Banning Ultra-Processed Foods: A Solution or Just a Band-Aid?
Ultra-processed foods are often seen as the enemy of a healthy life, however, they are more misunderstood than malicious. In today’s fast-paced world, they provide quick and affordable meals for people who do not have the time or money for fresh, home-cooked food. Completely banning ultra-processed foods wouldn’t just take away personal choice-it would ignore the struggles many people face when trying to eat well on a budget.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are commonly defined as any type of food that contains additives, preservatives, dyes, or artificial ingredients to the extent that they no longer resemble their original form in shape, color, taste, and texture. This is also the main difference between processed and ultra-processed foods, as processed foods are altered, but still retain some of their natural nutrients. The relevance of this topic is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, recently announced his plan to take significant measures towards additives in foods. Initiatives for this has been taken as earlier this year the FDA issued a ban on Red Dye No. 3, an additive found to have given laboratory animals cancer. After this change Secretary Kennedy has urge major food production companies to color additives in their products.
Reasons Why Banning UPFs Is Not a Good Solution
1. It Would Disproportionately Affect Low-Income Families
Throughout the U.S., millions of low-income families rely on ultra-processed foods because they are affordable and easily accessible. Their lower prices and convenience make them a practical option for those struggling to afford fresh, home-cooked meals.
Plushcare.com states that foods other than ultra-processed foods cost around three times more than UPFs- an amount that many low-income families cannot afford. Although this is the national average, the specific numbers change from state to state. The chart below shows the different numbers for each state.
Furthermore, a review of 27 studies across ten high-income countries by BMJ found that ultra-processed foods provide a much more affordable diet for those with a tight budget. Results suggested that ultra-processed foods are about $1.50 cheaper per day than other, healthier alternatives. This difference amounts to around $2,200 more per year for the average family of four. This much-needed extra money can later be used for other expenses, such as paying bills, buying groceries, or education.
2. The Accessibility Provided by Upfs Are Irreplaceable
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases reports that ultra-processed foods account for over 60% of the American diet. This statistic can be reinforced by the fact that ultra-processed foods are convenient and easy to find, especially in large grocery stores, so people with less time and money end up consuming them more.
The USDA estimates that 54 million people live in food deserts, areas where access to nutritious or organic food is limited. This lack of availability leads these families to turn to more accessible foods. These foods are typically found in fast food restaurants or in convenience stores, where ultra-processed foods are the main food type on the menu.
From Drexel University
In addition to its accessibility, ultra-processed foods provide a longer shelf life that would give people with busy schedules more time and flexibility. A study by the National Center of Biotechnology Information examined the shelf life and cost of less-processed foods (LPF) and more-processed foods (MPF) in a standard American diet. LPW had a median shelf life of 35 days, while MPW lasted 120 days. The cost per person was $15.91/day for LPW and $9.85/day for MPW. The outcome of the study shows that although ultra-processed foods may not be the healthiest option, they simplify the process of meal preparation.
3. It Would Be Considered Government Overreach
In a free society, individuals should have the right to make their own dietary choices without government interference. Regulating the foods that a person can eat would not only undermine their personal rights to freedom but would also represent government overreach. In fact, CBS News reports that for years, regulations on foods have been proposed multiple times throughout history; however have always been rejected due to concerns about limiting personal freedom.
Some also argue that such a ban would be unconstitutional as the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects personal liberties, which courts have often interpreted to include certain lifestyle choices, such as the freedom to choose what one eats. Our nation was founded on liberty and the promise of freedom. Limiting citizens' freedom to eat certain foods would disregard this ideal.
4. The Undeniable Impact on the Economy
Ultra-processed foods are a popular choice among the people, which leads them to generate large sums of money in the US, fueling economic growth and providing hundreds of thousands of jobs related to the food industry. The amount of money that is made from the production of ultra-processed foods has an immense contribution to our nation.
The Food Distribution Research Society provides the exact numbers regarding the financial aspect of ultra-processed foods. A study that they conducted found that food processing in the U.S. generated more than $1.08 trillion in economic output, including a $812.26 billion direct economic impact and $275.17 billion in indirect economic impact.
Looking to the future, it is also evident that our economy will still rely on ultra-processed foods. Major companies that sell ultra-processed foods, including Kraft, General Mills, and Nestle, reported average profits of 17% in the five years after 2018. In comparison to this basic, non-ultra-processed foods, sales were increased by only 6%. This shows that the economic impact of ultra-processed foods will only grow from here on out. Furthermore, the global market for ultra-processed foods was valued at $2.5 trillion in 2020 and has now grown to $3.1 trillion. The incredible growth of about $600 billion in simply 5 years.
Looking into the jobs aspect of it, the USDA found that food and beverage processing establishments employed 1.7 million workers in 2021. The Food Distribution Research Society reports that except for the direct number of employees with jobs related to ultra-processed foods, around 12.3 million jobs are indirectly affected and supported by the manufacturing of these foods.
The Plan
Throughout our lives, we are constantly remindeded of how harmful ultra-processed foods are and that limiting their consumption would increase longevity or improve our health. This is why initially banning ultra-processed foods may seem like a good idea; however, after close examination, it becomes clear that his type of ban would harm our society more than help it. Many of the systems in place in our country quite literally depend on ultra-processed foods. Nevertheless, just because a ban would not work does not mean that we should not seek alternative solutions.
I propose that the ultra-processed foods are taxed based on the NOVA classification system. This tax would range from 10-15% of the original item. Of course, this idea is completely up for debate as it hasn't been well thought out or planned yet. One consideration is that if such a tax is implemented, then low-income families would still have to adjust their diets to the lowest-priced foods.
Conclusion
The negative effects of ultra-processed foods are undeniable; however, bannig them is not the solution to eliminating their harmful aspects. Fortunately, there are alternative methods that we could follow to get rid of the dangerous substances. Although many of us crave their taste and find them appealing,
moving forward as a society, we must let go of them, knowing that we are actually doing ourselves a favor.
Comments
Post a Comment