Query: ultra-processed foods

Relevant passages:
Tobacco and obesity epidemics: not so different after all? <=SEP=> Short abstract Campaigns to promote healthy eating are undermined by the ubiquity of processed, energy dense foods. A global strategy is now needed to tackle the rising prevalence of obesity

Body weight status and cardiovascular risk factors in adults by frequency of candy consumption <=SEP=> Background Limited information is available regarding the impact of candy consumption on health. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between typical frequency of candy consumption and body weight status and select cardiovascular risk factors among adults in the United States. Methods Using data collected in the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), adults were categorized as infrequent (≤ 3 eating occasions [EO]/month), moderate (> 3 EO/month and ≤ 3.5 EO/week), or frequent (> 3.5 EO/week) candy consumers based on the combined frequency of chocolate and other candy consumption over the previous 12 months. Weight and adiposity status were analyzed using logistic regression models, and blood pressure, lipids, and insulin sensitivity were analyzed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for age, sex and race/ethnicity, and also for additional covariates with potential associations with the outcomes. Appropriate statistical weights were used to yield results generalizable to the US population. Results Frequency of candy consumption was not associated with the risk of obesity, overweight/obesity, elevated waist circumference, elevated skinfold thickness, blood pressure, low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, or insulin resistance. Increased frequency of candy consumption was associated with higher energy intakes and higher energy adjusted intakes of carbohydrates, total sugars and added sugars, total fat, saturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids (p < 0.05), and lower adjusted intakes of protein and cholesterol (p < 0.001). Conclusions Increased frequency of candy consumption among adults in the United States was not associated with objective measures of adiposity or select cardiovascular risk factors, despite associated dietary differences. Given the cross-sectional study design, however, it cannot be concluded that candy consumption does not cause obesity or untoward levels of cardiovascular risk markers. The lack of an association between frequency of candy consumption and cardiovascular risk factors could be due to reduced intake of candy among the overweight due to dieting or a health professional’s recommendations. Additionally, it is important to note that the analysis was based on frequency of candy consumption and not amount of candy consumed. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the lack of associations between frequency of candy consumption and cardiovascular risk factors.

Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. <=SEP=> The 2011 UN high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) called for multisectoral action including with the private sector and industry. However, through the sale and promotion of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink (unhealthy commodities), transnational corporations are major drivers of global epidemics of NCDs. What role then should these industries have in NCD prevention and control? We emphasise the rise in sales of these unhealthy commodities in low-income and middle-income countries, and consider the common strategies that the transnational corporations use to undermine NCD prevention and control. We assess the effectiveness of self-regulation, public-private partnerships, and public regulation models of interaction with these industries and conclude that unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD policy. Despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public-private partnerships, there is no evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the unhealthy commodity industries. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food? <=SEP=> Context: In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public's health was the industry's concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives. In the hope that the food history will be written differently, this article both highlights important lessons that can be learned from the tobacco experience and recommends actions for the food industry. Methods: A review and analysis of empirical and historical evidence pertaining to tobacco and food industry practices, messages, and strategies to influence public opinion, legislation and regulation, litigation, and the conduct of science. Findings: The tobacco industry had a playbook, a script, that emphasized personal responsibility, paying scientists who delivered research that instilled doubt, criticizing the “junk” science that found harms associated with smoking, making self-regulatory pledges, lobbying with massive resources to stifle government action, introducing “safer” products, and simultaneously manipulating and denying both the addictive nature of their products and their marketing to children. The script of the food industry is both similar to and different from the tobacco industry script. Conclusions: Food is obviously different from tobacco, and the food industry differs from tobacco companies in important ways, but there also are significant similarities in the actions that these industries have taken in response to concern that their products cause harm. Because obesity is now a major global problem, the world cannot afford a repeat of the tobacco history, in which industry talks about the moral high ground but does not occupy it.

Manufactured uncertainty: protecting public health in the age of contested science and product defense. <=SEP=> The strategy of "manufacturing uncertainty" has been used with great success by polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products to oppose public health and environmental regulation. This strategy entails questioning the validity of scientific evidence on which the regulation is based. While this approach is most identified with the tobacco industry, it has been used by producers of asbestos, benzene, beryllium, chromium, diesel exhaust, lead, plastics, and other hazardous products to avoid environmental and occupational health regulation. It is also central to the debate on global warming. The approach is now so common that it is unusual for the science not to be challenged by an industry facing regulation. Manufacturing uncertainty has become a business in itself; numerous technical consulting firms provide a service often called "product defense" or "litigation support." As these names imply, the usual objective of these activities is not to generate knowledge to protect public health but to protect a corporation whose products are alleged to have toxic properties. Evidence in the scientific literature of the funding effect--the close correlation between the results of a study desired by a study's funder and the reported results of that study--suggests that the financial interest of a study's sponsors should be taken into account when considering the study's findings. Similarly, the interpretation of data by scientists with financial conflicts should be seen in this light. Manufacturing uncertainty is antithetical to the public health principle that decisions be made using the best evidence currently available.