Navigating the Anti-Ultra-Processed, Forbidden Ingredients and PFAs Conversations

 

It’s getting bigger, and please do not ignore it. “It” is the anti-ultra processed, forbidden ingredients and PFAs awareness movements.

The New York Times recently reported on ultra-processed foods. Editor Alice Callahan wrote on how scientists associate the consumption of ultra-processed foods with 32 different health problems, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and mental disorders. And, according to some of the vocal activists in this space, a number of products manufactured by dairy processors qualify. 

You can read more HERE. 

“While the ultra-processed dialogue may be confusing, it is likely to ramp up,” according to Sherry Frey, vice president of total wellness, NielsenIQ, Chicago. 

The good news for dairy processors, however, is that “at the same time, the demand for protein continues to grow,” said Frey. 

She says to expect “an increased focus on specific food ingredients.” This is already happening with some states banning certain additives, ones associated with ultra-processed foods.

California started the anti-ingredient crusade last year when it banned four food additives: potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, propyl paraben and red dye No. 3. Titanium dioxide was on California’s original list, but this EU-banned whitening agent lives on in The Golden State.

Other states are planning similar bans. Some proposals are expanding the list of targeted additives.

GoCoCo, a mobile app that helps consumers detect unhealthy ultra-processed food in supermarkets and suggests healthier alternatives, recently completed a data analysis of the 550,000-plus commercial products in the app. Results show that more than 70,000 products contain at least one additive under the spotlight. That equates to 13% of the food and beverage products in the market. In California, the ban will affect almost 12,000 products. Details of the study can be found HERE.

“It is positive that states are being proactive, it shows that they care about consumer safety,” says Bertrand Amaraggi, CEO of GoCoCo, “But the rise of differing regulations can create confusion from a consumer perspective, as they may not understand how something approved at national level is prohibited in certain states.”

Most dairy processors are well positioned to navigate the anti-ultra processed movement and the banning of specific ingredients. But, many of you may not be aware of a recent Consumer Reports investigation. The title--Forever Chemicals Are Found in Some Milk, Including Organic—says it all. 

You can access it HERE.

Graph source: GoCoCo  (click on graph to enlarge)

Forever chemicals are per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAs) substances that have been linked to cancer, immunity and endocrine problems, and infertility. And there’s a very good reason to believe that they will be a target of concern in the near future. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states on its website that PFAs are widely used, long-lasting chemicals, components of which break down very slowly over time. Because of their widespread use and their persistence in the environment, many PFAs are found in the blood of people and animals all over the world and are present at low levels in a variety of food products and in the environment. PFAs are found in water, air, fish and soil at locations across the nation and the globe. Scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAs in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals.

The Consumer Reports study was conducted on 50 samples of whole milk in five states with known PFAs groundwater contamination: California, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia. The PFAs were found in six of the 50 samples. 

“What we found does not mean that anyone needs to stop drinking milk,” says James Rogers, head of food safety testing at Consumer Reports. “But this highlights shortcomings in how federal food safety agencies and manufacturers monitor milk and other food for these clearly harmful chemicals, and the urgent need to set health-protective limits on PFASs”

So, while this and all the other noise gets sorted out and addressed, marketers of nutrient-dense, healthful foods, need to be proactive in this space by using front-of-pack labeling to communicate nutritional content. This will be paramount as social media raises awareness of the various conversations. 

In case you missed it, a new study from the International Food Information Council highlights the need for balanced front-of-pack nutrition labeling. The research shows that accurate front-of-pack nutrition labeling can be helpful to both consumers and food companies to ensure relevant nutrition information is accessible when consumers are making product choices when shopping in store; however, when the nutrition information in a front-of-pack labeling system is limited, consumers may miss out on vital information that can help them make healthier food choices. Communicating nutrient density is critical as these movements ramp up. The full study is available HERE.