Ultra processed food addiction

Ultra processed food addiction

by | Sujit Rathod -
Number of replies: 9

Welcome to Epi in the News for the 2023/24 academic year!


This week's article comes from The Guardian.

1. Is the 14% a prevalence or incidence figure?

2. Who is in the numerator and denominator to calculate the 14%?

3. How was the case status 'addiction' defined?

4. To what extent is this problem a public health priority?


And for returning students, here's a bonus article from The Guardian.


In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | DAN WOOTTON -

Hi

here are my suggesitons based on the newspaper reprort (as oposed to the primary source in BMJ):

1. Prevalence

2. denominators are all "adults" who form the population of the "36 countries" in the study -  Numerator was adults with "ultra processed food adiction" in those populations.

3. Addiction was defined as the presence of behavious such as "intense cravings, symptoms of withdrawal, less control over intake, and continued use despite such consequences as obesity, binge eating disorder, poorer physical and mental health, and lower quality of life".

4. Arguments for this problem as a Public Health Priority might be a) the potential harm associated with high consumption of UPF e.g. the authors quote "increased risk of cancer, weight gain and heart disease", b) the fact that the problem is increasing - the authors say "Global consumption of the products is soaring" and "UPFs now make up more than half the average diet in the UK and US", and c) that the solution might be ameanable to public health interventions e.g."changes to social, clinical and political policies" and "calls for some products to be labelled as addictive".

In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | MADHUTANDRA SARKAR -
Hi,

My answers to the above questions are:

1. Here 14% is a prevalence figure.
2. The numerator includes the number of adults who are addicted to the UPFs, and the denominator includes the total number of adults in the population.
3. Case status 'addiction' was defined as:
Compulsive behaviours around consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), i.e. intense cravings, symptoms of withdrawal, less control over intake of UPFs, and continued use despite of its consequences such as obesity, binge eating disorder, poorer physical and mental health, and lower quality of life (biopsychological mechanisms of addiction).
4. This problem is a public health priority because of the following reasons: (i) an article (analysis of 281 studies from 36 different countries) published in BMJ found that ultra-processed food addiction was estimated to occur in 14% of adults and 12% of children; (ii) these studies linked UPFs to poor health, including an increased risk of cancer, weight gain and heart disease; (iii) consumption of UPFs is increasing globally, which makes up more than half the average diet in the countries like UK and US; (iv) ultra--processed food addiction is associated with biopsychological mechanisms of addiction and clinically significant problems.
However, the researchers suggested that more research is urgently needed to understand the potential implications of UPF for global health. Understanding of these foods as addictive could lead to novel approaches in the realm of social justice, clinical care, and policy approaches. Thus, avoiding these foods might help improve global health.

Thank you!
In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | GEORGE LAWSON -
Nothing to add to 1., 2., or 3. from Dan / Madhutandra.
4. would also agree with their points of harm, increasing rate, and possible intervention. Could also specifically say that the conditions associated with high UPF consumption are amongst the top killers worldwide - eg heart disease cancer.
The counter to that would be how much of the burden of those diseases (heart disease, cancer, or whichever else) is related to UPF consumption, and how much is related to other related risk factors (obesity) or risk factors that are less clearly linked to UPF (eg poverty, smoking).
In reply to | GEORGE LAWSON

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | AMY LOUISE COLLYER -
Good day, 


I agree with Dan’s answers. For question 4, I would say that what they have mentioned is extremely convincing for this being a public health problem worthy of increased attention and intervention. But they do stipulate several times that more research is needed; and I think there can be a lot of confounding factors. We are also not told anything about the quality and robustness of the existing research showing the link between UPFs and cancer, heart disease, etc).

In reply to | AMY LOUISE COLLYER

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | ILEANA GEFAELL LARRONDO -
Hi Amy! I read that too, even though the title of the article doesn´t help to give importance to caution on the statements :)
In reply to | GEORGE LAWSON

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | ILEANA GEFAELL LARRONDO -
HI George, I completely agree with you, actually, in the real source of this article they mention that further research is needed in order to adress the real impact of the ultraprocessed adictive food.
In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | JHONATAN BORIS QUINONES SILVA -

Hi Sujit, I will try to answer the questions you provided:

1. Is the 14% a prevalence or incidence figure?

It is a prevalence figure because it is referring to the proportion on a certain time period. If it were incidence, it will only count the new cases over a period of time.


2.  Who is in the numerator and denominator to calculate the 14%?

 The numerator is the number of adult people with ultra-processed food addiction and the denominator is the overall adult population. 


3. How was the case status 'addiction' defined?

The case definition are people with behaviours around ultra-processed food. 


4. To what extent is this problem a public health priority?

This problematic is of high importance due to the high prevalence of this condition and the potential detrimental effect on health as this condition is associated with increased risk of cancer, obesity and metal health. 

In reply to | JHONATAN BORIS QUINONES SILVA

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | Sujit Rathod -
Welcome Jhonatan!
Your answers are very clear. What do you think about the case definition? Mental health conditions - including substance use dependency - is extremely challenging to measure, and especially so for doing population-based surveys..
In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Ultra processed food addiction

by | ILEANA GEFAELL LARRONDO -
Good morning Sujit, and good morning to all, I´ll try to respond each point:
1. The source of the guardian is easily available in the BMJ open, and they talk about prevalence
2. Numerator: case definition of Food Addition as the presence of two or more symptoms in the past year and clinically significant impairment or distress according to the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS)
Denominator: the overall population of two metaanalysis (can´t tell exactly the real source, i would have to look deeper)
3. I think i answered this one with the last point.
4. It is a big issue because it should influence in many aspects of social life and in the policital realm: companies that sell this products, the prizes of the non ultraprocesed products (which are usually more expensive), schools were children may have food education. The social situation of the families... It is interesting to realize that all these products have been approved by the FADO although they have addictive substances...x
Thank you for sharing!
Accessibility
Reset All

Background Colour

Font Face

Font Size

1

Text Colour