Hochverarbeitete Lebensmittel (Ultra-Processed Foods, UPF) haben – unabhängig vom
Nährstoff- und Kaloriengehalt – einen schlechten Ruf. Dieser Beitrag betrachtet
die zugrundeliegende NOVA-Klassifikation kritisch und gibt einen differenzierten
Überblick über die postulierten Mechanismen und die aktuelle Studienlage.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies show associations between the consumption of
ultra-processed food (UPF) and numerous diseases. So far, however, there is no
evidence of a causal relationship from randomised controlled trials. In
addition, the individual UPFs differ considerably regarding their nutritional
profiles and physiological effects. Differentiated analyses of epidemiological
data indicate that the association of UPF consumption with adverse health
effects is dominated by two food groups only (meat products, sugar-sweetened
beverages). Other UPFs show no respective or even protective associations. The
UPF concept therefore has no advantage compared to the established
classification systems; this applies in particular with regard to the health
assessment of foods with a high content of (saturated) fatty acids, salt, and
sugar. The undifferentiated assessment of all UPFs, regardless of their
nutritional profile, contradicts the current data and therefore lacks a
scientific basis.
Schlüsselwörter
hochverarbeitete Lebensmittel - NOVA-Klassifikation - Lebensmittelverarbeitung - nicht übertragbare Krankheiten - Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe
Key words
ultra-processed food - NOVA classification - food processing - non-communicable diseases - food additives
