At an early age, we witness an alarming influx of children burdened with hypertension and diabetes conditions. Dr. Asad Akbar, a proficient cardiologist stationed in Islamabad, encounters individuals daily at Shifa Hospital whose well-being has been adversely impacted by the perils of ultra-processed foods.
It is believed that these food items, laden with high energy content and calories, possess a deceptive ability to temporarily satiate one’s hunger, only to intensify it shortly thereafter.
According to Dr. Asad, the disconcerting reality unfolds as youthful patients, untainted by hereditary predispositions, seek medical attention due to heightened cholesterol levels and unexplained blood pressure irregularities.
Evidently, the ramifications of consuming these processed edibles manifest both in the immediate and distant future, posing a significant threat to one’s overall health.
The UK Witnesses a Unique Trial with Twin Sisters
In a groundbreaking study conducted by the esteemed scientists at King’s College London for BBC Panorama, a fascinating experiment unfolded. Amy, aged 24, embarked on a singular journey, immersing herself in a two-week trial where she exclusively consumed ultra-processed food.
Meanwhile, her twin sister, Nancy, embarked on an equally compelling path, following a tailored diet plan that incorporated predominantly natural or minimally processed foods. Throughout the trial, the intake of calories, nutrients, sugar, and fiber remained meticulously matched for both sisters, ensuring a controlled environment for the captivating investigation.
Following the trial, Amy experienced a weight gain of approximately one kilogram, while Nancy, on the contrary, lost weight. Amy’s blood sugar levels deteriorated, and her blood fat levels escalated.
The study was of short duration and encompassed solely two twin sisters; nevertheless, the outcomes amplify the concerns of scientists who have long been troubled by the potential adverse effects of highly processed foods on the human body.
Professor Tim Spector, a renowned health specialist affiliated with King’s College London, has delved into the investigation of disease patterns and has taken note of the aforementioned findings. He conveyed that evidence accumulated over the past ten years highlights the detrimental impact of ultra-processed foods on our well-being in ways that were previously unforeseen.
The Silent Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods and Their Link to Serious Illnesses
“Here we are talking about types of cancer, heart disease, dementia, and dementia.”
The phrase ultra-processed foods (UPF) was created 15 years ago, yet it comprises nearly half of our diet in the UK. Brown bread crumbs and ice cream are distinct forms of bread created through diverse industrial methods.
These methods involve the inclusion of ingredients like preservatives, artificial sweeteners (artificial sugar), and emulsifiers (additives used to blend various food components), which are not commonly utilized in homemade cooking.
Marion Nestle, a renowned food policy expert, and nutrition professor at New York University, asserts that companies find ultra-processed foods to be the most financially rewarding category. We are consuming more and more of these highly processed foods, with Great Britain leading in Europe.
The rise in diseases such as diabetes and cancer is also occurring globally, which some experts believe is not a mere coincidence.”
Chemicals found in ultra-processed foods are safe for health, according to British watchdogs, but Panorama’s research examines new scientific evidence linking some of these chemicals to cancer, diabetes, and stroke.
Scientific Warnings Intensify as Studies Link UPFs to Cancer and Heart Disease
In January, an unprecedented study on ultra-processed foods emerged in the medical journal The Lancet, originating from Imperial College’s School of Public Health. This groundbreaking investigation involved scrutinizing a vast cohort of 200,000 individuals in the UK.
The findings illuminated a disconcerting correlation between elevated consumption of ultra-processed foods and heightened susceptibility to cancer, notably in relation to ovarian and brain cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO), in a recent admonition, cautioned against the protracted intake of artificial sugars due to their potential impact on health.
Multiple studies have established connections between heightened consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and an amplified susceptibility to severe ailments. Nonetheless, the arduous task lies in substantiating the specific ingredients that pose hazards to human well-being.
Additional facets of our daily routines can similarly augment the likelihood of contracting these diseases, encompassing a sedentary lifestyle, tobacco usage, or excessive intake of sugary edibles.
Read Also:
Ultra-processed foods: what are they and which ones should I avoid?
Commonly Consumed Ultra-Processed Foods are:
1. Widely produced bread and sweet breakfast cereals
2. Instant soups, packaged and microwaveable foods
3. Fruit-flavored yogurt
4. Meat products like ham and sausage that undergo artificial processing
5. Ice crepes, crisps (chips), and biscuits
6. Soft drinks and a variety of alcoholic beverages, including whiskey, gin, and rum.
The initiation of investigations into the relationship between ultra-processed foods (UPF) and mortality traces back to the esteemed Sorbonne Paris North University in France. Within the confines of a continuous examination concerning the eating patterns of 174,000 individuals, an insightful inquiry was undertaken.
Dr. Mathilde Touvier, the esteemed head of the study, expounded, “Among the extensive collection of 24 meticulous dietary records, the participants graciously divulged their consumption of sustenance and beverages.”
The study’s findings notably divulged a noteworthy correlation between the consumption of UPF and elevated susceptibility to cancer.
Unveiling the Additive Known as an Emulsifier
The effects of emulsifiers, which are ingredients that act as glue in ultra-processed foods, were recently reviewed. The food industry faces a perplexing situation due to its ability to enhance the visual appeal of food items while extending its shelf life beyond that of minimally processed alternatives.
Emulsifiers permeate our daily lives, akin to ubiquitous staples like mayonnaise, chocolate, peanut butter, and meat products. In the realm of consumption, these agents likely infiltrate your dietary choices.
“The results highlight a robust association between emulsifiers and various forms of cancer, notably breast cancer,” reveals Dr. Touvier. Furthermore, a correlation with heart disease has also been identified.
In essence, a connection linking ultra-processed foods to disease susceptibility has been observed, necessitating further investigation. Despite mounting evidence, the FSA has not yet issued guidelines to limit the use of emulsifiers.
Regarding the hazards associated with additives in processed foods, the FSA conveyed the following statement: “No evidence has been presented to us, either through this program or any other source, concerning the detrimental health consequences of particular emulsifiers.” Nevertheless, the FSA has disclosed its intention to initiate a public consultation.
Is the Food Industry actively contributing to the Prevention of Regulations?
Professor Nestle said that ‘food companies are not public health institutions. Their job is to sell things. He said the food industry is known to fund studies and experts and deny existing research to prevent new regulations
Major food corporations worldwide have lent their support to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an organization of considerable repute. Its stated objective is to enhance human health through scientific means, yet it has previously released publications that impeded the progress of dietary regulations and public consciousness toward healthy eating.
The European Food Safety Agency, in 2012, expressed significant apprehension regarding conflicts of interest and consequently requested all individuals affiliated with ILSI to step down from their positions or sever ties with the agency.
Professor Alan Babs of Imperial College London is the non-salaried director of ILSI Europe. In addition to his other responsibilities, he holds the position of chairperson for the Committee on Toxicity, which consists of British scientists providing advisory services to the FSA regarding chemicals found in food.
A majority of the committee members possess recent affiliations with either the food industry or the chemical industry. Throughout the previous decade, the committee has not lent its support to any prohibition of chemical additives in food.
Professor Babs, during an interview with Panorama, affirmed that his recommendations were independent of industry interests and that his unwavering dedication lies in conducting and identifying the most exceptional scientific research, regardless of the source of support.
The Food Standards Agency asserts its rules and regulations to be unequivocal and transparent, stating that no signs of bias were found in their decision-making process.
The Aspartame Controversy
ILSI, operating within the principles of scientific integrity, asserts that controversies arise from the use of aspartame, a highly sweet additive found in ultra-processed foods (UPF).
Aspartame, an alternative sweetener with fewer calories but 200 times the sweetness of sugar, has enabled the marketing of sugary drinks, ice creams, and mousses as healthy options. However, questions have emerged over the past two decades regarding its potential risks.
The World Health Organization has recently voiced its apprehension regarding the prolonged utilization of aspartame, highlighting the potential rise in the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and mortality. In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the British watchdog deemed aspartame safe for consumption based on available evidence.
The conclusion of the Committee on Toxicity’s 2013 study on aspartame was that it did not justify taking any measures to safeguard public health. However, six years later, Professor Eric Milestone from the University of Sussex reevaluated the evidence considered by EFSA, paying attention to the funding sources behind the studies.
Significantly, it was revealed that 90 percent of the research investigations were funded by chemical companies intricately connected to the manufacturing and distribution of aspartame.
Conversely, independent and non-commercial sources supported studies highlighting the health effects of aspartame. The Food and Drinks Federation, representing manufacturers, emphasized its commitment to consumer health and food safety regulations.
In the realm of food safety, the International Sweeteners Association unequivocally guarantees the security of low or no-calorie sweeteners. Their unwavering confidence stems from an exhaustive pursuit of knowledge through extensive research, as well as the resolute endorsement of esteemed food safety authorities like the EFSA and the US Food and Drug Administration.
In response to the ongoing WHO review of aspartame, the FSA pledged to investigate the matter. Additionally, the British government acknowledged concerns surrounding UPF and initiated a review of new evidence related to these ultra-processed foods.