As consumers scrutinize food labels amid new concerns about the health effects of processed foods, General Mills isn’t worried: After all, it’s taste that drives sales.
“Newsflash: People really do like good food,” General Mills Chief Executive Jeff Harmening told an investor audience recently when asked about the debate over “ultra-processed” foods and how it affects the Golden Valley, Minnesota-based company.
“We’re not saying consumers don’t care about nutrition,” Harmening said, “but one of the things General Mills does really well is make food that tastes good and is good for you.”
But research suggests that eating too much of certain tasty foods may increase the incidence of diet-related diseases, including obesity, cancer and mental health problems.
Now regulators are beginning to warn against eating too many ultra-processed foods — broadly defined as foods with little or no whole food ingredients remaining — and industry groups are pushing back.
Starting next year, federal dietary guidelines could, for the first time, address the role of ultra-processed foods in healthy eating, triggering changes in federal programs that could have ripple effects for the U.S. food industry, which makes billions of dollars selling processed foods such as Lunch Bulls and frozen pizzas to schools.
“The nutritional quality of the American diet is still pretty low,” says Julie Hess, a leading nutrition researcher at the USDA, but she also adds that “ultra-processed foods can be a part of a healthy diet.”
According to the Institute of Food Technologists, about 75 percent of the U.S. food supply is considered ultra-processed. Most foods sold in grocery stores are processed to some degree, including staples like milk, bread, and flour. According to nutritionist Marion Nestle, ultra-processed foods are “industrially produced foods that are too irresistibly delicious to be made in a home kitchen.”
This category includes many breakfast cereals, yogurt, chicken nuggets, and plant-based meat alternatives.
In a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year, General Mills argued that “not all processed foods are nutritionally equal or have the same impact on health.”
But research shows that foods high in fat, sugar and sodium – and designed to be “super tasty” – often replace more nutritious foods in our diets.
Food companies position many of their products as health-conscious — “heart-healthy” Cheerios, for example — but the primary selling points of most processed foods remain taste, price, and convenience. The nation’s largest food companies, including Kraft, Nestle, Hormel, Post, and Land O’Lakes, all sell products that fall into the ultra-processed food category.
General Mills wrote in its letter that processing is “part of a complex food system that helps consumers meet their nutritional needs within their capabilities, budgets and preferences.”
Joan Slavin, a professor of nutrition at the University of Minnesota who served on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, agrees that processing is an essential part of modern food production.
“If we eliminated all ultra-processed foods, food waste would increase, food costs would rise and people would not become healthier,” she says. “‘Avoid ultra-processed foods to prevent disease’ is really misleading.”
The debate over ultra-processed foods comes as the FDA considers whether to regulate “healthy” claims on food labels or impose warning labels on foods high in fat, sugar or salt. Harmening said he doesn’t expect it to affect General Mills’ business, despite the company lobbying against the proposals.
“I think it’s to our benefit that consumers are becoming more aware and more concerned about what’s in their food,” he said. “We’re excited to compete in that environment.”
The Nova rating system was first proposed in 2009, initially introducing the term “ultra-processed” to a wider audience. Nova rates processed foods on a scale of 1 to 4, ranging from raw foods, i.e. minimally processed, to ultra-processed.
Nova’s rating scale goes up from whole foods and shelled nuts, to cooking ingredients like oils and honey, to processed foods like chips and cheese, and finally ultra-processed foods like fish sticks and protein shakes.
A widely cited 2013 study on ultra-processed foods defines them as “ready-to-eat foods, made wholly or largely from non-food, industrial ingredients and/or additives, and with very high profit margins.”
Since then, hundreds of studies have looked at the link between ultra-processed foods and health conditions, and countries such as Brazil and Israel have specifically mentioned them in their government dietary guidelines.
However, these studies do not provide a standard definition of ultra-processed foods, and even studies using the same Nova Scale often place different foods into different categories.
Industry groups such as the National Beef Producers Association and the International Dairy Foods Association have opposed restrictions on nutritious foods and potential “misclassification” of such foods, citing the lack of a specific definition.
In a joint letter with other cereal makers Post and Kellogg, General Mills said the standards were “oversimplified” that ignored the “safety, convenience, availability and affordability” of processed foods.
“Defining a food’s overall healthiness based on its degree of processing downplays the benefits of a food’s nutrient density,” the letter states.
“We kind of know it when we see it, but without the standards to define it, what exactly is it?” Hess said at a nutrition conference this month.
“Personally, I don’t think it’s a useful concept, but if we get useful research, I think it’s a win for public health because we’re looking at ultra-processed foods,” she said. “Do ultra-processed foods have any effect? Hopefully, we’ll find out soon.”
For now, the federal advisory committee is looking at the question: “What are the relationships between dietary patterns that vary in intake of ultra-processed foods and growth, body composition, and risk of obesity?”
It’s not expected to be until the end of the year that the 2025-2030 dietary guidelines, which will be used by public health officials, nutritionists and federal programs that fund food assistance and school lunches, will be finalized.
Slavin doesn’t expect the committee to adopt any recommendations on ultra-processed foods.
“People are going to be very disappointed by this,” she said. “They’re going to say this is a really important issue, but we don’t want to get the wrong perception.”
Meanwhile, a range of studies are underway that may shed further light on the relationship between processed foods and health – many of which are likely to generate headlines that could put ultra-processed foods in the public eye and put food companies on the defensive.
“We need to harness this public awareness and interest to generate the kind of data we need to make real, actionable changes,” said Kevin Hall, a research scientist at the National Institutes of Health. “If, at the end of the day, it turns out this concept adds nothing beyond what we already know about what constitutes a healthy diet, we’ll need the data to show that.”
Even if the dietary guidelines don’t adopt language about ultra-processed foods, front-of-pack labeling could influence how consumers shop.
Senator Bernie Sanders earlier this year told the FDA that strong health warnings were needed for foods that were “loaded with sugar, salt and saturated fat to encourage overeating.”
Harmening said such labeling requirements are becoming more common around the world and that General Mills has been “competing with all kinds of regulatory environments.”
“It’s not the first time I’ve seen that movie,” he says. “The key to being constructive when labeling products is making sure it’s based on science and not just the politics of the day or whatever is convenient.”
©2024 StarTribune. Visit startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
