Ecological regulation for healthy and sustainable food systems: responding to the global rise of ultra-processed foods

Abstract

Many are calling for transformative food systems changes to promote population and planetary health. Yet there is a lack of research that considers whether current food policy frameworks and regulatory approaches are suited to tackle whole of food systems challenges. One such challenge is responding to the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPF) in human diets, and the related harms to population and planetary health. This paper presents a narrative review and synthesis of academic articles and international reports to critically examine whether current food policy frameworks and regulatory approaches are sufficiently equipped to drive the transformative food systems changes needed to halt the rise of UPFs, reduce consumption and minimise harm. We draw on systems science approaches to conceptualise the UPF problem as an emergent property of complex adaptive food systems shaped by capitalist values and logics. Our findings reveal that current food policy frameworks often adjust or reform isolated aspects of food systems (e.g., prices, labels, food composition), but under-emphasise the deeper paradigms, goals and structures that underlie the rise of UPFs as a systems phenomenon, and its socio-ecological implications. We propose that a ‘leverage points’ framework illuminates where to intervene in food systems to generate multi-level changes, while the theory of ecological regulation highlights how to respond to complex multi-factorial problems, like the rise of UPFs, in diverse ways that respect planetary boundaries. More research is needed to better understand the transformative potential of ecological regulation to advance food systems transformation and attenuate whole of food systems challenges.

Behind the ‘creative destruction’ of human diets: An analysis of the structure and market dynamics of the ultra‐processed food manufacturing industry and implications for public health

“…It is also very unlikely that such disruption will come from policy actions, such as support for reformulation, that seek to shift consumption from one group of UPFs to another (Dickie et al, 2018). Instead, what will likely be required is a robust framework of ‘ecological regulation’—a framework of synergistic measures that cut across various regulatory domains, underpinned by principles relating to the subjugation of profit‐making and capital accumulation to other social and environmental relations (Northcott et al, 2023; Parker & Haines, 2018; Parker & Johnson, 2019). Such measures could include, for instance, policies that support local and circular food systems (e.g., progressive public procurement policies; the development and strengthening of local food system infrastructure such as produce markets) (IPES‐Food, 2019; Mooney, 2018; Parsons & Hawkes, 2018; Pingali, 2012).…”

Barriers and Facilitators Related to the Adoption of Policies to Reduce Ultra-Processed Foods Consumption: A Scoping Review

“…In that sense, although a review is focused on the three policies, it is recognized that, even if they are important, they only deal with actions limited to adjusting or reforming distortions in national food systems (cost of food, consumer information, abusive advertising) instead of transforming the global food system. For there to be a real reduction in UFP consumption, with positive impacts for people and the planet, a broader, intersectoral, coordinated, multilevel, democratic, and participatory approach is also essential, which makes it possible to act on the various determinants of the UFP [ 71 ]. Thus, it is the toleration of extractive, materialist and neoliberal governance systems, structures, practices and beliefs that underpin capitalism and prioritize unbridled economic growth, generating increased consumption, including products that cause harm to health [ 11 ].…”

“…Thus, it is the toleration of extractive, materialist and neoliberal governance systems, structures, practices and beliefs that underpin capitalism and prioritize unbridled economic growth, generating increased consumption, including products that cause harm to health [ 11 ]. This is only possible with the establishment of democratic and participatory democracies that promote the inclusion of all stakeholders but ensure balance and redistribution of power in political discussions and throughout the food system [ 71 ].…”

A discussion of stronger public policies to protect and promote healthy diets: what can the U.S. learn from other countries?

“…While generally beneficial, these public policies are based on what we believe is an outdated profiling model for foods, which we have argued should rather be based on markers of ultra-processing rather than on nutrients, given that there is ample evidence that it is the consumption of UPF that is leading to ill-health. This approach may be critical in preventing or at least limiting the food industry from exploiting new public policies and expanding UPF markets (Northcott et al 2023). Additionally, the resources required to manufacture UPF is not only exacerbating environmental pollution and destruction of biodiverse ecosystems, but also drastically contributing to the climate crisis, with the current industrialized food system responsible for nearly a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Fardet and Rock 2020;Seferidi et al 2020).…”

“…World Nutrition they consider the degree of processing of foods only indirectly and to a limited extent, although we know this is crucial information for protecting and promoting healthy diets (Northcott et al 2023). We suggest that FoPL policies should be more focused on UPF.…”