49 pages • 1 hour read
Chris van TullekenA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Van Tulleken uses the example of a mass-produced ice cream from a brand called Hackney Gelato to demonstrate both how UPF is made and the economic logic behind that process. He starts by reviewing the ice cream’s extensive list of ingredients, which includes stabilizers, emulsifiers, gums, and different oils. As he notes, the presence of such ingredients, which one would not find in a typical home kitchen, is a classic hallmark of UPF. He also wonders why all these ingredients are necessary, asking, “Surely it would be simpler and cheaper to use fewer ingredients?” (16). Speaking to an industry insider, Paul Hart, van Tulleken learns that the purpose of such ingredients is in fact to save money.
UPF ingredients achieve this goal, first, by allowing for more effective storage and distribution of products. In the case of ice cream, emulsifiers and gums make the ice cream more tolerant of warmth. With these chemicals, ice cream can be more easily transported across longer distances without ice crystals forming in the product. This saves money relative to non-UPF ice cream, which can only be stored for shorter periods and thus only distributed more locally.
Second, UPF replaces the more expensive ingredients in traditional foods. As van Tulleken notes, the primary purpose of UPF is not to invent whole new foods but to provide cheaper facsimiles of existing foods. With traditional, non-UPF ice cream, the most expensive ingredients are milk, cream, and egg yolks. This is because these ingredients require the rearing of animals. In place of these, UPF uses plant starch and oils, which can be grown on vast scales and are far cheaper. However, by chemically modifying starch and plant oils, companies can recreate the appearance and texture of non-UPF ice cream. With this process, they can recreate a far cheaper, and hence more profitable, ice cream and a version of almost any other non-UPF food.
Van Tulleken examines the origins of the UPF concept. It stems from the work of Carlos Monteiro, a Brazilian nutritionist and statistician, who aimed to explain the explosion of obesity rates in Brazil from the mid-1980s onward. Studying the diets of thousands of Brazilians, Monteiro found that the problem lay not in any changes in recommended macronutrients, such as sugar or fat. Rather, the problem lay in a shift from traditional to non-traditional diets. He found that obesity was associated with new diets involving large amounts of new and highly processed foods like soft drinks, cereals, and cookies.
In 2010, Monteiro outlined a new way of defining food to understand and track the effects of these new processed foods. This was called the NOVA system. It breaks down food into four groups based on the nature and extent of its processing. NOVA group 1 includes food found in nature, such as fruit, meat, and vegetables. In group 2 are “processed culinary ingredients” like oil, lard, butter, and salt, basic ingredients that require some non-industrial processing (32). In group 3 are combinations of groups 1 and 2, foods processed largely for preservation. These include smoked or cured meats and fish, jams, and freshly made bread. In group 4 are ultra-processed foods. As Monteiro’s definition states, these are “formulations of ingredients, mostly of industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes requiring sophisticated technology and equipment” (33). These processes often involve the breaking down of whole foods into substances, which are then subject to chemical modification. In short, NOVA group 4 foods are foods that are possible only through advanced industrial technology and within a complex, multifaceted industry of food production.
Van Tulleken discusses how Kevin Hall, a British scientist and nutritionist, devised a 2019 experiment to test Monteiro’s hypothesis that UPF causes obesity. Hall, as Van Tulleken explains, was skeptical about the idea at first, questioning what exactly it could be about processing that causes weight gain. Hall set up an experiment to disprove Monteiro involving 20 men and women. Half of the participants ate an 80% UPF, NOVA group 4 diet for two weeks, while the other half ate a diet containing no NOVA group 4 foods at all. They then swapped so that the first group had the non-UPF diet and the second group had the UPF diet for a further two weeks. Critically, each diet contained the same amount of salt, sugar, fat, and fiber, and each participant was allowed to each as much as they liked of their diet.
After a month, the results showed that those on the UPF diet had eaten an extra 500 calories per day and had gained weight accordingly. In contrast, those on the non-UPF diet lost weight. Thus, Hall demonstrated that UPF causes weight gain. Indeed, van Tulleken suggests, the study probably underestimates the effects of UPF on weight. The study did not consider how the packaging, marketing, convenience, and lower cost associated with UPF, which were not factors in the study, drive excess consumption of UPF in the real world. Nonetheless, Hall’s findings gave respectability to the UPF classification of food and Monteiro’s hypothesis linking it to ill health. Since 2019, more real-world studies have corroborated Hall’s findings. These include one study of 100,000 people in the British Medical Journal, which showed that a 10% increase in consumption of UPF was associated with a 10% increase in risk of cancer.
Van Tulleken retells the story of the first synthetic fat and discusses what this says about the origins and nature of UPF. As he explains, in 1912, Germany was looking for a way to end reliance on foreign oil for its war industry when two German scientists, Fischer and Tropsch, devised a way to get liquid fuel from low-quality coal, lignite, which Germany had in abundance. By the late 1930s, this process had been perfected, with 600,000 tons of fuel derived from lignite every year, leaving behind vast quantities of a waste product called “slackwax.”
However, Germany was also short of edible fat, which it wanted as part of its policy of autarky, or self-sufficiency. This policy aimed to mitigate the effects of a possible blockade as had occurred in World War I. As such, a German businessman, Imhausen, partnered with a well-connected politician, Keppler, to help convert slack wax into edible fat in 1938. They did this by adding glycerin to slackwax to make edible fat, speisefett. They then combined speisefett with a chemical called diacetyl to give the speisefett the superficial taste of butter. Thus, Imhausen and Keppler created “coal butter” and “the first totally synthetic food” (71). This synthetic butter was used by German troops in World War II, although it was later found, in secret documents recovered by the Allies after the war, that it caused severe kidney problems in the animals on which it had been tested.
Van Tulleken examines a dietary approach known as “nutritionism” (38). It is based on the idea “that a healthy diet can be broken down into individual chemicals” (42). If food is a collection of nutrients interacting with the body, it follows that there are optimal amounts of each that can be determined and prescribed.
By establishing “the minimum requirements for a healthy body” (42), nutritionism was able to cure multiple diseases of deficiency. For instance, conditions such as Beriberi, pellagra, scurvy, and rickets have all been cured by the identification of missing vitamins and their addition to the diet. Nutritionism also serves an important function in understanding and investigating dietary health. By breaking down food into measurable components, such as calories, vitamins, and fats, nutritionism “operationalizes” food. This means that it identifies phenomena that can then be isolated and tested. For example, nutritionism allows scientists to ask about and test the impact of fat and protein on obesity and diabetes.
However, nutritionism also has several problems. Foremost among these is the complexity and confusion of its recommendations. In the UK, there is a “traffic lights” system that gives food green, amber, or red colors for levels of salt, fat, and sugar. These lights reflect how much of these macronutrients are in a food as a percentage of the recommended daily intake for each group and whether this is high, medium, or low. This system provides little guidance about whether to eat something. Even if the recommendations stated for each macronutrient are conducive to health, one would have to weigh out every food and one’s “serving,” as these guidelines are per 100 grams. It would then be necessary to calculate the percentage recommended daily intake for every serving for each nutrient throughout the day, making a running total of each. This is not even accounting for recommended daily intakes of vitamins, fiber, or other supposedly “good” nutrients.
As van Tulleken says, this labeling and the “traffic lights” are misguided because they “represent a delusion about the way people choose and eat food” (41). It is not just that eating according to the advice of nutritionism is impracticable. The system also does not consider the role of appetite and the fact that we eat based on hunger, not just “according to numbers” (41). Finally, nutritionism fails to explain the rise in diet-related disease in the past 40 years. Despite growing awareness of the different elements of nutrition and how they affect the body, rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes have exploded.
Monteiro’s new classification of food may prove more useful. By categorizing food according to the extent of its processing rather than its nutritional content, the NOVA scale does not just provide a simpler way of determining which foods are healthy. It also explains the recent growth in obesity rates and the “apparent paradox” that obesity rates have grown despite people eating healthier according to conventional advice (43). The rise in obesity was especially noticeable in Brazil between the mid-1980s and 2010s. There, purchases of food conventionally recommended as healthy, such as cereals, pasta, and bread, had increased, and purchases of foods considered unhealthy, such as oil and sugar, decreased. In the same period, there had been a shift away from traditional diets. In their place was huge growth in the consumption of recently introduced, ultra-processed foods “made from deconstructed, modified ingredients that were mixed with additives” (44).
At the same time, the NOVA classification explains another phenomenon that nutritionism struggles with. There is not an “optimal” balance of macronutrients, as nutritionism implies. As Michael Pollan highlighted in 2007, “almost any kind of traditional diet seemed to be associated with health […] including in the case of the French, large quantities of alcohol and saturated fat,” or with the Italians, “lots of pizza and pasta” (47). This suggests that any traditional diet can be healthy, even with radically different amounts of fat or carbohydrates. That is, different diets can be healthy provided they do not involve UPF.
The NOVA scale explains these phenomena better than nutritionism. However, it does not prove that it is right about what makes a healthy diet or about the causes of obesity. The correlation between the decline of traditional diets and UPF’s rise with the increase of diet-related disease does not prove that UPF causes disease. Nevertheless, van Tulleken argues that “dozens of well-conducted studies” link UPF to “a range of health conditions” and obesity (66), emphasizing The Importance of Experimental Studies. The question, central to the plausibility of the NOVA scale, is why. In upcoming chapters, van Tulleken will more closely examine why ultra-processing damages our health and causes weight gain.
Plus, gain access to 9,150+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: