer to food supply or availability, usually estimated at national or household level [17]. For example, expenditures or acquisition lists, such as data derived from household budget surveys, can be an extremely important instruments to assist in long-time assessment of UPF availability [18][19]. The lack or scarcity of individual dietary surveys in many countries makes these indirect data the only tool available to assess food consumption and study time trends. Such a fact exposes the relevance of identifying whether the associations observed when using individual data are maintained when an ecological approach is used. Although there are several recent systematic reviews on UPF consumption and health outcomes [20][21][22][23][24][25][26], there are none that focus on the availability of UPF with health outcomes.

    2. Discussion

    Of the 11 articles, six evaluated availability through purchase and five through sales of UPF. These five studies used the Euromonitor Passport Global Market Information Database, which collects sales volume data, from many countries worldwide, from various sources including trade associations, industry bodies, company financial reports, and official government statistics [27][28][29][30][31]. The others six studies in this systematic review used purchase data from HBS [32][33][34][35][36][37]. To classify food according to the purpose and extent of processing, six studies [32][33][28][34][35][36] used NOVA [7], a system that was launched in 2010, and one used a classification developed at the International Food Policy Research Institute [37]. The other four specified the type of UPF studied, namely, soft drinks [27][29][31] and fast food [30].
    Almost all studies in this systematic review showed a positive association or correlation between UPF availability and increase of BMI, overweight or obesity, only one showed no significant association between UPF availability and overweight. However, the only study that did not find a positive association used a biased sample [32]. Although the study defined the population as representative of a municipality, in fact, the population was from primary health care services that had access to health intervention programs [32].
    Of the 11 selected studies, five studies explored the association of UPF availability with only BMI increase [28][30], overweight [32][33] or obesity [34]. The other six studies evaluated the association of UFP availability using both prevalence of overweight or obesity as separate outcomes in the same sample [27][29][35][36][31][37]. Three of them studied soft drink sales [27][29][31]. Basu et al. [31] showed that the soft drink consumption was strongly associated with overweight and obesity. Both Ferretti and Mariani [27] and Goryakin et al. [29] showed that the increased availability of UPF was similarly associated with the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity. Juul and Hemmingsson [35] evaluated overweight and obesity time trends separately, and concluded that the increasing trends followed the increase in UPF availability. However, due to the study methods used, the association between the outcome and exposure was not calculated. Canella et al. [36] and Asfaw [37] followed the findings of the other studies. Canella et al. [36] evaluated mean BMI, overweight and obesity, and found a positive association with increase in UPF availability. Asfaw [37] found that an increase in the share of highly processed foods (in the total food expenditure) significantly increases the likelihood of overweight and obesity.
    Only two articles related the availability of UPF with other health outcomes, in this case diabetes, and did not find a significant association [29][31]. These two articles have only SSB as an exposure variable. These findings may reflect residual confounding. Basu et al. [31] described a limitation of their study as the fact that the soft drink consumption data did not include fruit drinks (fruits and vegetable juices), which have been independently related to the risk of diabetes, likely because of their high sugar content. Goryakin et al. [29] reported that their soft drink price models might suffer from potentially important unobserved confounding, because they assumed that soft drink sales/prices affect BMI and diabetes with only a one-year lag.
    Four studies that used UPF availability data were excluded, as they did not evaluate health outcomes. Three studies used UPF availability data for forecast estimation [38][39][40], two studies analyzed dietary patterns [41][42] and one was a qualitative study [43]. Qualitative studies do not measure the relationship between UPF and health outcomes, but are useful to explore topics and suggest interventions [43].
    All eligible studies were ecological. No specific quality assessment was found in the literature for this type of study. However, the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies was used. However, the lack a specific scale may lead to under or overestimation of final scores. Based on the Newcastle–Ottawa adapted scale, most studies showed positive results: all of them presented a representative sample, with a justified and satisfactory size. Nine studies reached the maximum score in regard to comparability, such as the control of confounding factors [32][27][28][34][29][36][30][31][37]. Only one study did not score on the statistical test [35]. Only two studies obtained a score in the description assessment of outcome [32][36]. Only one study obtained a maximum score for the ascertainment of exposure [32]. None of the studies presented a description of the non-respondents’ characteristics.

    Limitations and Strengths

    The first limitation of this review was the variability of methods used to investigate food availability, either acquisitions/purchases or sales. This factor hindered evaluation of the data by means of meta-analysis. A second limitation was related to the fact that the selected articles were not uniform with each other regarding the exposure measure, for example, using different UPF classifications or only a specific UPF. Another limitation was that most of the studies analyzed only BMI and the prevalence of overweight and obesity. In addition, a possible publication bias might be expected, since only one of the studies showed no significant association with health outcomes.
    The main strength of this review is its broad approach, including reference lists as well as grey literature, and not restricting language or publication date. In addition, the clear identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria and the presence of three reviewers reduced possible bias. Despite the fact that all the eligible studies were ecological, many of them used HBS food availability as the base of the exposure variable. Although national studies based on individual consumption show results with greater consistency, they are scarce and not comparable in many countries. On the other hand, HBS have a periodicity of data collection with similar methodology among countries and have been recognized as a highly cost-effective tool for monitoring food patterns [44][45]. Therefore, these data are an important source for studying associations between food consumption and health outcomes [20][38]. Results from longitudinal studies produce more robust evidence [46][47], however, such studies are more long-lasting and expensive than ecological studies. In this systematic review, six authors performed temporal series studies either with HBS or sales data [28][34][29][35][30][31]. This study design allows assessment of the changes that occur over several periods unlike a single cross-sectional study. This research shows that the results for the availability of UPF associated with overweight and obesity follow the same trend as cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that use individual dietary data [48][49].

    The entry is from 10.3390/ijerph18147382

    References

    1. World Health Organization. European Health Report 2018 More Than Numbers—Evidence for All; Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; p. 147.
    2. Popkin, B. Nutritional Patterns and Transitions. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1993, 19, 138.
    3. Popkin, B. Global nutrition dynamics: The world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 84, 289–298.
    4. Fardet, A. Characterization of the Degree of Food Processing in Relation with Its Health Potential and Effects. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2018, 85, 79–129.
    5. Monteiro, C.A. Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public Health Nutr. 2009, 12, 729–731.
    6. Monteiro, C.A.; Levy, R.B.; Claro, R.M.; Castro, I.R.; Cannon, G. A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cad. Saude Publica 2010, 26, 2039–2049.
    7. Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Levy, R.B.; Moubarac, J.C.; Jaime, P.; Martins, A.P.; Canella, D.; Louzada, M.L.; Parra, D. NOVA. A estrela brilha. Classificação dos alimentos. Saúde Pública. World Nutr. 2016, 7, 28–40.
    8. Moorhead, S.; Welch, R.W.; Barbara, M.; Livingstone, E.; McCourt, M.; Burns, A.A.; Dunne, A. The effects of the fibre content and physical structure of carrots on satiety and subsequent intakes when eaten as part of a mixed meal. Br. J. Nutr. 2006, 96, 587–595.
    9. Shi, J.; Le Maguer, M. Lycopene in tomatoes: Chemical and physical properties affected by food processing. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2000, 20, 293–334.
    10. Holt, S.H.; Miller, J.C.; Petocz, P.; Farmakalidis, E. A satiety index of common foods. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995, 49, 675–690.
    11. Fardet, A. Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: A preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods. Food Funct. 2016, 7, 2338–2346.
    12. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation: Seattle, WA, USA, 2018; p. 25.
    13. Serra-Majem, L.; Tomaino, L.; Dernini, S.; Berry, E.M.; Lairon, D.; Ngo de la Cruz, J.; Bach-Faig, A.; Donini, L.M.; Medina, F.; Belahsen, R. Updating the mediterranean diet pyramid towards sustainability: Focus on environmental concerns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8758.
    14. Fernandez, M.L.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Carrascosa, C.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Highlights of current dietary guidelines in five continents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2814.
    15. Willett, W. Mediterranean Dietary Pyramid. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4568.
    16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guidelines on the Collection of Information on Food Processing through Food Consumption Surveys; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; p. 32.
    17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Dietary Assessment: A Resource Guide to Method Selection and Application in Low Resource Settings; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 152.
    18. Barbosa, K.; de Lima Rosado, L.; Franceschini, S.; Priore, S. Instrumentos de inquérito dietético utilizados na avaliação do consumo alimentar em adolescentes: Comparação entre métodos. Arch. Latinoam. Nutr. 2007, 57, 43–50.
    19. Rodrigues, S.S.P.; Lopes, C.; Naska, A.; Trichopoulou, A.; de Almeida, M.D.V. Comparison of national food supply, household food availability and individual food consumption data in Portugal. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 447–455.
    20. Beserra, J.; Soares, N.; Marreiros, C.; Carvalho, C.; Martins, M.C.; Freitas, B.; Santos, M.; Frota, K. Crianças e adolescentes que consomem alimentos ultraprocessados possuem pior perfil lipídico? Uma revisão sistemática. Cien. Saude Colet. 2020, 25, 4979–4989.
    21. Lane, M.; Davis, J.A.; Beattie, S.; Gómez-Donoso, C.; Loughman, A.; O’Neil, A.; Jacka, F.; Berk, M.; Page, R.; Marx, W.; et al. Ultraprocessed food and chronic noncommunicable diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies. Obes. Rev. 2020, 22, 1–19.
    22. Lane, M.; Howland, G.; West, M.; Hockey, M.; Marx, W.; Loughman, A.; O’Hely, M.; Jacka, F.; Rocks, T. The effect of ultra-processed very low-energy diets on gut microbiota and metabolic outcomes in individuals with obesity: A systematic literature review. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2020, 14, 197–204.
    23. Martí, A.; Calvo, C.; Martínez, A. Consumo de alimentos ultraprocesados y obesidad: Uma revisión sistemática. Nutr. Hosp. 2021, 38, 177–185.
    24. Meneguelli, T.; Hinkelmann, J.; Hermsdorff, H.; Zulet, M.; Martínez, A.; Bressan, J. Food consumption by degree of processing and cardiometabolic risk: A systematic review. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 71, 678–692.
    25. Pagliai, G.; Dinu, M.; Madarena, M.P.; Bonaccio, M.; Iacoviello, L.; Sofi, F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 125, 308–318.
    26. Santos, F.S.; Dias, M.S.; Mintem, G.C.; Oliveira, I.O.; Gigante, D.P. Food processing and cardiometabolic risk factors: A systematic review. Rev. Saude Publica 2020, 54, 70.
    27. Ferretti, F.; Mariani, M. Sugar-sweetened beverage affordability and the prevalence of overweight and obesity in a cross section of countries. Glob. Health 2019, 15, 1–14.
    28. Vandevijvere, S.; Jaacks, L.M.; Monteiro, C.A.; Moubarac, J.C.; Girling-Butcher, M.; Lee, A.C.; Pan, A.; Bentham, J.; Swinburn, B. Global trends in ultraprocessed food and drink product sales and their association with adult body mass index trajectories. Obes. Rev. 2019, 20, 10–19.
    29. Goryakin, Y.; Monsivais, P.; Suhrcke, M. Soft drink prices, sales, body mass index and diabetes: Evidence from a panel of low-, middle- and high-income countries. Food Policy 2017, 73, 88–94.
    30. De Vogli, R.; Kouvonen, A.; Gimeno, D. The influence of market deregulation on fast food consumption and body mass index: A cross-national time series analysis. Bull. World Health Organ. 2014, 92, 99–107.
    31. Basu, S.; McKee, M.; Galea, G.; Stuckler, D. Relationship of soft drink consumption to global overweight, obesity, and diabetes: A cross-national analysis of 75 countries. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 2071–2077.
    32. De Freitas, P.P.; de Menezes, M.C.; Lopes, A.C.S. Consumer food environment and overweight. Nutrition 2019, 66, 108–114.
    33. Vale, D.; Morais, C.; Pedrosa, L.; Ferreira, M.; Oliveira, A.; Lyra, C. Spatial correlation between excess weight, purchase of ultra-processed foods, and human development in Brazil. Cien. Saude Colet. 2019, 24, 983–996.
    34. Monteiro, C.A.; Moubarac, J.C.; Levy, R.B.; Canella, D.S.; Louzada, M.L.; Cannon, G. Household availability of ultra-processed foods and obesity in nineteen European countries. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 18–26.
    35. Juul, F.; Hemmingsson, E. Trends in consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Sweden between 1960 and 2010. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 3096–3107.
    36. Canella, D.; Levy, R.B.; Martins, A.P.; Claro, R.M.; Moubarac, J.C.; Baraldi, L.G.; Cannon, G.; Monteiro, C.A. Ultra-processed food products and obesity in Brazilian households (2008–2009). PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92752.
    37. Asfaw, A. Does consumption of processed foods explain disparities in the body weight of individuals? The case of Guatemala. Health Econ. 2011, 20, 184–195.
    38. Rezende, L.; Azeredo, C.; Canella, D.; Luiz, O.; Levy, R.B.; Eluf-Neto, J. Coronary heart disease mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality attributable to dietary intake over 20 years in Brazil. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 217, 64–68.
    39. Moreira, P.V.; Baraldi, L.G.; Moubarac, J.C.; Monteiro, C.A.; Newton, A.; Capewell, S.; O’Flaherty, M. Comparing different policy scenarios to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods in UK: Impact on cardiovascular disease mortality using a modelling approach. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118353.
    40. Moreira, P.V.; Hyseni, L.; Moubarac, J.C.; Martins, A.P.; Baraldi, L.G.; Capewell, S.; O’Flaherty, M.; Guzman-Castillo, M. Effects of reducing processed culinary ingredients and ultra-processed foods in the Brazilian diet: A cardiovascular modelling study. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 181–188.
    41. Kroll, F.; Swart, E.; Annan, R.; Thow, A.; Neves, D.; Apprey, C.; Aduku, L.; Agyapong, N.; Moubarac, J.C.; Toit, A.; et al. Mapping Obesogenic Food Environments in South Africa and Ghana: Correlations and Contradictions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3924.
    42. Freire, W.B.; Waters, W.F.; Roman, D.; Jiménez, E.; Burgos, E.; Belmont, P. Overweight, obesity, and food consumption in Galapagos, Ecuador: A window on the world. Glob. Health 2018, 14, 93.
    43. Crino, M.; Sacks, G.; Vandevijvere, S.; Swinburn, B.; Neal, B. The Influence on Population Weight Gain and Obesity of the Macronutrient Composition and Energy Density of the Food Supply. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2015, 4, 1–10.
    44. Trichopoulou, A.; Naska, A. European food availability databank based on household budget surveys: The Data Food Networking initiative. Eur. J. Public Health 2003, 13, 24–28.
    45. Nelson, M.; Bingham, S. Assessment of food consumption and nutrient intake. Des. Concepts Nutr. Epidemiol. 1997, 2, 123–169.
    46. Mendonca, R.D.; Pimenta, A.M.; Gea, A.; de la Fuente-Arrillaga, C.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Lopes, A.C.; Bes-Rastrollo, M. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: The University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 104, 1433–1440.
    47. Fiolet, T.; Srour, B.; Sellem, L.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Allès, B.; Méjean, C.; Deschasaux, M.; Fassier, P.; Latino-Martel, P.; Beslay, M.; et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: Results from NutriNet-Sante prospective cohort. BMJ 2018, 360, k322.
    48. Canhada, S.L.; Luft, V.C.; Giatti, L.; Duncan, B.B.; Chor, D.; Fonseca, M.J.; Matos, S.; Molina, M.; Barreto, S.M.; Levy, R.B.; et al. Ultra-processed foods, incident overweight and obesity, and longitudinal changes in weight and waist circumference: The Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 1076–1086.
    49. Nardocci, M.; Leclerc, B.S.; Louzada, M.L.; Monteiro, C.A.; Batal, M.; Moubarac, J.C. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Canada. Can. J. Public Health Revue Can. Sante Publique 2019, 110, 4–16.
    More