We must wake up to dangers of ultra processed foods

Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, has written various titles about the western diet, trying to explain how our metabolism works, and conducting a rear-guard action against our blithe ignorance of – and lack of interest in – what we put on our plates.

I’ve been reading his latest, Food for Life, which dissects old myths of what is good and bad for us. As well as offering scientifically-based nutritional advice, Spector emphasises how to mitigate the impact our craving for meat, fish and dairy has on the environment.

Like many children, I used avidly to read the small print on cereal packets and sauce bottles, despite not understanding what the words signified.

READ MORE: Rosemary Goring: It’s Scotland. It’s summer. It’s raining. What else do you expect?

As an adult, however, when long lists of artificial and chemically enhanced ingredients would at least have acted as a warning, I gave them as much attention as the barcode. Belatedly, I’m going through our cupboards, discovering the degree to which the cereals, biscuits or ready-meals that hitherto I’ve scoffed without a second thought are made of man-made or manipulated components.

I expect most readers have not been as heedless. Other than a predilection for fruit, vegetables and oatcakes, thinking about what I eat and cooking it well has never been my strong point. What was particularly illuminating about Spector’s work, however, is not just his lucid explanation of how healthy and unhealthy foods work on us, but his description of the role the gut plays in everybody’s wellbeing. Its job goes far beyond simple digestion, acting as a regulator of appetite and a support for the immune system.

Spector shows how ultra processed foods (UPFs) are designed to be addictive, even when they offer very little nutritional value. Across the globe, it seems, armies of food scientists are devising fiendishly clever ways of making us eat more and more bad stuff.

As he writes, “Most ultra-processed foods contain mixtures of fat, salt and sugar in quantities that have been tested on human volunteers to produce the perfect bliss point which lights up the pleasure centres.

The brain, once tricked, then produces feel-good neurochemicals like dopamine which override any signals of fullness from our gut hormones…” Such work, he says, requires “chemical genius”. It also, I’d suggest, threatens almost the entire population.

Spector says ultra processed foods (UPFs) are designed to be addictive (Image: free)

Barely a day passes without news of a fresh discovery aimed at improving our diets. Yesterday we learned that a daily handful of nuts can keep depression at bay. Earlier this week a team at the University of Cambridge announced that the area of the brain that controls appetite is larger in people who are obese. The question is how to put this finding to practical use in the fight against what is fast becoming a national crisis.

Nor is obesity our only problem. The NHS is increasingly under pressure as it copes with the numbers of us requiring treatment for cancers, type 2 diabetes, musculoskeletal problems, and much else.

Is it possible – perhaps even probable? – that what feels like an exponential rise in poor health can be traced, in part at least, to what we eat? Of course many diseases have a genetic origin, but the environment in which we live, and how we eat, is also a contributing factor.

Spector’s book is stuffed with statistics about the levels of pesticides and chemicals found in fruit and vegetables, cereal crops, and fish and meat. When even organic foods contain traces of pesticides, presumably from neighbouring farms, the extent of the problem becomes clear. There is a risk of contamination in almost everything we consume.

READ MORE: Rosemary Goring: Let’s all stand tall in praise of short folk

If we are to address the most urgent of the nation’s health problems – with obesity high on the list – money must be spent on investigating what goes into the food chain and what we are ingesting when we eat processed and ultra processed items. The problem is so pressing, and the perils of ignoring it so costly, it is hard to understand why this is not a priority. It is even more urgent, surely, than preparing for another pandemic, since an unhealthy population is intensely vulnerable to another deadly virus.

It’s not just the UK where little is spent addressing this. According to Spector, “The EU annual research budget is 145 billion euros; it is a disgrace our governments only spend around 1 per cent of that to properly research the safety of our daily foods.”

To tackle the high levels of cancer and other diseases which are putting such a strain on the NHS, Westminster should instigate rigorous investigations into the dangerous and addictive chemicals in our groceries. Doing this would allow them to start weeding out – and if necessary outlawing – those that are most damaging for the country’s long-term health.

Banning junk food promotions in supermarkets – whenever our lieges can summon the willpower to do so – will be a risibly feeble response to a problem this profound, albeit better than doing nothing at all. More significantly, the UK should follow many other countries (although not the US) in completely banning the use of hydrogenated or trans fats. According to Spector, “Even small amounts of trans fats (1–2 per cent of daily food intake) massively increase inflammation, lipid levels, heart disease and sudden death threefold, not even counting the extra cancers.”

Looking at the scale of the UK’s health crisis, can government afford not to spend money on improving what and how we eat? Children, who are the most susceptible to contaminants or dodgy ingredients, should be the first focus of any strategy aimed at raising the bar. With roughly a third of youngsters overweight or obese by the end of primary school, the explosion of ailments and other issues awaiting them as they get older is dreadful to contemplate. What point in investing billions in infrastructure or space technology when something as fundamental as what we eat is a potential hazard for us all?