Overlap between ultra-processed food and food that is high in fat, salt or sugar: analysis of 11 annual waves of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008/09-2018/19 - Kesaite, Viktorija; Chavez-Ugalde, Yanaina; White, Martin; Adams, Jean (medRxiv, 2024)
While many countries use guidance and policies based on nutrients and food groups to support citizens to consume healthy diets, fewer have explicitly adopted the concept of ultra-processed foods (UPF). UPF consumption is associated with many adverse health outcomes in cohort studies. In the UK, a nutrient profiling model (NPM) is used to identify foods high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) and several policies target these. It is not known how well the NPM also captures UPF. We aimed to quantify the proportion of food and drink items consumed in the UK that are HFSS, UPF, both or neither and describe the food groups making the largest contributions to each category. We analysed data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), between 2008/09 and 2018/19, using descriptive statistics. We used three metrics of food consumption: all foods, % of energy in all foods (reflecting that different foods are consumed in different portion sizes and are of different energy densities), and % of food weight in all foods (reflecting that some UPFs have few calories but are consumed in large volumes). We found that, 33.4% of foods, 47.4% of energy, and 16.0% of food weight were HFSS; 36.2%, 59.8% and 32.9% respectively were UPFs; 20.1%, 35.1% and 12.6% were both; and 50.5%, 27.9% and 63.7% were neither. In total, 55.6% of UPF foods, 58.7% of energy from UPFs and 38.3% of food weight from UPF consumed were also HFSS. The most common food groups contributing to foods that were UPF but not HFSS were low calorie soft drinks and white bread. The UK NPM captures at best just over half of UPFs consumed in the UK. Expanding the NPM to include ingredients common in UPFs would capture a larger percentage of UPFs and could incentivise “de-formulation” of UPF products.View this table:Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at UK DATA SERVICE https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=2000033 https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=2000033