As shoppers study food labels amid renewed concerns about the health impacts of processed foods, General Mills isn’t worried. After all, it’s the flavor that sells.
“News flash: People like food that tastes really good,” Jeff Harmening, CEO of General Mills, recently told an audience of investors when asked about the debate over “ultra-processed” foods and how which could affect the Golden Valley-based company.
“That’s not to say that consumers don’t care about nutrition, too,” Harmening said, but “one of the things that General Mills does really well is make foods that taste good and taste great. for health”.
Research shows, however, that eating too much of certain tasty things can contribute to high rates of diet-related illnesses like obesity, cancer and mental health problems.
Now regulators may begin warning against excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods — defined broadly as containing few or no whole ingredients — and industry groups are lining up to object.
Starting next year, federal dietary guidelines could, for the first time, address the role ultra-processed foods play in a healthy diet. That could trigger changes in federal programs and impact the U.S. food industry, which makes billions selling processed foods like Lunchables and frozen pizzas to schools.
“The nutritional quality of the American diet remains quite poor,” said Julie Hess, a leading nutrition researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But at the same time: “We can build a healthy diet with ultra-processed foods”.
Nearly 75 percent of the U.S. food supply is considered ultra-processed, according to the Institute of Food Technologists. Most foods sold in grocery stores undergo some level of processing, including basic products like milk, bread and flour. Ultra-processing, said nutritionist Marion Nestlé, consists of “industrially produced foods formulated to be irresistibly delicious and which cannot be prepared in home kitchens.”
This category can include many breakfast cereals, yogurts, chicken nuggets, and plant-based meat alternatives.
In a letter to the federal Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year, General Mills stated, “Not all processed foods are nutritionally equivalent and do not have the same impact on health. »
Yet, studies show that foods designed to be “hyperappetizing” and high in fat, sugar, or sodium often replace nutrient-dense foods in diets.
Food companies have positioned many of their products as health-conscious – like “heart-healthy” Cheerios – but the main selling points of most packaged foods remain taste, price and convenience. The nation’s major food companies, including Kraft, Nestle, Hormel, Post and Land O’Lakes, all sell products that fall into the ultra-processed category.
Processing is “part of a complex food system that helps consumers meet their nutritional needs based on their abilities, budgets and preferences,” General Mills wrote in the letter.
Joanne Slavin, a nutrition professor at the University of Minnesota who served on the 2010 dietary guidelines advisory committee, agrees that processing is a necessary part of modern food production.
“If we get rid of all ultra-processed foods, food waste will increase, food costs will increase and people will not be healthier,” she said. “Saying ‘avoid ultra-processed foods to prevent disease’ is really misleading.”
The debate over ultra-processed products comes as the FDA considers whether to regulate the term “healthy” on food labels or add warning labels for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. Harmening said it would not have an effect on General Mills’ business, even if the company lobbies against the proposals.
“To the extent that consumers are more informed and care more about what’s in their food, I think that’s an advantage for us,” he said. “We are happy to compete in this environment.”
Definition debated
The Nova rating system, first proposed in 2009, initially introduced the term “ultra-processed” to a wide audience. Nova describes processed foods on a scale of 1 to 4, from raw or minimally processed to ultra-processed.
Nova’s rating scale climbs from whole foods and shelled nuts to culinary ingredients like oil and honey, then to processed foods like chips and cheese and finally to ultra-processed foods like fish fingers or protein drinks.
A widely cited 2013 study on ultra-processed foods gave this definition: “Ready-to-eat, are made entirely or mostly not from food, but from industrial ingredients and additives, and are extremely profitable. »
Since then, hundreds of studies have explored the link between ultra-processed foods and health effects; Countries like Brazil and Israel specifically mention ultra-processed foods in government dietary guidelines.
But in these studies, there is no standard definition of ultra-processed foods. Research that uses the same Nova scale often places different foods in different categories.
Industry groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the International Dairy Foods Association are taking advantage of the lack of a concrete definition to oppose regulation and possible “misclassification” of nutritionally sound foods.
In a joint letter with fellow cereal makers Post and Kellogg, General Mills called the criteria “overly simplistic criteria” that ignore the “safety, convenience, accessibility and affordability” of processed foods.
“Defining the overall healthiness of a food based on the level of processing minimizes the benefits of a food’s nutrient density,” the letter states.
At a nutrition conference this month, Hess said, “We kind of know it when we see it, but what exactly happens if we don’t use criteria to define it?”
“While I’m not personally convinced that this is a useful construct, I think that if we get useful research…because we’re studying ultra-processed foods, that’s a win for public health,” she said. she declared. “Do ultra-processed foods have anything to offer? I think we’ll find out, hopefully soon enough.”
More research in progress
Currently, a federal advisory committee is still considering the following question: “What is the relationship between the consumption of dietary patterns containing varying amounts of ultra-processed foods and growth, body composition and the risk of obesity? ? »
It will take until the end of the year to finalize the dietary guidelines for 2025-2030, which are used by public health officials, nutritionists and federal programs that provide food assistance and fund school meals.
Slavin does not expect the committee to adopt any recommendations regarding ultra-processed.
“People will be very disappointed,” she said. “I think they’ll say it’s a really important question, but…we don’t want to be wrong.”
In the meantime, various studies are underway that could further nuance the link between processed foods and health. Many of them could grab headlines and keep ultra-processed products in the public eye, keeping food companies on the defensive.
“We need to capitalize on this public awareness and interest to generate the kind of data we actually need to make real changes,” said Kevin Hall, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. “If it turns out, ultimately, that this concept adds nothing beyond what we already know about what constitutes a healthy diet, we need data to demonstrate this.”
Even though the dietary guidelines don’t adopt any language regarding ultra-processed foods, front-of-package labeling could influence how consumers shop.
Sen. Bernie Sanders told the FDA earlier this year that strict health warnings were needed for foods “laden with sugar, salt and saturated fats that are deliberately designed to be consumed in excess.”
Harmening said such labeling requirements are increasingly common around the world and that General Mills is “competing with all kinds of regulatory environments.”
“This is not the first time we have seen this film,” he said. “The key to having something constructive when labeling products is to make sure it’s based on science, not just the politics of the moment or what’s practical.”