Ultra-processing markers are more prevalent in plant-based meat products as compared to their meat-based counterparts in a German food market analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare ultra-processing markers and nutrient composition in plant-based meat products (PBMP) with equivalent meat-based products (MBP). DESIGN: A total of 282 PBMP and 149 MBP within 18 product categories were assessed. Based on the NOVA classification, 33 ultra-processing markers were identified and six ultra-processing bullet categories were defined, that is flavour, flavour enhancer, sweetener, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients. The ingredient lists were analysed concerning these ultra-processing markers and ultra-processing bullet categories, as well as nutrient composition, for all PBMP and MBP. Differences between PBMP and MBP were assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 282 PBMP and 149 MBP. RESULTS: The percentage of ultra-processed food (UPF) items was significantly higher in PBMP (88 %) as compared to MBP (52 %) (P < 0·0001). The proportion of UPF items was numerically higher in 15 out of 18 product categories with differences in six categories reaching statistical significance (P < 0·05). Flavour, flavour enhancer, colour, other cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients were significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP (P < 0·0001). Concerning nutrient composition, median energy, total fat, saturated fat and protein content were significantly lower, whereas the amounts of carbohydrate, sugar, fibre and salt were significantly higher in PBMP (P < 0·05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-processing markers are significantly more prevalent in PBMP as compared to MBP. Since UPF intake has been convincingly linked to metabolic and CVD, substituting MBP with PBMP might have negative net health effects.

Flavour, emulsifiers and colour are the most frequent markers to detect food ultra-processing in a UK food market analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate which markers of ultra-processing (MUP) and their combinations are best suited to detect ultra-processed food (UPF). DESIGN: The study was based on the 206 food and 32 beverage items of the Oxford WebQ which encompass all major foods consumed in the UK. For each Oxford WebQ question, ingredient lists of up to ten matching different commercial products (n 2146) were researched online using data from the two market leaders of groceries in the UK sorted by relevance (Tesco) and by top sellers (Sainsbury's), respectively. According to the NOVA classification, sixty-five MUP were defined, and if the ingredient list of a food product was positive for at least one MUP, it was regarded as UPF. The percentage of UPF items containing specific MUP was calculated. In addition, all combinations of two to six different MUP were assessed concerning the percentage of identified UPF items. SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: None. RESULTS: A total of 990 products contained at least one MUP and were, therefore, regarded as UPF. The most frequent MUP were flavour (578 items, 58·4 % of all UPF), emulsifiers (353 items, 35·7 % of all UPF) and colour (262 items, 26·5 % of all UPF). Combined, these three MUP detected 79·2 % of all UPF products. Detection rate increased to 88·4 % of all UPF if ingredient lists were analysed concerning three additional MUP, that is, fibre, dextrose and firming agent. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 90 % of all UPF items can be detected by six MUP.

Added flavors: potential contributors to body weight gain and obesity?

BACKGROUND: Added flavors are a marker for ultra-processing of food and a strong link exists between the intake of ultra-processed food and the development of obesity. The objective of the present article is to assess animal and human data elucidating the impact of added flavors on the regulation of food intake and body weight gain, as well as to define areas for future research. MAIN TEXT: Mechanistic studies suggest that added flavors induce overeating and body weight gain by two independent mechanisms: Added flavors promote hedonic eating and override homeostatic control of food intake, as well as disrupt flavor-nutrient learning and impair the ability to predict nutrients in food items. Supporting these potential mechanisms, added flavors increase feed intake and body weight as compared to non-flavored control diets in a broad range of animal studies. They are actively promoted by feed additive manufacturers as useful tools to improve palatability, feed intake, and performance parameters. In humans, added flavors are extensively tested concerning toxicity; however, no data exist concerning their impact on food intake and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Added flavors are potential contributors to the obesity epidemic and further studies focusing on their role in humans are urgently required. These studies include obesity interventions specifically targeting food items with added flavors and cohort studies on independent associations between added flavor intake and metabolic, as well as cardiovascular, morbidity, and mortality.