The federal government plans to develop a new definition of ultra -proced food, a wide group of snacks, meals and drinks that have become a cornerstone of the American diet.
Nutritional researchers Define in general Ultracrocessed food as industrially manufactured products with ingredients that you would not find in your own kitchen, such as corn syrup with high-fructose or hydrogenated oils. The products also often contain artificial flavors, sweeteners and emulsifiers that make them attractive for consumers and can give them a longer shelf life.
By making its own definition, the government could investigate the chemicals and additives that are invested in food, the number of ingredients in a product or its overall nutritional value. This description can then be used to shape the school lunch policy, to regulate foods available through federal services such as the additional food utility or recommendations about limiting ultracroced food consumption in American food guidelines. The Food and Drug Administration, which leads the effort in collaboration with the US Department of Agriculture and other agencies, is planning to request public comments before they set a definition in the coming months.
Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA Commissioner, said he expected the definition to encourage companies to label food as “non-vertraced” to seduce customers, similar to how food manufacturers bring their products on the market as free of added sugars.
“We don’t see ultra -priced food as food to be banned,” he said. “We see them as defined foods so that markets can compete based on health.”
The idea that consumers do their best to avoid these items reflects the growing concerns about it Potential Damage of Ultracroced FoodIncluding many breakfast cereals, instant noodles, protein bars, meal replacement shakes, flavored yogurt, hot dogs and more. Scientists have increasingly Ultracrocessed food linked to poor health results, such as type 2 diabetes, heart problems, some types of cancers and gastrointestinal problems.
Kyle Diamantas, the deputy commissioner of the FDA’s Food Division, said that there were some “obvious areas” that would consider the agency when making the definition, including synthetic dyes, emulsifiers and preservatives.
“In our home kitchens we do not have these new new ingredients that help a Twinkie to stay on the shelf for six years or whatever it is,” said Mr Diamantas. He also suggested that a standard definition of ultracrocessed foods could be used to regulate the meals served to members of the army and for prisons and veteran hospitals.
The government will almost certainly be confronted with pushback of some corners of the food industryHe has familiar with preservatives and artificial ingredients to produce cheap, handy foods on a large scale.
Every definition that the government thinks would be ‘fiercely disputed’ by the food industry, said Marion Nestle, an Emerita professor in food, food studies and public health at New York University.
By defining ultracrocessed food, the government will also weigh issues that have divided nutrition experts and confused consumers: do vegetable meat and milk Do you belong to the same category as soft drinks and candy beams? And are all ultracrocessed foods inherently unhealthy? Some, like Different yogurt and whole -grain bread and grains contain valuable nutrients And are associated with positive health results.
The broad term can “demonize” foods that do not necessarily harm consumers, said Maya Vadiveloo, a associate professor of food at the University of Rhode Island.
The federal pressure follows Recent efforts in one handful From states to limit ultracrocessed food that is sold and served in schools. In Arizona, legislators only defined ultracroced food as with certain food additives, such as artificial dyes. But additives can only be part of what makes certain ultracroced food unhealthy, said Brenda Davy, a professor of food to Virginia Tech and If the federal definition follows the example of Arizona, it would probably miss a large number of ultra-Codeed food, as a sugar-loaded breakfast grains that do not use a certain color.
“If their focus is too narrow, it can be limited in how much that can improve health,” she said.
Yet a federal definition would be a “big step forward”, Dr. Nestle. It could pave the way for new types of warning labels, or for the government to regulate whether food makers can stay on the market to children ultracroced food, she said.
“All those are for picking up if there is a definition,” she said. She added: “It matters a lot.”
- Advertisement -
