Welcome to part 4 of our new series on ultra-processed food: a State of the Union Address.
In the three years since my first deep-dive into UPFs there has been a gear shift, both in terms of the public discourse and scientific evidence around UPFs. My State of the Union Address is an attempt to synthesise the main debates, tensions, and the response to the ‘crisis’ of UPFs.
In case you missed it, three weeks ago we discussed where we are now.Part one of the series attempted to situate us in the here and now, looking at how much of our diet is made up of UPFs, and gave a bit of an update about what is happening socially, culturally, academically, and politically. We spent a long time thinking about the definition of UPFs and I introduced my ‘kitchen sink’ theory of nutrition and why we can never really know what a UPF is.
Two weeks ago, we looked at whether UPFs represent a paradigm shift, or just a shit paradigm? In part two we explored the major scientific developments over the past few years and grappled with whether or not UPFs are a helpful construct. We got a little nerdy; I wanted you to go away with a good sense of what scientists agree on, and where there are still some unresolved tensions.
Last week we covered: Nature, Nostalgia, and Sheryl Sandberg - how the food industry is responding to UPFs.This is where I think the really interesting stuff is happening. I find it very funny watching the food industry try to square the UPF circle. In this piece I shared some of the tactics they’re using, which reveal inconsistencies, loopholes, and how the house always wins.
Which brings us to today, where we’re looking at why The Personal (Responsibility) is Political. Part four is an exploration of how the hybrid scientific-political project of UPF ‘activism’ may be deepening inequality and increasing stigma along the lines of gender, class, and race by further entrenching disparities in foodwork.
This is the clarion call from the The Lancet special series on UPFs. In the editorial that introduces the series, the authors write ‘the UPF industry is emblematic of a food system that is increasingly controlled by transnational corporations that prioritise corporate profit ahead of public health’. They explain how a handful of corporations (Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, and Coca-Cola) dominate the industry and funnel their vast profit into counteracting any attempts at UPF regulation. Because of this profit motive, the UPF industry is incentivised to use the cheapest ingredients possible and engineer their products to drive repeat business through overconsumption. And, as we know, higher UPF consumption is *associated* with increased risk of some diseases.
As well as the arguments about nutrition and health, the UPF frame pits a corrupt and nefarious UPF industry against everyday people whose health is being systematically fucked by the food we eat.
This post is for paying subscribers only
Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
