Based on a broad international synthesis, a series of articles in The Lancet, with the participation of French researchers from Inserm, calls for an ambitious political response: labeling, advertising restrictions, regulation of the food industry, etc. The issue goes beyond the individual: according to scientists, it is an entire food system that must be reformed.
Health alarm: French and global evidence accumulating
Global consumption of ultra-processed foods (AUTs) continues to grow. In Spain, the energy share of ultra-processed products has increased from 11% to 32% in three decades; in China, from 4% to 10%. Even in the US and UK it is now over 50%. In France, they represent approximately 35% of our caloric intakeaccording to Inserm. These products — produced via sophisticated industrial processes and containing cosmetic additives (emulsifiers, colorings, sweeteners, etc.) — are not trivial. They replace fresh and minimally processed foods, degrading the quality of diets and increasing the risk of many chronic diseases.
A meta-analysis of 104 long-term studies shows that
92 of them report an increased risk of at least one chronic disease linked to TUE consumption. Among the 12 most associated health problems: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and even premature mortality.
The French NutriNet-Santé cohort — supported in particular by Inserm and INRAE — was central to this work. Furthermore, some data show that an excess of food additives, to which we are more exposed via TUEs, could play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
Ultra-processed foods: when the industry puts our health at risk
The rise of ultra-processed foods is no coincidence: it is driven by powerful multinationals. In the series of articles published in The Lancetthe authors denounce a model where:
“The growing consumption of ultra-processed foods is shaping diets around the world, relegating fresh, minimally processed foods. This change is fueled by powerful global corporations, which generate huge profits by favoring ultra-processed products, supported by intensive marketing and political lobbying to block effective public health policies..
With a global turnover of $1.9 trillionthe AUT sector is one of the most profitable in the food industry. These companies invest massively in targeted advertising (especially towards children), lobbying and manipulation of scientific debates to protect their profits, and pressure on decision-makers to slow down the adoption of effective public policies.
Act without delay: researchers’ ideas for protecting the population
The 43 experts mobilized in the series Lancet
call for ambitious and coordinated public health action with:
- Clear labeling of foods to indicate their degree of ultra-processing;
- A restriction on advertising aimed at children, particularly on digital media;
- A ban on TUEs in public institutions (schools, hospitals);
- Taxation of ultra-processed products, with reinvestment of revenue to make minimally processed foods more accessible.
As Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney points out:
“We need a strong global public health response — like coordinated efforts to challenge the tobacco industry. “We must protect political decisions from lobbying, build coalitions to defend healthy, equitable and sustainable food systems, and resist corporate power.”.
Marion Nestle, Inserm research director, coordinator of the NutriNet-Santé cohort, adds:
“Improving diets around the world requires policies adapted to the situation of each country, depending on the rooting of TUEs in habits. Although priorities may diverge, urgent action is needed everywhere to regulate ultra-processed foods, alongside efforts already underway on fats, salt and sugar.”.
Towards a transformation of the food system: the urgency of collective commitment
The ultra-processed crisis is not limited to a question of individual choice. Scientists are calling for a thorough rethinking of our food model, with a long-term vision: strong public policies, societal dialogue, and industrial accountability. Inserm insists on this point: limiting exposure to TUEs is not solely a matter of education or consumer responsibility, but rather a matter of concerted political intervention.