Extremely-processed meals (UPFs) have turn into public enemy primary in diet debates. From dementia to weight problems and an epidemic of “meals dependancy,” these factory-made merchandise, together with crisps, prepared meals, fizzy drinks and packaged snacks, are blamed for a variety of recent well being issues. Some specialists argue that they are “particularly formulated and aggressively marketed to maximise consumption and company income,” hijacking our mind’s reward techniques to make us eat past our wants.
Policymakers have proposed daring interventions: warning labels, advertising and marketing restrictions, taxes, even outright bans close to colleges. However how a lot of this urgency is predicated on stable proof?
My colleagues and I wished to step again and ask: what really makes individuals like a meals? And what drives them to overeat – not simply take pleasure in it, however hold consuming after starvation has handed? We studied greater than 3,000 UK adults and their responses to over 400 on a regular basis meals. What we discovered challenges the simplistic UPF narrative and provides a extra nuanced means ahead.
Two concepts typically get blurred in diet discourse: liking a meals and hedonic overeating (consuming for pleasure reasonably than starvation). Liking is about style. Hedonic overeating is about persevering with to eat as a result of the meals feels good. They’re associated, however not an identical. Many individuals like porridge however not often binge on it. Chocolate, biscuits and ice cream, however, high each lists.
We performed three giant on-line research the place individuals rated pictures of unbranded meals parts for a way a lot they preferred them and the way possible they had been to overeat them. The meals had been recognizable objects from a typical UK procuring basket: jacket potatoes, apples, noodles, cottage pie, custard lotions – greater than 400 in complete.
We then in contrast these responses with three issues: the meals’ dietary content material (fats, sugar, fiber, vitality density), their classification as ultra-processed by the extensively used Nova system – a meals classification technique that teams meals by the extent and function of their processing – and the way individuals perceived them (candy, fatty, processed, wholesome and so forth).
Notion energy
Some findings had been anticipated: individuals preferred meals they ate typically, and calorie-dense meals had been extra more likely to result in overeating.
However the extra shocking perception got here from the position of beliefs and perceptions. Nutrient content material mattered – individuals rated high-fat, high-carb meals as extra pleasing, and low-fiber, high-calorie meals as extra “bingeable.” However what individuals believed concerning the meals additionally mattered, loads.
Perceiving a meals as candy, fatty or extremely processed elevated the probability of overeating, no matter its precise dietary content material. Meals believed to be bitter or excessive in fiber had the alternative impact.
In a single survey, we might predict 78% of the variation in individuals’s probability of overeating by combining nutrient information (41%) with beliefs concerning the meals and its sensory qualities (one other 38%).
In brief: how we take into consideration meals impacts how we eat it, simply as a lot as what’s really in it.
This brings us to ultra-processed meals. Regardless of the extreme scrutiny, classifying a meals as “ultra-processed” added little or no to our predictive fashions.
As soon as we accounted for nutrient content material and meals perceptions, the Nova classification defined lower than 2% of the variation in liking and simply 4% in overeating.
That is to not say all UPFs are innocent. Many are excessive in energy, low in fiber and straightforward to overconsume. However the UPF label is a blunt instrument. It lumps collectively sugary mushy drinks with fortified cereals, protein bars with vegan meat options.
A few of these merchandise could also be much less wholesome, however others might be useful – particularly for older adults with low appetites, individuals on restricted diets or these searching for handy diet.
The message that every one UPFs are dangerous oversimplifies the difficulty. Folks do not eat primarily based on meals labels alone. They eat primarily based on how a meals tastes, the way it makes them really feel and the way it matches with their well being, social or emotional targets.
Counting on UPF labels to form coverage might backfire. Warning labels may steer individuals away from meals which are really helpful, like wholegrain cereals, or create confusion about what’s genuinely unhealthy.
As an alternative, we advocate a extra knowledgeable, customized method:
- Increase meals literacy: assist individuals perceive what makes meals satisfying, what drives cravings, and learn how to acknowledge their private cues for overeating.
- Reformulate with intention: design meals merchandise which are pleasing and filling, reasonably than counting on bland “food plan” choices or ultra-palatable snacks.
- Tackle consuming motivations: individuals eat for a lot of causes past starvation – for consolation, connection and pleasure. Supporting various habits whereas maximizing enjoyment might cut back dependence on low-quality meals.
It isn’t nearly processing
Some UPFs do deserve concern. They’re calorie dense, aggressively marketed and infrequently offered in outsized parts. However they don’t seem to be a smoking gun.
Labeling whole classes of meals as dangerous primarily based purely on their processing misses the complexity of consuming conduct. What drives us to eat and overeat is sophisticated however not past understanding. We now have the information and fashions to unpack these motivations and assist individuals in constructing more healthy, extra satisfying diets.
Finally, the dietary and sensory traits of meals – and the way we understand them – matter greater than whether or not one thing got here out of a packet. If we need to encourage higher consuming habits, it is time to cease demonizing meals teams and begin specializing in the psychology behind our decisions.
Written by Graham Finlayson, Professor of Psychobiology, College of Leeds and James Stubbs, Professor in Urge for food & Vitality Steadiness, College of Drugs and Well being Faculty of Psychology, College of Leeds.
