Single nutrient taxes questioned: Ultra-processed food policies should be prioritised instead, say researchers

게시됨 2020년 10월 6일

Tridge 요약

A cross-country study by public health researchers from Australia and Norway has found that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are associated with adverse health outcomes, while unprocessed or minimally processed foods (MPF) have beneficial health outcomes. The research, which analyzed 43 studies, found that 86% reported a statistically significant association between UPF consumption and at least one adverse health outcome. The authors suggest that industrial processing, not just individual nutrients like salt and sugar, may be contributing to these health issues. They recommend incorporating the concept of UPFs into food-based dietary guidelines and nutrition policy actions. The study also highlights the effectiveness of junk food taxation in influencing consumer choices towards healthier options.

면책 조항: 위의 요약은 정보 제공 목적으로 Tridge 자체 학습 AI 모델에 의해 생성되었습니다.

원본 콘텐츠

The study was a cross-country one conducted by public health researchers across Australia and Norway and involved the analysis of 43 studies involving UPF in relation to any disease, disorder or condition specified in the International Classification of Diseases. It utilised a food classification called NOVA (a name and not an acronym) which assigns foods to four groups based on the ‘extent and purpose’ of their industrial processing – Unprocessed/Minimally Processed Foods (MPF) e.g. fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, milk; Processed Culinary Ingredients (PCI) used to cook and season MPFs but not consumed alone e.g. salt; Processed Foods (PF) where PCI is added to MPF and sold e.g. canned fruit in syrup; and UPFs which contain multiple ingredients and are produced via various ‘industrial processes’ e.g. savoury snacks and confectionary. UPFs would ‘characteristically’ contain substances such as maltodextrin, hydrogenated oil and cosmetic additive to improve taste. Out of the 43 ...

출처: Food Navigator Asia