The Health Risks of Ultra-Processed Foods: Could Food Additives be the Culprit?

Some academics argue that the link is no coincidence.

Professor Tim Specter is Professor of Epidemiology at King’s College London and specializes in the study of disease trends.

Professor Specter told BBC Panorama: “Over the past decade, there has been growing evidence that ultra-processed foods are bad for us in ways we hadn’t thought before.

“We’re talking about a variety of cancers, heart diseases, strokes and dementia.”

Ultra-processed foods contain chemicals that are considered safe according to British regulations governing this sector, but the Panorama program conducted an investigation on recent scientific evidence that indicated a link between some of these substances and cancer, diabetes and strokes.

This past January, one of the most comprehensive studies of ultra-processed foods – conducted by the Imperial College School of Public Health – was published in The Lancet medical journal.

A study of 200,000 people in the UK found that increased consumption of ultra-processed foods may lead to an increased risk of cancer in general, and of ovarian and brain cancers in particular.

And starting last month, the World Health Organization began warning against the long-term use of artificial sweeteners, saying it could lead to health risks.

This comes on the heels of dozens of studies linking high consumption of ultra-processed foods with an increased risk of serious disease.

But proving that certain components cause health harms in humans can be difficult – there are a range of other factors in our lifestyles that can lead to these diseases. For example, not exercising, smoking, and eating foods high in sugar.

Common ultra-processed foods:

Preliminary investigations into the relationship between death and ultra-processed foods began in France at the Sorbonne University as part of an ongoing study into the dietary habits of nearly 174,000 people.

“We have 24-hour food records,” explains Dr. Mathilde Touvier, who led the study. [المشاركون في الدراسة] of all the foods and drinks they consume.

This ongoing research has already published some findings showing that ultra-processed foods may contribute to an increased risk of cancer.

Emulsifiers – the goal for the food industry

More recently, the study focused on the effect of one particular ingredient, the emulsifiers, which work to keep all of the ingredients in ultra-processed foods together.

Emulsifiers are the desired goal for those in charge of the food industry, as they improve the shape and composition of food and help extend the shelf life compared to less processed foods.

These substances are found in many food products, from mayonnaise to chocolate to peanut butter to meat products. And when you eat, you most likely consume emulsifiers as part of your diet.

Panorama has seen exclusively the preliminary results of Dr. Tovier’s study.

The findings have not yet been peer-reviewed and evaluated by other researchers – a vital step for scientific studies – but Dr. Tovier says they are still troubling.

And she adds: “We noticed significant links between the amount of lozenges eaten and an increased risk of cancer in general – particularly breast cancer – as well as cardiovascular disease.”

This means that a pattern has been identified linking the consumption of ultra-processed foods with the risk of developing these diseases, but more research is needed.

Despite mounting evidence, the UK’s Food Standards Agency – which sets regulations for the food industry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – has not yet issued an order to reduce the use of emulsifiers.

When Panorama asked the agency to comment on the growing evidence that food additives could cause health harm, it said: “No evidence has been presented to us – by this program or others – that specific emulsifiers are believed to pose a health risk.” .

But the agency added that it plans to conduct a public consultation.

Could it be the food industry itself that is resisting issuing rules limiting the use of these substances?

The Panorama team has spent the past eight months investigating this.

“The food industry is not a public health agency…their goal is to sell their products,” says Prof Nessl.

The food policy expert adds that it is known that the food industry funds research, sponsors experts, and belittles studies in this regard to prevent strict rules from being issued.

The International Life Sciences Institute is a recipient of funding from some of the largest food companies in the world.

The institute says its aim is “to provide scientific research that improves human health” – but it has previously published studies that undermine general guidelines around a healthy diet. In 2012, the European Food Safety Agency became so concerned about conflicts of interest that it insisted that anyone working for it with links to the institute should resign from the institute or leave the agency.

Professor Alan Bobis, Professor Emeritus at Imperial College London is also the unpaid director of the European branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. But he also chairs a group of UK scientists who make up the Toxicology Study Panel, which advises the government’s Food Standards Agency on how dangerous chemicals are in foods.

More than half of the committee members have recent connections to the food industry or the chemical industry. For the past 10 years, the committee has not endorsed any restrictions on the use of food additives in our food.

Professor Popis told Panorama that he does not provide advice tailored to the benefit of the food industry, and that he has always been “committed to conducting and identifying the best scientific research…regardless of who is funding it”.

The Food Standards Agency said it had a “clear code of conduct…in relation to declarations of interest” and that there was “no evidence” of biases influencing its decisions.

The institute said: “We work within the framework of the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

aSpartame: Sweeter than sugar

Among the most controversial additives in ultra-processed foods is the sweetener known as aspartame.

The substance is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and has been promoted as a great low-calorie alternative – which in turn has led to sugary drinks, ice cream and candy previously considered unhealthy being labeled “healthy”.

Questions have been raised about the potential harm of this sweetener over the past two decades.

Then the World Health Organization said last month that while the evidence was not conclusive, it was concerned that long-term use of sweeteners such as aspartame could lead to an increased risk of “type 2 diabetes, heart disease and death”.

In 2013, the European Food Safety Agency, after examining all the evidence, decided that aspartame was safe. The UK Food Standards Agency has accepted this decision.

The Toxicology Study Panel looked at a 2013 study on aspartame and concluded that the findings “do not indicate the need for any action to protect public health”.

Six years later, Professor Eric Millstone, Emeritus Professor of Science Policy at the University of Sussex, decided to review the same evidence that the European Agency had studied to see who had funded the various studies.

Professor Millstone discovered that 90 percent of the studies defending the substance were funded by the large chemical corporations that make and sell aspartame.

It found that all studies indicating that aspartame may cause health harm were funded by independent, non-commercial sources.

A spokesman for the Federation of Food and Beverage Manufacturers told the BBC that the companies “take the health of consumers and the safety of the food they produce very seriously, and adhere to strict rules” in this regard.

The Food Standards Agency says it will consider the World Health Organization’s ongoing evaluation of aspartame.

The British government says it is aware of growing concerns about ultra-processed foods and has ordered a review of evidence that they may cause health harm.