Thanks to the power of exposure bias, a chorus of studies that correlate ultra-processed foods consumption with obesity and chronic diseases has convinced many policy advocates that these foods are a scourge to be eradicated. “Higher taxes on UPFs” are a “priority action,” says The Lancet, to “put health before profit.” But this well-intentioned impulse might not fully account for the the complex relationship between ultra-processed foods, population health, and food security.

In fact, a new study finds that among people with obesity, there is a strong relationship between food insecurity and ultra-processed food consumption. And thus, say the authors:

“Policies should prioritize affordable, healthy substitutes and economic supports rather than assuming simple removal of UPFs.”

Simply putting UPFs out of reach with taxation might make food insecurity worse, perhaps even doing more harm than good.

Multivariate Modeling of Observational Research

Sedat Arslan and colleagues published their research in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN. From 323 persons with obesity and overweight seeking dietary counseling, they collected data on food security and daily UPF intake. Their modeling took social, demographic, and health factors into account as potential confounders. In fully adjusted models, they found that any degree of food insecurity was associated with 123 to 143 grams per day of additional ultra-processed food consumption.

Simple Answers for a Complex Challenge

Most of the context for policy decisions about ultra-processed foods comes from observational research. We are dealing with associations to look for clues about health outcomes and ultra-processed foods. Clearly there is an association that is real. But what it is telling us is not simply that all UPFs are bad. In fact, it is clear that people who are trying to cope with food insecurity often rely upon UPFs to have enough to eat in their households. And some ultra-processed foods are more healthful than others.

Taxing UPFs is an appealing, simple answer for a complex problem. But sin taxes are are not very efficient. And sin taxes on UPFs could have the unfortunate effect of increasing food insecurity. That would not be good.

Rather than focusing on taking UPFs out of the food supply, it makes more sense to increase the access of food-insecure households to whole foods and processed foods that meet a high standard for nutrition and health.

Click here for the new research by Arslan et al and here for perspective on balancing health and nutrition security in policy and research.

Roadside Convenience Store in Luxembourg, photograph by Claude Meisch, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0