A recent survey reveals that 53% of UK residents favour imposing a tax on companies that produce ultra-processed foods (UPFs). This move is seen as a potential solution to combat rising NHS costs and the growing obesity crisis. However, it’s crucial to separate plant-based foods from the ultra-processed category, as they can offer significant health benefits.
Public Opinion on Food Taxes
According to a new Ipsos survey commissioned by the UK’s Health Foundation, a majority of Brits support taxing UPFs if part of the revenue is used to fund fresh fruits and vegetables for low-income families. Specifically, 53% back this approach, while 58% endorse taxing foods high in sugar and salt, provided some revenue helps increase access to fresh produce for disadvantaged households.
In the UK, UPFs constitute 57% of the average diet and can make up to 80% of the diet for children and low-income individuals. Approximately two-thirds of calories consumed by adolescents come from UPFs.
Addressing Obesity and Health Concerns
One in three children in the UK are overweight or obese by the end of primary school, and over a third are at risk of future food-related illnesses. Additionally, 95% of children exceed the daily recommended sugar intake, 66% exceed the salt limit, and only 9% consume enough fruits and vegetables.
The new Labour government has pledged to tackle obesity by banning junk food ads before 9pm and restricting the sale of energy drinks to those under 16. The potential for a tax on UPFs, similar to the Conservatives’ soft drinks levy introduced in 2018, remains uncertain. Yet, the conversation around UPFs needs to be more nuanced, especially regarding plant-based foods, which could offer substantial benefits to the NHS.
Ultra-processed foods fall into the lowest category of the Nova classification system, which ranks foods based on their level of processing, not nutritional value. UPFs include items like sugary cereals, hot dogs, soft drinks, and some plant-based meats. However, the association between vegan products and UPFs has been misleading.
Recent studies, including one from São Paulo University and Imperial College London, have linked UPFs to heart disease, leading some media outlets to criticize vegan meat alternatives. Yet, these alternatives constituted only 0.2% of the study’s sample, while the UPFs actually associated with cardiovascular issues were packaged breads, cakes, and biscuits.
The Complexity of UPFs, Nutrition, and Plant-Based Foods
The Nova classification system, which categorizes foods based on their level of processing, places UPFs at the lowest tier. These include items like sugary cereals, hot dogs, and some plant-based meat alternatives. However, the debate around vegan products and UPFs has often been oversimplified.
Many reviews have connected UPFs with various health problems, but this does not universally apply to all UPFs. For instance, some UPFs like cereals, whole-grain bread, and fruit-based products were linked to better health outcomes in the same studies. These products are often plant-based. For example, despite being processed similarly to cheese, tofu is classified as an UPF, while items like beer, wine, pasta, and cheese are not.
Not all UPFs are harmful, and some, such as certain cereals and fruit-based products, can be part of a healthy diet. The Nova system’s limitations mean that it often misclassifies foods, leading to confusion.
Conclusion
The debate around taxing UPFs must take into account the benefits of plant-based foods and avoid blanket categorizations. While there is strong support for taxing UPFs to fund healthier food options for low-income families, careful consideration is needed to differentiate between nutritinally minimal ultra-processed products and nutritious plant-based alternatives.
For more information visit:
