Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25679527›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparing different policy scenarios to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods in UK: impact on cardiovascular disease mortality using a modelling approach.

Patricia V L Moreira, Larissa Galastri Baraldi, Jean-Claude Moubarac, Carlos Augusto Monteiro, Alex Newton, Simon Capewell, Martin O'Flaherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ultra-Processed Food Availability and Noncommunicable Diseases: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nutritional Quality, Environmental Impact and Cost of Ultra-Processed Foods: A UK Food-Based Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Patricia V L MoreiraDepartment of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Larissa Galastri BaraldiCentre for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jean-Claude MoubaracCentre for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos Augusto MonteiroCentre for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alex NewtonDepartment of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Simon CapewellDepartment of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Martin O'FlahertyDepartment of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global burden of non-communicable diseases partly reflects growing exposure to ultra-processed food products (UPPs). These heavily marketed UPPs are cheap and convenient for consumers and profitable for manufacturers, but contain high levels of salt, fat and sugars. This study aimed to explore the potential mortality reduction associated with future policies for substantially reducing ultra-processed food intake in the UK. METHODS AND

findingsWe obtained data from the UK Living Cost and Food Survey and from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. By the NOVA food typology, all food items were categorized into three groups according to the extent of food processing: Group 1 describes unprocessed/minimally processed foods. Group 2 comprises processed culinary ingredients. Group 3 includes all processed or ultra-processed products. Using UK nutrient conversion tables, we estimated the energy and nutrient profile of each food group. We then used the IMPACT Food Policy model to estimate reductions in cardiovascular mortality from improved nutrient intakes reflecting shifts from processed or ultra-processed to unprocessed/minimally processed foods. We then conducted probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation.

resultsApproximately 175,000 cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths might be expected in 2030 if current mortality patterns persist. However, halving the intake of Group 3 (processed) foods could result in approximately 22,055 fewer CVD related deaths in 2030 (minimum estimate 10,705, maximum estimate 34,625). An ideal scenario in which salt and fat intakes are reduced to the low levels observed in Group 1 and 2 could lead to approximately 14,235 (minimum estimate 6,680, maximum estimate 22,525) fewer coronary deaths and approximately 7,820 (minimum estimate 4,025, maximum estimate 12,100) fewer stroke deaths, comprising almost 13% mortality reduction.

conclusionsThis study shows a substantial potential for reducing the cardiovascular disease burden through a healthier food system. It highlights the crucial importance of implementing healthier UK food policies.

Indexed as

DietFoodFood HandlingNutrition PolicyAlgorithmsCardiovascular DiseasesEnergy IntakeFast FoodsFeeding BehaviorHumansModels, TheoreticalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25679527
PMCPMC4334511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.