A programme on UPFs has to be pretty extreme to have Tim Spector and me sharing an opinion. The recent Channel 4 shockumentary featuring Joe Wicks and Chris van Tulleken was just that, prompting Spector to rightly accuse the pair of ‘scaremongering’ about the dangers of UPFs, pointing out that not all UPFs are bad, with some being beneficial for health.
Ignoring the fact that Spector previously criticised me for taking a similar line on Newsnight just a few months ago, his seemingly Damascene conversion is a sign of how bizarre the UPF debate has become. That the latest exploits of lovable health spaniel Wicks and his TV doctor chum have not been greeted with more universal derision only goes to show how far the chattering media classes have lost their collective minds on this issue.
In a sane world, Wicks and CVT would have been sent the way of notorious Channel 4 poo sniffer Gillian McKeith.
Advocates of UPF classification now take the line that the science is settled, and all that remains is to enact policy. But among many nutrition scientists, there is huge scepticism of a system that encompasses (and so demonises) many perfectly sensible foods, while giving several unhealthy options a free pass.
A deafening silence
But if the science is so far from settled, why are there so few dissenting voices in the media? The simple answer is that as soon as academics speak out, they are widely pilloried by journalists and advocates about their conflict of interests. Anyone who has ever engaged with a food company on a collaborative project, or worked for an institution with the slightest connection to industry, is deemed corrupt.
Several have been called out on the front page of national newspapers, resulting in employers encouraging them to stay quiet. Imagine working your entire life as a nutrition academic, with the sole mission of making the food system healthier, only to have your reputation trashed by the presenter of Operation Ouch. It is unsurprising that these silencing techniques have been so effective.
Hopefully Spector, with his Zoe products for sale in major retailers, is poised for a backlash.
Nearly all nutrition academics have at some point engaged with the food industry. Anyone serious about improving the food system understands the need to work with the companies that feed us. To do otherwise would be like trying to advance aviation safety without speaking to aircraft manufacturers or developing vaccines without working with pharma.
Devotion to the UPF cause
But as soon as UPF researchers or broadcasters are criticised by serious academics, they can simply play the conflict-of-interest card, avoiding difficult questions about research methodology or confounding factors.
UPF-supporting academics have also become notorious for avoiding questions after conference presentations, on one memorable recent occasion surrounding the speaker so no dissenters could reach them. Any UPF-friendly events appear carefully choreographed to avoid confrontation – the upcoming Lancet series on ultra-processed foods is being chaired by the famously independent… Chris van Tulleken.
UPF has long departed from anything resembling scientific enquiry and debate into a cult-like devotion to a cause.
The worst thing is that this has reinforced the false position that our existing beliefs about nutrition science are completely wrong. UPF sells itself as an alternate reality, where nutritional composition is the wrong way to think about food and health.
Relentless campaigning to rewrite policy around levels of processing is paralysing us from taking genuine evidence-based action regarding increasing fibre consumption or addressing nutrient deficiencies through fortification. Those harms are far more real than anything on Wicks’ show, but sadly don’t create the same sort of media engagement.
Anthony Warner, development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet