What we miss in the UPF debate

The criticism thrown at some commentators attempting to highlight unhealthy eating habits to a wider audience seems to be an own goal

There are toxins everywhere.

Radon beneath our feet. Listeria in our lettuce.

There are bad things that seem good: Free radicals sound like chilled out hippies but apparently mangle our DNA, while phytoestrogens do not, in fact fight our oestrogens and instead help us with those dreaded sweats. Allegedly.

The health information overload is the curse of the middle-class-educated masses who obsess about their green tea detoxes while their less privileged neighbours eat the last pot of Koka noodles. 

There is significant and growing evidence that the epidemic of obesity is related to the massive surge in the availability of ultra-processed food (UPF), correlated with the lack of availability of fresh produce. The concept of food deserts has been acknowledged in many urban and rural communities, where people have limited access to healthy, fresh, affordable food, and instead are surrounded by commercially-motivated, high-sugar, low-nutrient food substitutes in the form of UPF. A meta-analysis in the journal Clinical Nutrition found convincing evidence linking high UPF consumption with renal function decline, as well as wheeze in under-18s. It also uncovered highly suggestive evidence showing a correlation with overweight, obesity, diabetes, clinical depression, and other mental disorders.

I am absolutely not an expert in this area and I have no dietetic qualifications, and yes, I have read Dr Chris van Tulleken’s book and thrown away all the Haribos in the house (but that didn’t last long).

Still, I do know that I believe the people who have looked into this and the evidence seems pretty compelling to me.

And yet there is this strange phenomenon where people with qualifications in this area, such as dietitians and other healthcare professionals, are throwing shade on seemingly pretty innocent public figures who are trying to highlight the issue.

You might have heard of Joe Wicks – a chirpy fitness fella who became a YouTube phenomenon during the pandemic. I think my children surreptitiously steered me away from him, knowing that I would either rant about the state of his hair or – worse – enthusiastically jump on board his high-octane bandwagon and leap around the kitchen like a twit for hours on end.

He comes from a deprived background and has lived experience of the social and commercial determinants of health. In a recent TV show, aided by the aforementioned Dr van Tulleken, he set out to prove how lax the regulations are when it comes to what can be sold as ‘healthy food’. He created a protein bar made almost entirely from UPF substances and marketed it with full disclosure that it was really not good for you. Loads of people bought it, loads of people watched the TV show. And loads of middle-class educated professionals complained loudly that he didn’t know what he was talking about, that he was scare-mongering, that he was making parents feel guilty for feeding their children the only food they can afford, and that he should “stay in his lane”.

I think they may have missed the entire point of the documentary. Or possibly didn’t watch it at all, but still felt qualified to judge. A whiff of intellectual snobbery wafted through Instagram.

Many studies have shown that people who have grown up in an environment where home-cooked meals were a rarity are far more likely to misunderstand the nutritional value of the food they eat as adults. They are drawn in by cleverly designed advertising and slogans.

Who wouldn’t fall for the grazing cow logo on the front of the yogurty-looking pot and assume that it was, well, actual yogurt? Or the ‘breakfast bar’ targeted at ‘busy Mums’, which is as nutritionally valuable as a Snickers? It takes a lot of education and re-education to overcome the influence of ‘Big Food’ and to be able to make sound choices unhindered by the constant commercial noise.

So knocking down the Ordinary Joes (and Joannes) who are making an attempt to bring this issue to a wider audience seems to be an own goal. We absolutely should not be blaming or shaming any person who is the victim of a poor regulatory environment and the intense lobbying power of those who profit from duping us into buying cheap food substitutes. We should be insisting that every family should have the means and ability to access fresh healthy food with ease. We should support all people to understand the benefits and deliciousness of real food. And we should all still enjoy the odd fistful of Haribos.