When Carlos Monteiro coined the term “ultraprocessed foods” (AUT) fifteen years ago, the Brazilian nutrition researcher created what he calls a “new paradigm” to assess the effects of diet on health. He noticed that the obesity rate continued to rise in Brazil while sales of sugar and oil declined. This paradox could be explained by an increased consumption of highly processed foods, for example by the addition of preservatives and flavorings, or by the removal or addition of nutrients.
But health authorities and the food industry continue to deny that there is any such link, Carlos Monteiro tells Financial Times.
“They spent their lives thinking that the only link between health and diet was the nutrient content of food… There is more to food than nutrients.”
Nova, the classification system [en quatre groupes] foods developed [en 2009] by Carlos Monteiro, evaluates not only the nutritional value of foods, but also the processing methods they undergo before reaching our plates. Nova laid the foundation for twenty years of scientific research linking AUT consumption to obesity, cancer and diabetes.
Eat more to get the same level of pleasure
Studies of AUTs show that processing creates foods—from candy bars to breakfast cereals to ready-made meals—that encourage overeating, which can go hand in hand with undernutrition. For example, a recipe might contain levels of carbohydrates and fats that activate reward circuits in the brain, leading consumers to eat more of it to get the same level of pleasure.
In 2019, American metabolism researcher Kevin Hall conducted a randomized study comparing people eating unprocessed foods and people eating ultra-processed foods for two weeks. The subjects who followed the ultra-processed diet consumed 500 more calories per day, more fat and carbohydrates, less protein, and they gained weight.
Growing concerns about the adverse health effects of AUTs have reignited the debate about the link between health and diet, and given rise to books, communication campaigns and academic work. They also pose the biggest challenge ever to the business model of the agri-food sector, as AUTs are particularly profitable.
The industry responded with a fierce campaign against regulation. Our analysis of US lobbying data compiled by the NGO Open Secrets reveals that the food industry spent $106 million [99 millions d’euros] in lobbying in 2023, nearly twice as much as the tobacco and alcohol industries combined. This amount was up 21% from 2020, largely due to campaigns on processed products and sugar.
The cigarette manufacturers’ method
Echoing the tobacco companies’ tactics, the food industry tried to discourage lawmakers by instilling doubt in the work of scientists like Carlos Monteiro. Barry Smith, director of the Institute of Philosophy at the University of London and a consultant to businesses on the multisensory aspects of food products, summarizes:
“The strategy I see at work in the agri-food sector can be summed up in three words: deny, denounce, temporize.”
So far, this strategy has paid off. Only a handful of countries, including Belgium, Israel and Brazil, currently include TUEs in national dietary recommendations. But, at a time when evidence is accumulating against this type of food, public health experts believe that the only question that arises today is how, as far as possible, to transpose these recommendations into the legislation.
“Scientists agree on the conclusions, confirms Jean Adams, a nutritional public health researcher at the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge. What is problematic is their interpretation to develop policy.”
The choice to silence health risks
The food industry, dominated by multinationals like Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mars and Kraft Heinz, says it is concerned about public health. Innovations in trans processes
