The Guardian has reported this morning that:
Higher consumption of some food preservatives is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cancer, two studies suggest.
The findings, published in the medical journals Nature Communications and the BMJ, may have important public health implications given the ubiquitous use of these additives globally, researchers said.
While more studies are needed, they said the findings should lead to a re-evaluation of regulations governing the use of preservatives by companies in products such as ultra-processed foods (UPF) to improve consumer protection worldwide.
This comes after another recent paper shows:
High ultra-processed food intake is associated with altered brain perfusion, depressive symptomatology, and increased inflammatory profile.
The evidence that the consumption of ultraprocessed foods is dangerous to human health is becoming overwhelming, and yet no real action is being taken. The call is always for 'more research', the whole point of which is to defer action while keeping the researchers in their labs, beavering away on activity to which they already know the answers.
I recorded a podcast yesterday with the BMJ (the British Medical Journal), in which I was interviewed by its editor. We started on the subject of doctor pay and the justification for an increase, but went on to much broader issues, many of which I was warned would probably never make the cut, ending instead in the bin of unused recordings. I mention this because, at the conclusion of the recording, I was asked how I would approach the UK health crisis, and in response, I made two key points.
First, I said I would not focus on the microeconomics of health care, which politicians are obsessed with. So, I would not focus on appointment availability, waiting times, or organisational structures, because ultimately the issues with all of these are known as they are caused by a growth in demand for health care services, which is the real issue for concern.
Second, therefore, I would want to focus on what I called the macro issues within health care, which explain why that explosion in health care demand has taken place. I would, in other words, seek, on the basis of existing knowledge (because it exists), explanations for:
- The growth in chronic disease management, which is overwhelming the NHS, to determine for whose benefit and with what real outcomes this is occurring, when we all know much of it exists to facilitate profit-making by big pharmaceutical companies as a result of their revenue-gouging the public purse for their own benefit and not that of the patient.
- The growth in demand for such chronic, ongoing care, which is known to be due to the excess consumption of ultra-processed foods, which is similarly known to be toxic and profoundly harmful.
- The failure to control the excessive consumption of alcohol, which is a major carcinogen.
- The use of mental health services to label many people in society as "divergent" when there is nothing unusual about their way of thinking, except for the fact that neoliberal capitalism does not like the challenge that they often pose to its methods of working, and ultimately to its right to extract profit from people's labour.
I could have added more issues to the list, but my point was very clear. It was that unless we tackle the causes of ill health, most of which have been manufactured by a toxic form of organisation of our society that has been designed to extract profit from people at the cost of their wellbeing, then nothing will solve the problems of the NHS as people become progressively sicker.
My focus was, then, not on micro issues because what I was interested in were the causes of illth, rather than the generation of supposed wealth in the form of GDP, which did not reflect wellbeing, in the context of which I quoted the words of the late Robert Kennedy on the failings of GDP as a measure.
I hope that part of the recording makes the cut. It is a message those in charge of health policy need to hear.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
I was at a conference when Peter Brabeck, then Nestlé’s boss, publicly invited the EU industry minister for coffee so that he could “explain the realities of the precautionary principle” to him. I have avoided Nestlé products ever since.
Isn’t poverty and chronic stress a root cause of our rising chronic illnesses and mental health crisis? Are we not expecting our health service to cure what are basically social ills caused by low insecure incomes, poor housing etc? And the poor often eat a diet of high processed food because it’s cheap and easier to obtain them fresh food. I cook from scratch and it can be cheaper as well as healthier, but it takes time which hasn’t working parents no longer have.
Yes, in a word. You are right. But I focussed on the more medical ixssues, deliberately. Maybe I was wrong, but I wanted to get some message out.
Yudkin warned about too much sugar in diets in the 1960s and was vilified by the sugar companies and it is only recently that some minor improvements have been made. By the 1980s the proliferation of additives in processed foods was endemic and there was a major battle to list all these. However additives were put on the packaging ln such small print to be hardly noticed. Only fats, salt and calories were acknowledged as dangerous on the traffic light warnings on the packaging. The danger of additives has been ignored or downplayed. Why on earth should a load of chemicals be added to food such as colouring, emulsifiers, antioxidants,flavourings, flavour enhancers and goodness knows what else? To eat healthily is getting more difficult and expensive as the corporate food giants are increasing their grip on the market and control of the mega supermarket chains.
Much to agree with
That reminds me of a finance job I had briefly in the 90s at one of our largest universities. One of the academics in the department was working on a research project on the harmful effects of sugar funded by … British Sugar!
🙂
But of course! Industries making their profit from undermining our health and wellbeing need to be ready to refute any and all allegations that this is precisely what they are doing.
Preservatives mean you can keep it in the larder rather than the fridge or keep it in the fridge for longer: and some of them mentioned in The Guardian’s article are as old as the hills. For example, sodium nitrite has been used to cure bacon for decades if not centuries. You do need it if you like “British bacon”. I’m normal weight and at 59, I don’t (yet) have any heath problems, and I wouldn’t want to be stopped from having the occasional bacon sandwich, which I prefer on soft white-sliced bread!
As the article states: “no firm conclusions could be drawn about cause and effect”. My guess would be that those in the lower socioeconomic groups who have other lifestyle factors which are detrimental to health are the ones consuming more preservatives.
The only thing wrong with the article is that claim that no firm conclusions can be drawn as yet. That is complete nonsense: the pretence that we need certainty before we act is always the refuge of the supporter of the status quo, and that is exactly why the claim is being made here. The so-called scientific method is, in this context, always on the side of abuse.
Recently I read Yudkin’s Pure, white and deadly. It’s really clear and well researched and doesn’t pull any punches. I was amazed to see it was first published in 1972 and had written several books before this. I’d not heard of him before. I am now reading his This slimming business, published in 1958 and it still makes complete sense.
Far too many corporate fingers in the public health pie! To have to address properly these issues (which they have in effect created) would be an existential threat to them. So they embark on yet another campaign of obfuscation (“the evidence is not yet clear so more research must be done” etc etc) and deflection (“its the fault of those obese people on benefits overeating”). The media never questions why those on benefits have to eat the rubbish products that the corporates produce on an industrial scale for consumption by the poorest sectors of society and for which the human body is not equipped to deal with. In fact, they often make programmes celebrating the production of this crap (e.g. those BBC programmes going round factories like Walkers Crisps as if we should all be in awe of the producers rather than be repulsed by their exploitation of us). I don’t suppose for one minute that it has anything to do with the vast advertising revenues it generates for the media. But the producers can only get away with this because the major food retailers are complicit and entice customers with highly dubious “offers” and price “cuts”.
Like the wider political sphere, the general public are being taken for fools. However, I hope that as the public become more educated as to what these products actually do to our bodies this could change. In reality, the omnipresence of UPFs is just another example of anti-social neoliberalism.
Much to agree with
I will be the unpopular opinion here, but I think the ultraprocessed foods theory has a large conceptual hole in it. And just reducing UPF won’t make a difference in health. We need to address food *processes* in detail insead and ban what’s problematic in those processes.
Why? Because even ‘unprocessed’ or ‘minimally processed’ foods do in fact go through a lot of industrial processing before getting to your plate, and that processing matters. Because it involves them gathering a lot of additives (and contaminants along the way). Here’s some examples:
– most fruit & vegetables are waxed with a mix of natural & parrafin wax that cannot be removed. Should you be eating that?
– most ‘one-ingredient’ products (juices, flour, meat) have ‘processing aids’ to make them keep their properties, such as colour, freshness, texture. These include transglutaminases, amylases, etc. They are not disclosed on packs and there’s no regulation for them. They’re accepted as safe, but never tested. Many are associated with poor health outcomes. (https://www.sustainweb.org/realbread/processing_aids/)
– there is widespread concern of a) phthalates & bisphenols leaching from food contact plastic processing equipment into food b) them bein endocrine disruptors, c) regulatory limits for these substances being way too high. Needless to say, your nuts, seeds & any other healthy products are produced using the same type of conveyor belts & equipment as UPF, so they’re likely just as contaminated.
– pesticides are everywhere. Sewage sludge is spread on fields. Both are known to contain toxic and endocrine disrupting substances that could bio-accumulate in fruit, vegetables & whole grains which we think are healthy. Same with fish, due to ocean polution.
Here’s a report dealing with the last 2 points – https://www.systemiq.earth/reports/invisible-ingredients/
I think as humans we evolved to handle salt (used to preserve our food for millenia), saturated fat (that’s what large parts of the world used to eat), carbs including sugar (there are tribes who survive on honey for months), alcohol (we’ve been drinking it since forever & Our gut produces some more for us daily!). And even an excess of tasty food – there were plenty times of plenty in the past!
We should stop worrying about these, and concentrate on the complex chemical soup we live in instead. We did not evolve to handle it!
All understood, but you are making perfection the enemy of the good.
Why?
Do your want the harm to continue?
Shall we prioritise effort, first of all?
Because it’s not a choice between good enough and perfection. It’s a choice between pointless & good.
In the context of dealing with food adulteration and contamination, reducing UPF is pointless. You’d just be replacing one set of adulterated & contaminated foods (UPF) with another (say, pesticides ladden whole wheat flour, adulterated with enzymes or endocrine disruptor contaminated nuts!).
Some may argue that UPF are *more* contaminated and adulterated than non-UPF, which is true. And the dose makes the poison. But that would be innacurate with these classes of substances. Endocrine disruptors and processing aids work at absolutelly minute amounts (parts per million or billion). Endocrine disruptors are known to have non-monotonic dose responses (i.e. more powerful at smaller doses than at larger doses).
You need strict avoidance via regulation of additives, processing aids and food contact materials.
Reducing UPF won’t achieve that. It’s the equivalent of advising people to reduce meat consumptoon to avoid salmonella, rather than forcing meat processors to implement hygene standards!!
Very politely, your comment is absurd and unwelcome here. This blog is about plausible change in the world we live in, not policy for your fantasy land.
Ada’s point is that banning the use of these nasty chemicals in food production would go a long way to solving the problem because it’s difficult to make UPFs without them.
And it’s not going to happen with there still being food in shops. So shall we work on what is deliverable? I live in a world where idealism is definitely the enemy of the good.
Ahhh – John Ruskin – at last!!
“The possession of the valuable by the valiant”. Indeed.
Bring it on is all I can say.
We got a book about him from the Ruskin House in the Lake District. It has a grand piano in it that they allow you play when we were there (if you can play that is, which my son can do). A fine holistic thinker – reading the extract on Wikipedia, he could be talking about anything from quantum mechanics to the fiscal policy.
Ahead of his time.
I may have ti add him to my list…
Ruskin can be infuriating and wrong-headed, but he is also brilliant, highly stimulating, and ‘has the core of the matter in him’. Illth is from Unto This Last, whose publication was halted after four essays because the readers of the Cornhill Magazine found it so objectionable. One of his many great quotes is where he writes (as one of history’s great art lovers and art critics) that we attach great value to a picture of a bird’s nest, but more or less no value to the real thing, yet it would be far better for us that all the pictures in the world cease to be than that the birds cease to build nests.
Thanks
P.S. I average about 1.5 to two glasses of red wine a month – always drunk with a meal, with nothing more than 1 pint of beer (I mean beer not lager) a month – depending on what we can afford. I do not eat meat of any kind. I do like my cheese and lots of wholemeal bread made at home. ‘Mostly eat pulses and vegetables. Some processed food is unavoidable – mostly vegetarian versions of proteins but we make nut-burgers and stews, tins of baked beans etc. We learnt long ago that making your own saves lots of money and shop bought bread just tastes of salt.
The big thing I would add is drinking water. To dilute that salt and sugar and other additives (including after alcohol), I think that water is indispensable.
I wonder….does anyone here know? Is there any deception in the labelling ‘organic’? If I pay the premium and go that route am I really gaining any benefit?
I am no expert.
There is always room for decetion.
Make enquiries is always the answer.
Channel 4’s ‘What Not to Eat’ earlier this week addressed the ultra-high-processing issue: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-not-to-eat
That was horrifying – the feature couples’ diet was staggering. Two large bars of chocolate each a night….
What this whole discussion shows is that illth isn’t a nutritional problem or a behavioural problem — it’s a structural one. Ultra‑processed food fills the space where time, money and stability should be. When people are deprived of secure incomes, decent housing, predictable hours and affordable essentials, they don’t choose UPFs so much as get funnelled into them. The food system is simply one more arena where extraction is easier than care.
That’s why the “more research” line is so effective for the companies involved. It keeps the focus on the chemistry of additives rather than the economics of deprivation. But the geography of chronic disease, obesity, diabetes and mental distress is the geography of low income, high stress and limited agency. UPFs are a symptom of that, not the cause.
Ruskin’s idea of illth is exactly right here: the economy is generating harm faster than the NHS can absorb it. And unless we confront the conditions that make people vulnerable — insecure work, unaffordable housing, high fixed costs, and the relentless extraction of income — we will keep producing ill health no matter how many labels we redesign.
A strategic response to deprivation would do more for public health than any reform of the NHS. Reduce the drivers of illth and demand for healthcare falls. Leave them untouched and no amount of micro‑policy will ever be enough.
Thanks