New federal dietary guidelines urge Americans to cut back on ultra-processed foods. However, public health experts express concern about the lack of clear definitions, which could cause confusion and hinder effective policy.
Alexina Cather, a policy director at Hunter College, said, “We’re asking people to eat less of nearly 70% of the food supply. But without clarity and support, it’s tough for them to make informed choices.” Many everyday foods fall under this umbrella, including packaged snacks and sugary drinks.
The updated guidelines, released on January 7 by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., explicitly categorize “highly processed” foods. They highlight items like pre-packaged meals and soft drinks that are often high in sugar and salt. These guidelines, revised every five years, directly influence what many Americans consume and affect programs like school meals and nutritional assistance.
According to the CDC, over half of American adults get more than 50% of their calories from ultra-processed foods. This statistic underscores the challenge at hand. However, the term “ultra-processed” lacks a standard definition in the U.S., which complicates public understanding. Dr. Nate Wood from Yale School of Medicine emphasizes that these foods are typically made with industrial ingredients not found in home kitchens.
Without a uniform definition, there’s a disconnect between what the guidelines suggest and how people interpret them. Cather argues that without a clear definition, it’s hard for health agencies to track consumption, researchers to conduct studies, and lawmakers to create labeling standards. The FDA is working to establish this definition alongside the USDA.
Cather points out that the absence of a solid framework makes it seem like responsibility falls solely on individual choices. “It’s not just a semantic issue. If the guidelines aim to improve public health, there should have been a clear definition and a push for public education.” This gap is concerning as it hinders progress.
The guidelines do call for less consumption of ultra-processed foods, but Wood notes the difficulty in distinguishing which items are unhealthy. He mentions that not all processed foods are bad. For instance, whole-grain bread and tofu are processed but beneficial.
A more straightforward labeling system, similar to what’s seen in Europe, could help consumers make better choices. The key is to read ingredient lists carefully. Foods high in fat, sugar, or salt are likely less healthy, according to Wood.
Experts like Cather and Wood emphasize that simply encouraging people to eat less processed food overlooks larger issues, such as economic inequalities and corporate practices that make unhealthy options more accessible and affordable. Cather states, “Food systems and economic inequities drive overconsumption of ultra-processed foods.” Unless these structural issues are addressed, health initiatives may struggle to succeed.
Some regions are experimenting with better packaging and marketing regulations. However, these efforts are still scarce. For true change, a nationwide approach is essential to guide consumers in navigating the complex food environment.
In summary, while the dietary guidelines point to a necessary shift, clarity and supportive measures are crucial for empowering Americans to make healthier choices against the backdrop of an abundance of processed foods.
Source link
Alexina Cather, Nate Wood, processed foods, packaged foods, public health, Food, dietary guidelines for Americans, health, food pyramid
