Diets high in ultra-processed foods are bad for us, so why are we eating more?

Aussies eat more ultra-processed foods than ever before, with busy lifestyles and personal choices often taking the blame as casual factors.

But new research reveals the reality to be much more complex. The new research is published in the journal Obesity Reviews with co-authors from Deakin University, University of Sydney, University of Auckland and United Nations University International Institute for Global Health.

“Evidence shows that ultra-processed foods make up over 40% of Australians’ daily energy intake, with significant consequences for our health and the environment,” says Dr. Benjamin Wood from the Global Center for Preventive Health and Nutrition (GLOBE) in the Institute for Health Transformation at Deakin University.

“Our new research describes multiple factors that interact to exploit consumers and limit their access to healthier food options in the real world.”

Ultra-processed foods have many industrial ingredients, and include lollies, packaged snacks, reconstituted meats and some breakfast cereals. Studies link escalating intake with obesity and diet-related illness in Australia and across the world.

In the new paper, researchers used an approach known as “systems thinking” to consider key factors involved in the increasing dominance of ultra-processed foods in our diets. This allowed them to gain a perspective on the bigger picture relating to consumption and production patterns.

Dr. Wood and his colleagues report the global ultra-processed food system—primarily designed to maximize profits, shareholder returns, and GDP growth—to be enmeshed within complex economic, financial and political factors.

Commodification of diets, increasing market concentration and escalating levels of ultra-processed foods in retail environments are all playing a role.

Ultra-processed food companies having direct corporate political influence, and capturing science, public opinion and policy narratives are also increasing.

Shifts from public to private food governance, and accommodation of corporate power within government decision-making are also key, as well as changes in agricultural practice to suit ultra-processed food production.

The researchers say this analysis provides much-needed context to more successfully tackle the problem of increased ultra-processed food intake.

“Rather than blaming individual consumers, let’s advocate for governments and corporations to take responsibility for providing access to cheaper, healthier and more diverse food options,” says Dr. Wood.

“If we truly want to tackle the problem of unhealthy diets, then let’s look upstream and target the excessive power of food corporations and corrupted decision-making spaces, while also supporting production methods and social policies conducive to sustainable, equitable, and culturally appropriate diets.”

“Going forwards, we encourage food and nutrition researchers to think about the wider systems and power imbalances that influence the foods we eat, and to consider working together with decision-makers and advocacy groups like the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance and Healthy Food Systems Australia to support genuine food systems transformation,” Dr. Wood says.