I cannot help but note this report from The Guardian yesterday:
Consuming large amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) increases the risk of an early death, according to an international study that has reignited calls for a crackdown on UPF.
Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone's risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.
They added:
UPF is so damaging to health that it is implicated in as many as one in seven of all premature deaths that occur in some countries, according to a paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I am, to be candid, astonished that the suggested figure is as low as that. Diabetes, heart disease, cancers of all sorts and dementia are amongst the most common causes of death and the risks of all of them are increased significantly by ultra-processed food and the sugars within them, as I have noted here, often.
These may look tempting:
So do most ultra-processed foods. The companies that make them know what they are doing, just as the tobacco companies did. They are seeking to make you an addict. I know. I was one. I will be in recovery forever now. It's a trade-off I am willing to make.
What we need is a government that is willing to act to end the abuse promoted by these companies. Until we do, the health of people in this country will decline.
Our economic well-being will also decline.
So, too, will our healthy life expectancy.
Demand for the NHS will grow exponentially.
And all because we're hooked on the dopamine highs that the sugar kicks in ultra-processed foods, in particular, are chemically designed to deliver, so that we crave the next hit long before we should really need to eat again.
There is no excuse for Wes Streeting not to know that. But as Upton Sinclair once said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
I suspect Streeting suspects his whole future career depends on feigning such ignorance. He is an ethical black hole.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There is one bit of good news in todays paper – if you like that sort of thing!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/29/drink-champagne-reduce-risk-sudden-cardiac-arrest-study-suggests
Given that I dont like alcohol and make Marvin (The Paranoid Android from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) seem like the life and soul of the party it doesnt look good for me
🙂
On the brighter side, you can eat more fruit with the same positive effect.
You can’t.
Too much sugar. It really is only good for you in moderation.
This is the research article that was picked up by The Guardian, as well as the BBC and others – https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(25)00072-8/fulltext
Link to similar is here
https://theconversation.com/colon-cancer-rates-are-rising-among-young-people-could-changes-to-childrens-gut-bacteria-explain-why-255176?
I fear you are correct. I’m aware of the best advice on eating habits but in times of stress it’s harder to resist the crap. Just read some more from Uffe Ravnskov to strengthen my resolve to steer clear of statins. So much could be done to improve the diets of children if the resources were put in. Low income and no fresh food nearby are damaging a huge number of lives.
Statins cut cholestorol – 90% of which is made by us in our own livers.
Why would we make it if we do not need it?
People with low cholesterol do not live as long as poeple with his cholesterol.
This is the same argument as saying that overweight people live longer than normal weight people when looking at old age populations where we find being overweight is “protective.” Obesity paradox.
Except,they don’t
I recall when the trials of Statins came out being reminded by a more experienced colleague, that the beneficial effects of Statins was coincidental to their effects on liver metabolism. As I had a heart attack on Good Friday just after my 44 birthday, but had a low cholesterol when I was a control in a study, I recalled his words and have been on them ever since.
We know giving poor people enough money is an effective way to improve their diet, and perhaps their housing. So asking why mean wage is so far above the living wage is the crucial question.
Perhaps Richard suggesting a link between median income and tax rates for all could address this problem and many others in the UK at present.
I am thinking about how to create those links for a new book….
I was watching a discussion of ultraprocessed food on Breakfast TV this morning and kept thinking Why does no-one mention poverty? Can those on a survival income afford healthy food? I know our local foodbank only wants tins and rice/pasta, no fresh produce. At the very least poverty must be a confounding factor. Of the four categories Rich, eats well / Rich, eats badly / Poor, eats badly / the fourth category Poor, eats well must be seriously under-represented.
I so agree with you
To be honest, given the dire state of the NHS and social care, I don’t think I want to live into extreme old age so I’ll carry on eating cake. There have to be some pleasures in life and as my ageing body can no longer tolerate alcohol, and other pleasurable activities which I won’t specify, I am only left with cake. (It’s not every day, I do have some self control.)
I think Wes Streeting is unnecessarily obnoxious and could do with a stint on the backbenches, but even so, this is a pretty poor show. If I’ve understood you, Wes Streeting is blocking (what exactly?) because he’s shiftily worried about future earnings from companies that make shit food, is that it?
Well, he’s consulting on expanding the sugar tax, quite considerably.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwzekdznldo
This doesn’t sound like an obvious boon to the self-same shit food companies to me.
Ultra Processed Food certainly sounds bad, but it’s not like there’s currently massive international action against it, with “Wes Streeting” as some sort of lone hold out. Isn’t the more likely explanation (and one doesn’t have to like Streeting, it’s pure Occam’s Razor) that governments everywhere tend to be wary of intervening on stuff people like eating and drinking, until they’re very sure of the political ground?
That review is incredibly narrow in focus
The sugar tax? There are lots of drinks that could now come within it, with a further reduction in the stuff already covered. But yeah, could be wider, sure.
Can you recap your overall argument in this post? I’ve got “corrupt Wes Streeting- if not actually corrupt, he’s thinking of corrupt payments in the future- not going hard enough at unhealthy food”. Have you got any evidence? Why is that a better explanation than mine- governments tend to be very circumspect about intervening on this sort of thing? I reckon Clement Attlee knew alcohol was a bad thing, but I don’t recall hearing he whacked big taxes on it. Old Clem, must have been anticipating a sinecure with Courage, or something.
Might you search my past writing on this issue? Best to use Google.
“I’m not doing your research for you”, eh?
I’ve done some research on Streeting’s donors, but these seem to be people with investments in private health. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him end up there, maybe as soon as 2029. I am though struggling to find all the donors from the shit food sector. But “future career”, no doubt.
No, I don’t do research for people. I do not have the time.
What about a duty on Sugar and sweeteners irrespective of what they are in?
It is more complicated than that.
I just wish ‘bread’ wasn’t included on that list! If they mean store-bought bread composed of nutrient-poor white flour and all sorts of additives, fair enough.
However, I bake my own bread every week with a mixture of organic rye and organic wholemeal flour with a bit of organic white flour in to smooth the texture, plus 1/3tsp of salt per loaf, milk, an egg and yeast, with a small amount of honey to feed the yeast.
Sorry, that’s good food. And tasty as well. I’m nearly 76 years old and not on any medication whatsoever.
I do agree that processed food and sugar (especially hidden sugar) and too much salt and non-food ingredients are terrible for our health. But bread? All depends on what it contains and how it’s made.
All bread is carbohydrate, and that is the problem.
Your bread sounds lovely, Jan. My mum made her own until into her eighties. Like her, you probably eat a sensible balanced diet. I agree with Richard, carbohydrate has to be approached with care, as it raises blood sugar rapidly. I found this hard to credit when I first started reading up, but in our time on earth, humans have only very recently taken to depending on carbohydrates for energy, and we are not well adapted for this.
You are right, Anne.
We are really not adapted to eat carbohydrates.
I accept that this creates a massive problem for the world in food and health terms, but it does not mean it should not be said. Facing reality is essential if we are to manage it.
What’s the evidence that humans didn’t eat carbohydrates in large quantities until recently? I mean chimpanzees who are our closest relatives all eat a mostly plant based diet which will contain high amounts of carbohydrate.
Bread was first made about 10,000 years ago
Flour was very crude until quite recently
Rice consumption began around the same time
In the grand scheme of human development that is in the last minute or two before midnight when considered as a 24 hour clock
No time at all to adapt, then
As I said, chimps eat mostly plants which will have carbohydrates and they won’t be the grains you describe. Most plants have carbohydrates. Unless you are suggesting humans ate near 100% meat diets then how are they going to be avoiding them? And I don’t think any serious anthropologist suggests that’s the case.
Also, dairy is a recent thing too, with most of the population intolerant. So we shouldn’t eat dairy too, right?
Have you noticed we are not chimps?
And if you really think anything not carbohydrate is meat you are deeply mistaken.
Trolling is not welcome here.
We are what we eat.
Sadly it is an indictment on the Government in failing to endorse the Dimbleby Report: https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/
Bread is not necessarily a UPF, it depends on how it is made. But 100% wholegrain flour with just yeast and salt and water — which you can make bread with — is not a UPF. And there is evidence for the positive impact of wholegrains on the incidence of things mentioned like type 2 diabetes.
But it is a carbohydrate and we are not attuned to eat them, and they cause medical problems by creating glucose
Richard I was very surprised by your statement that we are really not adapted to eat carbohydrates; so I asked CoPilot within Microsoft Edge the following question:
“Is there any scientific evidence for the assertion that humans are not really adapted for eating carbohydrates and is there no scientific evidence at all in favour of the assertion? ”
This is the answer it came back with:
“There isn’t strong scientific evidence supporting the idea that humans are fundamentally not adapted to eating carbohydrates. In fact, research overwhelmingly suggests that humans have evolved to digest and utilize carbohydrates efficiently. Studies show that Neanderthals and ancient humans were consuming starch-rich foods as far back as 100,000 years ago (1), and the presence of multiple salivary amylase genes in modern humans indicates an adaptation to digesting starch (2).
Some arguments against carbohydrate consumption come from low-carb diet advocates, who suggest that excessive carbohydrate intake—especially refined sugars—can contribute to metabolic disorders. However, this is more about the quantity and type of carbohydrates consumed rather than an inherent inability to process them.
So, while some dietary trends argue for reducing carbs, the scientific consensus suggests that humans are well-adapted to eating them. Does this align with what you expected?”
1. http://www.sciencedaily.com 2. http://www.sydney.edu.au
I followed this up with:
“The assertion was made by somebody that I usually trust and who has someone he trusts who has medical knowledge; so I wonder what is the basis for the theory regarding human maladaptation to eating carbohydrates.”
And this was CoPilot’s response:
“The idea that humans might be maladapted to eating carbohydrates is often linked to evolutionary nutrition theories. Some researchers argue that early human diets were predominantly low in carbohydrates, consisting mainly of meat, fish, nuts, and fibrous plants. This perspective suggests that the rise of agriculture—and the subsequent increase in grain consumption—may have introduced dietary elements that humans were not originally adapted to digest efficiently (1).
One argument supporting this theory is the “Paleolithic diet hypothesis,” which suggests that modern diseases like obesity and diabetes stem from a mismatch between our ancestral diet and today’s high-carb, processed food intake (1). Some proponents claim that humans evolved to rely more on protein and fat for energy rather than carbohydrates.
However, this theory is controversial. Many scientists argue that humans have adapted well to carbohydrate consumption over thousands of years, particularly with the development of salivary amylase genes, which help break down starch (2). While excessive refined carbohydrate intake can contribute to metabolic disorders, the idea that humans are fundamentally maladapted to carbohydrates is not widely supported by mainstream nutritional science.
Does this align with what you were expecting, or does it challenge your perspective
1 http://www.jstor.org 2. http://www.mathewsopenaccess.com
You asked the wrong question. You did not look at the rate of change, why it has happened, who has gained from it and why they might have made sure the web delivers the answer you got. Do that and you see the adaptation to refined carbohydrates is very recent indeed – hence the medical mayhem they are causing.
I asked:
When did carbohydrates become a major part of the human diet? How has this changed over the last two hundred years?
This was the answer:
Carbohydrates have been a significant part of the human diet for tens of thousands of years, but their role and form have changed dramatically over time, especially in the last 200 years.
Early Human Diet (Pre-Agricultural Period, >10,000 years ago)
• Early humans were hunter-gatherers, eating a mix of wild plants, fruits, tubers (starchy roots), nuts, seeds, and animal products.
• Carbohydrates mainly came from seasonal fruits and wild starchy plants, but overall intake was likely lower and more variable than today.
Agricultural Revolution (~10,000 years ago)
• The rise of agriculture brought a major dietary shift: humans began cultivating carbohydrate-rich crops like wheat, barley, rice, maize (corn), and potatoes.
• These staples became dietary cornerstones in different parts of the world (e.g., rice in Asia, wheat in the Middle East and Europe, maize in the Americas).
• Carbohydrates became more consistent and central to human caloric intake, particularly as societies settled and populations grew.
⸻
Past 200 Years: Industrialization and Modern Diets
19th Century (1800s)
• Carbs were mostly consumed in whole forms (whole grains, legumes, root vegetables).
• Most food was still locally grown and minimally processed.
• White flour and sugar existed but were expensive and less commonly consumed by the general population.
20th Century (1900s)
• Industrial food processing transformed carbohydrate consumption:
• Refined flour became cheap and widely available.
• Sugar consumption skyrocketed, especially with the rise of processed foods, soft drinks, and candy.
• Introduction of high-fructose corn syrup in the 1970s further increased sugar intake.
• Packaged snacks, breakfast cereals, white bread, and soda became dietary staples in many developed countries.
• Result: a dramatic shift toward refined carbohydrates and added sugars, contributing to rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders.
21st Century Trends
• In recent years, there’s been a growing backlash against refined carbs:
• Rise in popularity of low-carb and ketogenic diets.
• Increased interest in whole grains, fiber, and plant-based eating.
• More attention to glycemic index/load, insulin response, and metabolic health.
In your post at 8:09 this morning you said “We are really not adapted to eat carbohydrates”. Had you said “We are really not adapted to eat REFINED carbohydrates”, I would not have reacted as I did. I’m afraid I tend to be rather literal minded and took what you said at face value. Had I realised you were referring just to refined carbohydrates rather than to all carbohydrates, I would probably have thought “I agree.”
Sorry to have wasted your time as well as my own.
But we also ate low quantities of carbohydrate at all until 8,000 years ago
My point was, I think, entirely correct