Technology as Neither Good nor Bad: Ultra-Processed Foods

More than fifteen years ago, Brazilian nutritionist Carlos Augusto Monteiro found that although Brazilian households spent little on sugar and oils, obesity continued to skyrocket, a problem he blamed largely on ultra-processed foods, a term he invented. As a result of his Nova classification system, we can now confirm that diets that include large amounts of ultra-processed food are harmful. In fact, we know that they represent one of the greatest threats to public health in general and even to the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Why do ultra-processed foods exist in the first place? Simply, because the food industry realized it could hack our food, and eliminate, add or replace some ingredients in order to make it addictive, so we would consume more. Every nutritionist worth their salt knows perfectly well the pernicious effects of ultra-processed foods, but when they try to do something about the problem or support politicians who try to introduce legislation to restrict consumption, they are systematically met with a food industry willing to do whatever it takes, from denouncing these nutritionists to lobbying so as to ensure that nothing is done and that these foods can continue to be widely sold.

The tactic of deny, denounce and delay (article without paywall here) is well-established by companies such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mars or Kraft Heinz, which manufacture the foods that, due to their low price and attractiveness, are a plague that impact the lives of the poorest in society, and that are largely responsible for the global obesity epidemic.

In developed countries, awareness of the problems associated with ultra-processed foods has grown, but it is still closely related to socio-economic factors. Labelling and information campaigns have achieved their objective throughout a large part of the population, but have encountered all kinds of administrative obstacles and complaints from companies that have been slowing down their application; at the same time it is difficult to convince certain segments of the population that foods that are generally cheaper and “filling” are not a good option. There is a clear scientific consensus on the effects of ultra-processed food, but despite this, the resistance of the food lobby has meant that it has only been transferred to regulation in a limited way.

The same technology that allows us to make what we eat healthier can also be used to create ultra-processed food, which is not only a problem for individual consumers, but for society as a whole, which must face widespread health complications as a result. The companies that manufacture these foods, instead of considering what their overall contribution to society is, are only interested in making more money, and will thus resist any change, despite the huge body of evidence against them.

This is not a problem that will go away by itself, and sooner or later, we’re going to have to do something about it.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***

You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project

You Said ‘Race’, but Are You Actually Talking About Race?

Understanding the Nonbinary: Are You Confusing Gender With Sex?

The Difference Between Compassion for Those With Disabilities & Ableism?

‘Masculinity’ Is Having an Identity Crisis