4.6 Article

A study of ultra-processing marker profiles in 22,028 packaged ultra-processed foods using the Siga classification

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2021.103848

关键词

Packaged foods; Markers of ultra-processing; Additives; Ultra-Processed ingredients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are characterized by the presence of markers of ultra-processing (MUP), with more non-additive ingredients (NA-MUP) than additives (A-MUP). The main MUPs found in UPFs include refined oils and extracts, with 19% of UPFs containing only one MUP and 31% containing more than five MUPs.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are characterized by the presence of markers of ultra-processing (MUP), either additives (A-MUP) or non-additive ingredients (NA-MUP). The present study aims to characterize the MUP profile of approximately 22,000 UPFs, representative of assortments in French supermarkets. UPFs were ranked according to Siga classification within five UPF technological groups, from C01 to C3, depending on the nature and number of MUPs (MUP1 and MUP2), presence of risk-associated additives, and contents of salt, sugar and/or fat. Then, UPFs were categorized within 10 food categories. The results showed that UPFs contain more NAMUPs than A-MUPs, on average 1.3 more by UPF. The main MUPs are NA-MUPs, i.e., refined oils (52.5 % of UPFs), extracts and natural aromas (42.7 %), synthetic aromas (26.5 %), glucose syrup (20.0 %), native starches (19.1 %), and dextrose (16.2 %). The NA-MUP/UPF and A-MUP/UPF ratios were not correlated in the 10 food categories. Among UPFs, 19 % contained only one MUP, and 31 % contained more than five MUPs. In conclusion, additives are not a sufficient marker of ultra-processing. It is proposed that NA-MUPs in UPFs should be taken into greater consideration and that foods be scored with indices based on the degree of processing, not compositional scores, which fail to filter MUPs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据