Rocco Renaldi, secretary-general at the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), tells Nutrition Insight that comparing UPFs with tobacco is \u201cmisleading and unhelpful.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMany foods labeled \u2018ultra-processed\u2019 play an important role in nutrition, safety, and affordability. This is fundamentally different from products such as tobacco, which are inherently harmful and have no safe level of use.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cEquating food with tobacco oversimplifies the science and the food system. It risks polarizing the debate and detracting from more constructive, evidence-based approaches to improving diets.\u201d<\/p>\n He adds that public health challenges linked to nutrition are inherently complex and are influenced by factors such as overall diet, lifestyle, and socioeconomic conditions. \u201cAddressing them requires thoughtful, science-based solutions rather than comparisons that do not reflect the realities of food and nutrition.\u201d<\/p>\n Lead author Dr. Nicholas Chartres, a researcher from the University of Sydney\u2019s Faculty of Medicine and Health in Australia, tells Nutrition Insight\u00a0that the tobacco analogy refers to taxes and marketing limits and restricting industry influence on research and policy.<\/p>\n \u00a0His paper advocates for independent research funding and removing corporate influence from policymaking, \u201csince industry involvement tends to skew data.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n For more practical interventions, the paper also recommends advertising bans, especially to protect children, and strong warning labels specifying the health risk.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople can keep their freedom of choice, but if evidence shows these products are harmful and intentionally formulated to encourage overconsumption, they should carry warning labels, even plain packaging \u2014 similar to tobacco,\u201d Chartres explains. \u201cCollectively, these strategies should be applied because there\u2019s sufficient evidence of harm and of shared origins with tobacco industry practices.\u201d<\/p>\n Although this classification system is widely used, researchers and nutritionists have criticized it for being too broad or vague<\/a>. Renaldi previously told us\u00a0<\/a>that not all category 4 foods according to this definition have the same poor nutritional value.\u00a0<\/p>\n Tobacco and UPF link<\/p>\n The paper finds that since the 1980s, several corporations have transferred their technical and marketing knowledge from selling cigarettes to selling and marketing UPFs.\u00a0<\/p>\n Chartres argues that these foods were made to be more appealing to children, especially by altering ratios of fat, sodium, and carbohydrates to increase \u201chyperpalatability,\u201d encouraging overconsumption.<\/p>\n These strategies were used to shape public perception of those products, influence regulation, and shape what the public knows about them, explains Chartres. \u201cOther food companies copied these strategies, leading to a proliferation of hyperpalatable foods over the following decades.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSo it\u2019s not just the products themselves \u2014 it\u2019s the corporate strategies that enable increased sales and delayed regulation. It\u2019s the combination that drives consumption and exposure. That\u2019s why it\u2019s important to understand that reducing harm isn\u2019t only about the products; it\u2019s also about addressing the strategies corporations use.\u201d<\/p>\n Regulating UPFs for public health<\/p>\n Speaking on behalf of the food industry, Renaldi argues that policymakers should focus on evidence-based approaches that prioritize nutritional quality rather than processing level. \u201cNutrient profiling systems, which assess foods based on their nutritional content, are more closely aligned with healthy dietary patterns.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPolicy should also consider broader factors such as portion size, dietary patterns, food safety, and accessibility. It is important to ensure people have access to safe, affordable, and nutritious foods.\u201d<\/p>\n He underscores that the \u201cultra-processed\u201d label is often used as a \u201ccatch-all,\u201d grouping foods that differ nutritionally. Moreover, he points out that there is no globally accepted, science-based definition of UPFs, with current classifications focusing on processing over nutritional composition, adding to consumer confusion and poor food choices.<\/p>\n \u201cThis shift in focus can also distract from more actionable guidance, such as reducing excess salt, sugar, and fat, which are well-established drivers of poor health outcomes.\u201d<\/p>\n Renaldi believes that labels based only on processing risk can miss these factors and may lead to unintended consequences, including reduced access to fortified or shelf-stable foods that support nutrition.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Chartres highlights the importance of removing industry involvement in regulating UPFs. For instance, regulatory approaches were created once public health researchers understood that tobacco industry strategies were deliberate. He adds that there is evidence showing some UPF food companies use similar strategies, which is why the paper calls for a parallel application of public health tools to reduce consumption.<\/p>\n \u201cWe also saw huge declines in tobacco use in high-income countries when places like the US and Australia implemented measures such as clean air policies, taxation, marketing restrictions, plain packaging, and health warning labels,\u201d he notes. \u201cSince UPFs cause similar harm and companies use similar tactics, we believe a comparable suite of strategies should now be applied to regulate these foods.\u201d<\/p>\n Keeping nutrition science independent<\/p>\n Chartres elaborates on the ways in which some major multinational corporations have influenced food research. He flags that many have funded nutrition research to make their products appear less harmful through trade organizations.<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, Coca-Cola funded studies emphasizing physical activity instead of the health effects of sugar \u2014 an intentional distraction from the causes of obesity and metabolic illness.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey also funded academic institutions, scientific conferences, and professional bodies such as dietetic associations in the US and Australia. These actions helped shape scientific communication, public perception, and policy decisions around their products,\u201d notes Chartres. \u201cTogether, these tactics strongly influenced how governments and the public viewed UPFs.\u201d<\/p>\n Nutrition guidelines and responsibility<\/p>\n![\"arrow\"](\"https:\/\/resource.innovamarketinsights360.com\/fif\/banners\/123e92b8-59cd-4de8-a1ee-50ad92794807.webp\" "\\"arrow\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nScientists spotlight UPFs as a key driver of global chronic disease, mirroring tobacco\u2019s harm.Chartres explains that in his paper, UPFs refer to the Nova definition \u2014 category 4 foods \u2014 which has been used across observational research and systematic reviews linking these foods to disease outcomes and mortality.<\/p>\n
Dr. Nicholas Chartres explains hyperpalatability tactics transferred from cigarettes to modern snacks\u00a0(Image credit Fiona Wolf, University of Sydney).\u201cWe refer to frameworks like the WHO\u2019s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which was one of the most consequential public health treaties ever developed. It recognized that the tobacco industry should not be involved in developing regulations about its own products. Removing industry influence from the policymaking process is crucial.\u201d<\/p>\n