“Although the use of fraud in every action is detestable, nonetheless in managing war it is a praiseworthy and glorious thing, and he who overcomes the enemy with fraud is praised as much as the one who overcomes it with force.”
— Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Make no mistake, the upcoming battle for the hearts, minds, and tummies of people around the world, and particularly in the United States, will be a war. Particularly, given that the market size is closing in on $1 trillion[1], and involves some of the largest multinational food manufacturers on earth. These corporations, as has been discussed in previous columns elsewhere (link here), influence health and nutrition funding and lobby to influence governmental regulations and recommendations.
All of this is behind the scenes of massive advertising campaigns. Whilst the NIH devotes approximately $2 billion per year towards nutrition research and is the largest federal source of nutrition research dollars, a single entity like the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI, funded by multinationals like PepsiCo and McDonald’s) reported operating annual revenues of over $10 million US in 2020 alone. The ILSI is one of many industry-sponsored organizations that work to craft a narrative favorable to the industry.
Through the use of such global multistakeholder institutions (MIs), UPF industry executives or those from affiliated interest groups hold 263(43.8%) of the total 601 board seats across 45 global food-system MIs that work to shape global food governance. These organizations derive legitimacy from their affiliations with multilateral bodies, civil society organizations, and research institutions—even though the corporate influence remains central. Such “corporate‑anchored multi‑stakeholderism” poses significant challenges to achieving transformative change in food systems—especially in efforts to curb UPF consumption.[2]
- The material this week comes from a series of lectures given in Europe addressing the ongoing discussion regarding the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.
- The lectures start with the typical deceptive preface often used by those looking to deflect criticism of ultraprocessed foods. That is to use the term “highly processed foods,” which carries no meaning in the most widely used UPF classification system, the NOVA classification system. In fact, a “processed,” but not ultraprocessed food could be seen in serving a from scratch pizza (a crust made from organic semolina durum flour, water, sea salt, and yeast; sauce from tomatoes, herbs, and salt; and a topping of basil and organic buffalo mozzarella) versus a commercial pizza (typical ingredients include sodium stearoyl lactylate, sodium aluminum phosphate, DATEM, TBHQ, L‑cysteine hydrochloride, modified starches, dextrose, conditioners, emulsifiers, preservatives, and flavor enhancers, etc.).
- The lectures discussed the “hypothesis that UPFs are harmful to health due to their degree of processing – regardless of their nutritional profile. Traditionally, nutritional science thinks that things work based on what’s in them – and not on the processing itself.” However, there is significant data that the natural processing or matrix influences how nutrients are absorbed and processed in the body. Evaluating the effect of whole foods by incorporating information beyond the quantity of nutrients contained within seems a more thorough method of evaluation.
- The lectures go on to describe the NOVA classification system as “subjective” and “convenient,” before introducing the concept that not “all NOVA-4 foods are bad per se.” This may be true, but it requires evidence in light of the strong data correlating diets high in ultra-processed food, as defined by the NOVA classification system, with an increased risk of chronic disabilities and diseases like type II diabetes and an increased risk of early mortality.
The Caveat:
This publication, based on a series of European lectures in support of the ultraprocessed food industry, reflects tactics typically used to sway the lay public and susceptible professionals. While the article initially talks about how the NOVA classification system focuses on processing methods, it declares that brown bread would be classified as a NOVA four, ultraprocessed food, only because it contains iodized salt. In this example, the lecturers overlook the significant differences between the manufacturing process for industrial breads and the production of artisanal loaves. Such a statement overlooks the fact that industrial bread production relies on high-speed mechanical mixing, more yeast, and various additives to speed up production and reduce costs. There is often the incorporation of oxidizing agents, including, historically, potassium bromate, fats, and other dough conditioners like emulsifiers and preservatives to improve texture, shelf-life, and handling.
The lectures continue to argue that the ultraprocessed food characteristic of hyperpalatability is due only to the type of ingredients used and argue that these ingredients can be found in such natural foods as cheeses. This is at complete odds with the work done by former FDA head David Kessler, who exposed how ultraprocessed foods are crafted in his seminal work, The End Of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. In addition to maximizing ingredients like salt, fats, and sugars to create a “bliss point,” specific manufacturing techniques are employed to achieve a softer bread or a crispier chip. The examples continue, but suffice to say that the purpose of their presentation is to emphasize that from their perspective, “there is no blanket association between UPF consumption and non-communicable diseases,” and that the documented association between the consumption of ultraprocessed foods and increased risk of chronic disability and diseases like type II diabetes and an increased risk of early mortality is “probably a soft drink effect that is so statistically dominant that other things are lost.” They go on to conclude that “The health assessment of food based solely on the degree of processing is not evidence-based.”
We should most certainly continue to question the effects of ultraprocessed food on our health. That would include critically examining and potentially refining the NOVA food classification system. But it would be a significant error to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of the knowledge and insights we have gained. The types of arguments put forth in these lectures and publications are reminiscent of the defense raised by the tobacco industry in the early days of exposing the connection between ill health and tobacco use.
The techniques used tend to be applied in four flavors. Firstly, there is an attempt to shape agendas and norms. This can be accomplished by paying professionals to refute the data publicly. This is where, as consumers, we must apply critical thinking and examine the data independently and reach our own conclusions. Behind the scenes, by holding a substantial proportion of board seats, directing research and grant money, lobbying governments, and recruiting prominent spokespersons, multinational corporations can significantly influence research priorities, policy framing, and programmatic agendas to align them with their commercial interests.
Working through intermediaries like NGOs, MIs, and educational institutions, corporations can tip the scales of public opinion and governmental policy towards a more corporate-friendly governance. This potentially undermines independent, public-interest–oriented research and regulation of UPFs. By utilizing third parties that present themselves as inclusive and neutral, they can mask the extent of corporate power, weakening the influence of civil society, independent researchers, and marginalized groups, resulting in an erosion of the public-interest voice.
These efforts can often be identified because they seek to preserve the status quo rather than challenge it. This dynamic complicates efforts to drive transformative action on nutrition and sustainability, and results in the creation of barriers to transforming current food systems. It is fundamental for any positive transformational change to occur that we remain independent and critically evaluate the evidence presented to us from all sides.
[1] The current value in 2023 was estimated at USD $594 billion, and it is estimated to be valued at USD $856.6 billion by the end of 2029
[2] (Slater, 2025)
The Study (Lecture):
[1] The source material is based on the lectures given by Prof. Dr. Martin Smollich, Institute of Nutritional Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck Campus, and Prof. Dr. oec troph Dr. med. Anja Bosy-Westphal, Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, at the 131st Congress of the German Society for Internal Medicine.
Additional references:
Kessler, David A. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. Rodale, 2010.
