Food industry view: it's not UPFs that are the problem, it's snacking on the UPFs

[Lemonthyme]

I work in the food industry which I know will be much maligned on here but most of what I see is mostly pretty ethical when it comes to nutrition. I see changing nutrition as a government job not a manufacturer one. Much as the likes of CvT and Tim Spector claim differently there are no secret labs full of food scientists cackling and designing foods to make you eat more. All they're doing (and have time to do) is make foods that are bought and comply with the law. But there is always going to be a natural reinforcement that the foods which are liked more and where marketing works, will be bought more. This reinforces making more of foods which we like, whether they are healthy or not.

But if there's one thing I'd urge you not to eat and not even to shop is the snacks aisles.

I say "snacks aisles" (plural) because this has been a big change since I started work, just how much they have proliferated across the supermarket. My local medium sized store now has:

Cake aisle
Biscuit aisle.
An aisle with crisps on one side and sweets and chocolate on the other
Another separate aisle with more crisps
Other snacks sneaking in elsewhere into chilled displays

When I was young in the 90s there would probably be one aisle of this kind of stuff at best. It has massively grown and if the UPF tag bothers you, it will often contain ingredients which are extracts or would even have formerly been (but hygienically recovered) waste streams like whey powder or some starches.

Reasonably recently the laws on HFSS (high fat sugar salt) got partially delayed then implemented. This is all about where items like this can be merchandised and offers you can have. For example, it used to be aisle end but now can't be.

But what did manufacturers do? Well the obvious thing. They reformulated. They started to promote their products which were already lower in fat etc which then has halo effects on other products in the range. This might not have been an intended consequence but it's an entirely foreseeable one.

To mean that they get around this law, manufacturers do one or more of these things:

Reduce fat, sugar or salt
Adding in fruit, veg, nuts, protein or fibre

What this all means though is that you will see these "slightly better for you" snacks perhaps with more claims or more of a health halo than they had before.

Here's the fact of it all though. None of these are necessary in your diet. Hey, eat them if you want but you do not need to be fooled into changing from "snack x to snack y now with added fibre and 10% less calories!"

Inevitably, these are foods which don't fill you up and I find it so depressing that people buy them. Especially how mindlessly they're eaten in autopilot. The monotonous picking at crisps in front of the TV or glazed look as eating a chocolate bar when driving. Nobody is eating this food with intention and joy. In general people consume it with the same vacant look as a cow chewing the cud. It's also very possible that the nutritional changes make the snacks less satiating so you end up having a little more.

I think that the UPF arguments are hideously overstated. Fact is that most factories making, say a lasagne or a curry are going to use the same kinds of ingredients you use at home. But that's a meal.

It's the snacks that worry me. As a society we did not used to snack as much as we do now. And we certainly did not used to snack on industrially made foods as much as we do. When I was young if I wanted a snack before dinner it was a choice of a granny smith apple (bleurgh) or a "nice" biscuit (which ok, is industrial but is anything but nice). Nowadays we have such an array of stuff around us all the time.

There is a consultation out there right now in the industry that they will tighten the NPM / HFSS rules further. It will make it harder for manufacturers to comply but some will and others will already have the established links between their products in your minds and "not being all that bad for me" as a belief.

So my pitch, from an insider, is don't trade into a "healthier alternative" or something that's "slightly lower in calories". Just ignore this bloody crap and stop buying it. If you want a snack, grab a satsuma or a (nicer) apple.

OK ChatGPT

I take it you dont want your job to continue then?

So many AI posts about snacking today.

Much as the likes of CvT and Tim Spector claim differently there are no secret labs full of food scientists cackling and designing foods to make you eat more. All they're doing (and have time to do) is make foods that are bought and comply with the law.

This is exactly what CvT says- that food companies aren't evil, they are simply acting according to commercial incentives like every other business. But now I'm debating with SnackGPT 😂

Not a single bit of AI in it. 🤷‍♀️

Oh FFS...

Ok whatever. Carry on.

Well to be honest, I doubted many people would listen to me and that it wouldn't be impactful numbers if they did. Also I get frustrated that people will focus on foods they perceive to be more processed and focus on the processing not on the known HFSS science. So ready meals or sandwiches will get a bad press as people are buying sugary sweets.

However, instead what I got was abuse and accusations my post was AI generated. Which is frankly bizarre.

Whatever. Do what you want and I'll carry on making money out of companies that sell that kind of stuff. I guess people just feel more comfortable listening to podcasts or influencers. Meh. Crack on then. 🤷‍♀️

Your bias is showing. Plenty (if not the majority) of factory made ready meals have a lot of ingredients we can’t get at home. The food industry is just that, an industry. It is out to make money. Of course it will do whatever it can within government guidelines to make food as cheaply as possible to encourage as large a profit as possible. If supermarkets invest money in psychology to determine their store layouts to encourage higher spending, it is entirely feasible food industry will be doing similar. You’re incredibly naive if you think there isn’t a drive to make people eat more, via ingredients or production as well as marketing.

That said I agree it has to come from government because in a capitalist society the food industry can’t be trusted to be ethical, their priority will always be profit, government has to set the standards. But alas the food industry is powerful.

Well I found your post helpful OP

I've worked in ready meals. Very few contain ingredients you can't get at home but my point is even for those where, say, pectin is used to prevent the sauce moving during transit, there is no evidence that's in any way harmful. But there is evidence high fat sugar and salt diets are harmful. My point is that the concern about UPFs is often misplaced into pseudoscience which has no basis in fact beyond what we already know about HFSS foods. What DOES make sense though is to cut down on foods which have no benefits in your diet, they don't fill you up, they don't bring significant micronutrients, protein or fibre and also often happen to be UPFs. These are relatively recent entrants into our diets in the last few decades, so much so that snacking has become normalised.

Manufacturers are not using psychologists to drive for more consumption. And if anything you could argue (I don't) that the reformulation is positive because consumers are eating less sugar, salt, fat through stealth if they don't increase consumption.

My suggestion though I think you've missed is that there is a whole category of foods which does not need to exist whether it's UPF or not and you're healthier avoiding that category rather than getting into huge debates about whether a lasagne is or isn't UPF.

Not sure why you're swearing at me for correcting a basic error in your post. CvT's argument is that food companies are simply acting rationally in creating foods that people will buy in quantity and that we therefore need better regulation.

For more about snacking read this thread: Page 6 | Food shopping tips appreciated! | Mumsnet.

If people weren't buying the crap snacky food, the manufacturers would stop making it.

Consumers are gullible and believe that claims like 'no-added sugar', low-fat etc
mean it's good for you.

Portion sizes on the packet are not the portion that gets eaten by one person.

@Lemonthymeup to 90% of supermarket ready meals are considered UPFs, I know you’re going to dismiss that with your mighty ‘insider knowledge’ and yes I am well aware that UPF as a term is flawed, not well defined and does not treat foods contextually. But saying that the majority of ready meals could be replicated at home is just completely BS. There are so many crap ones out there.

I genuinely believe the way food manufacturing has gone is going to be the health scandal of our generation. Nothing you have said convinces me otherwise, I’ve seen your other posts on other threads, you use limited experience to try to justify a global issue.

I found CvT's book really interesting and I think there's definitely good science in the concern about UPFs.

But I agree with you, OP. I think some people will get bogged down in the details of "which of these similar products doesn't count as UPF?" And lose the bigger picture of: eat whole foods. Don't snack mindlessly. That's so true what you said about mindless snacking. It's a big part of modern culture, and it's not about nourishing ourselves.

OP you shouldn’t be worried or depressed about what other people eat.

but aside from the centring of unnecessary emotion I think this is an interesting post and observation.

for example, I eat all bran which is a UPF (I’m not giving it up btw) but recently they have started producing a higher fibre version- is this the sort of thing you’re talking about?

That rather then reduce sugar (and I can see why they can’t, for all bran) they add something else that’s healthier to attract you?

Well I am not a person who thinks ready meals and pre packed sandwiches are the work of the devil or that they are in any way shape or form as damaging to society as general pre packaged snacks such as brightly coloured crisps, chocolates, sweets, savoury snacks.

I often, boringly, put a load of links to ready meals when people mention that ready meals are UPFs or terrible/poor nutrition.

Most of them are not UPF

I see changing nutrition as a government job not a manufacturer one.

that’s a weird stance. Surely it’s the consumer who has responsibility for what they’re eating 🤷🏼‍♀️

Yes the countless threads about whether to use a stock cube or people getting rid of their brown sauce or tomato sauce is testament to this.

Same. I find it really weird that people constantly make this argument. Don’t they know the ingredients list is on the side of the ready meal?!? There are no secrets. I don’t need go use preservatives or stabilisers at home but that doesn’t mean they’re bad, it’s obvious what their purpose is

What about smoking?

And a lot of them dont even have preservatives or stabilisers in them.

Some do of course. I generally just go through the Asda or Tesco fresh meals range and show the evidence.

This thread is about UPFs not smoking.

It’s the behaviour though isn’t it? Tobacco companies famously marketed their dangerous, life limiting products to the public and moved around the world accessing less advanced populations as high income governments legislated against them.

do you think it was a consumer responsibility whether or not the smoked? Or where they generationally marketed an addictive product to preserve revenue?

I see changing nutrition as a government job not a manufacturer one.
It's the consumers' job.
The ingredients and nutritional information are on the packet.

I'm not going to change what I eat because the government (or some official body) tells me to eat 5 a day. It is pitifully low, but they say it to encourage people to make some of attempt to eat fruit and veg.

ready meals and pre packed sandwiches are the work of the devil
They are convenient and serve a purpose but you get people who eat UPFs for every meal and snack.

It's a separate issue to the subject being discussed on the thread.