Latest news with #ultraProcessed
Times
10 hours ago
- Health
- Times
The 10 ultra-processed picnic foods nutritionists avoid
When the sun comes out, who doesn't want to decamp to the park. Picnics these days are all about grabbing food from corner shops and supermarkets, most of which is marketed in eye-catching packets, and easy to crack open on the grass. But if you're not careful, all these convenient tasty treats will build an ultra-processed feast full of additives and high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. Here are a few easy swaps that will improve the nutritional quality of your picnic without compromising on the occasion. Add in a bag of apples and some fresh fruit and you're done. I avoid: Doritos Cool Original Tortilla Chips £2.50, 100g Here's my rule for buying crisps: anything with more than three ingredients is probably best avoided. The laundry list of flavouring and preservatives on this product — and so many similar corner shop offerings — should be enough of a warning sign that they are ultra-processed. And if it isn't, the 22g of fat per 100g should do the trick: these chips are 22 per cent fat! While that's an impressive feat of food engineering, your arteries will thank you for avoiding them. Add in 1.1g of salt and you have all the nutrients linked to heart disease and obesity.
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Zoe supplement ad banned over ultra-processed claims
An advert for nutrition brand Zoe featuring Dragons' Den star Steven Bartlett has been banned for misleadingly claiming that a supplement did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that Zoe's Daily30+ 'plant-based wholefood supplement' contained at least two ingredients – chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes – that were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing. The ASA said a Facebook ad for the product was therefore likely to mislead consumers by implying it did not contain any ingredients that would be considered ultra-processed. Zoe said it strongly refuted the ruling and was in the process of appealing against it. The ad, which stated the supplement contained chicory inulin, included a testimonial from Bartlett, who is an investor in Zoe, which read: 'This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.' The complainant, a professor in nutrition and food science who the ASA has not named, challenged whether Bartlett's claim misleadingly implied that the product did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients (UPFs). Responding to the complaint, Zoe said the ad did not claim Daily 30+ was not ultra-processed, or that it did not include any UPFs. Instead, the ad explained the product was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives. Zoe said the advertised product was a combination of 32 different foods including vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was to be put directly on to other food to increase fibre intake. While some ingredients were powdered, the only liquid ingredient was chicory root inulin, used in the product for its fibre health benefit. Similarly, nutritional yeast flakes, which Zoe described as a commonly used culinary ingredient, was a form of heated yeast, had known health benefits that included B-vitamins and minerals and was a good source of protein. They explained that none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients and the processes used could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen. It added that the product was a plant mix that was distinctly different from UPF products high in additives, fat, salt and sugar that were associated with poor health outcomes, and that labelling of their product as UPF on the basis of a higher level of processing of two ingredients would create a misunderstanding and increase consumer misinformation. The ASA acknowledged that there was no universally accepted definition of UPFs, but it considered consumers would understand the claim 'wholefood supplement' to mean the product comprised solely of wholefood ingredients. It said Bartlett's testimony would have contributed to this overall impression. The ASA said: 'We acknowledged consumers were likely to understand that most food products had been subject to some level of processing, for example cleaning or chopping. They were unlikely to consider foods that had undergone that minimal level of processing to be UPFs. 'However, at least two ingredients, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing. 'Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration. 'While some of those processes were relatively simple in isolation, we considered the number of stages used in processing went beyond what consumers would interpret as minimal and we considered they would likely understand chicory root inulin as UPFs.' It said it considered Bartlett's testimony to imply that the product did not contain any ingredients that consumers would interpret as ultra-processed 'when that was not the case and was therefore likely to mislead'. It ruled that the ad must not appear in the form complained about, adding: 'We told Zoe not to make claims that their products did not contain UPF ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed.' Zoe co-founder Professor Tim Spector said: 'We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed. 'The ad clearly states that Daily30+ doesn't contain ultra-processed pills or shakes. That's because it doesn't. It is made entirely from whole food ingredients, and is designed to be added to meals – not taken as a pill or a shake. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.' He added: 'We fully stand by Daily30+'s integrity, its health benefits for consumers, and our expertise in nutrition science and improving public health. 'To go after a product that is designed to improve health whilst doing very little about the harmful marketing and advertising of unhealthy junk food to children and vulnerable individuals is nothing short of disgraceful.' A spokesman for Bartlett said: 'For the avoidance of any doubt, this ruling is not against Steven Bartlett whatsoever. The advert was not posted by Steven, nor did it appear on any of his channels. It was posted by Zoe Ltd on their own channel. 'The ASA issued this ruling after receiving a single complaint from a member of the public, and it is directed solely at Zoe Ltd. It is for Zoe Ltd to debate the merits of the ruling.'
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Zoe supplement ad banned over ultra-processed claims
An advert for nutrition brand Zoe featuring Dragons' Den star Steven Bartlett has been banned for misleadingly claiming that a supplement did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that Zoe's Daily30+ 'plant-based wholefood supplement' contained at least two ingredients – chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes – that were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing. The ASA said a Facebook ad for the product was therefore likely to mislead consumers by implying it did not contain any ingredients that would be considered ultra-processed. Zoe said it strongly refuted the ruling and was in the process of appealing against it. The ad, which stated the supplement contained chicory inulin, included a testimonial from Bartlett, who is an investor in Zoe, which read: 'This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.' The complainant, a professor in nutrition and food science who the ASA has not named, challenged whether Bartlett's claim misleadingly implied that the product did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients (UPFs). Responding to the complaint, Zoe said the ad did not claim Daily 30+ was not ultra-processed, or that it did not include any UPFs. Instead, the ad explained the product was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives. Zoe said the advertised product was a combination of 32 different foods including vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was to be put directly on to other food to increase fibre intake. While some ingredients were powdered, the only liquid ingredient was chicory root inulin, used in the product for its fibre health benefit. Similarly, nutritional yeast flakes, which Zoe described as a commonly used culinary ingredient, was a form of heated yeast, had known health benefits that included B-vitamins and minerals and was a good source of protein. They explained that none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients and the processes used could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen. It added that the product was a plant mix that was distinctly different from UPF products high in additives, fat, salt and sugar that were associated with poor health outcomes, and that labelling of their product as UPF on the basis of a higher level of processing of two ingredients would create a misunderstanding and increase consumer misinformation. The ASA acknowledged that there was no universally accepted definition of UPFs, but it considered consumers would understand the claim 'wholefood supplement' to mean the product comprised solely of wholefood ingredients. It said Bartlett's testimony would have contributed to this overall impression. The ASA said: 'We acknowledged consumers were likely to understand that most food products had been subject to some level of processing, for example cleaning or chopping. They were unlikely to consider foods that had undergone that minimal level of processing to be UPFs. 'However, at least two ingredients, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing. 'Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration. 'While some of those processes were relatively simple in isolation, we considered the number of stages used in processing went beyond what consumers would interpret as minimal and we considered they would likely understand chicory root inulin as UPFs.' It said it considered Bartlett's testimony to imply that the product did not contain any ingredients that consumers would interpret as ultra-processed 'when that was not the case and was therefore likely to mislead'. It ruled that the ad must not appear in the form complained about, adding: 'We told Zoe not to make claims that their products did not contain UPF ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed.' Zoe co-founder Professor Tim Spector said: 'We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed. 'The ad clearly states that Daily30+ doesn't contain ultra-processed pills or shakes. That's because it doesn't. It is made entirely from whole food ingredients, and is designed to be added to meals – not taken as a pill or a shake. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.' He added: 'We fully stand by Daily30+'s integrity, its health benefits for consumers, and our expertise in nutrition science and improving public health. 'To go after a product that is designed to improve health whilst doing very little about the harmful marketing and advertising of unhealthy junk food to children and vulnerable individuals is nothing short of disgraceful.' A spokesman for Bartlett said: 'For the avoidance of any doubt, this ruling is not against Steven Bartlett whatsoever. The advert was not posted by Steven, nor did it appear on any of his channels. It was posted by Zoe Ltd on their own channel. 'The ASA issued this ruling after receiving a single complaint from a member of the public, and it is directed solely at Zoe Ltd. It is for Zoe Ltd to debate the merits of the ruling.'
