Consumption of ultra-processed food products and diet quality among children, adolescents and adults in Belgium
- 500 Downloads
To assess the dietary share of ultra-processed foods (UPF) among Belgian children, adolescents and adults and associations with diet quality.
Data from the national Food Consumption Surveys 2004 (N = 3083; ≥ 15 years) and 2014–2015 (N = 3146; 3–64 years) were used. Two 24-h recalls (dietary records for children) were used for data collection. Foods consumed were classified by the level of processing using the NOVA classification. The usual proportion of daily energy intake from UPF was determined using SPADE (Statistical Program to assess dietary exposure).
In 2014/2015, 36.4% of foods consumed were ultra-processed, while 42.4% were unprocessed/minimally processed. The usual proportion of daily energy intake from UPF was 33.3% (95% CI 32.1–35.0%) for children, 29.2% (95% CI 27.7–30.3%) for adolescents and 29.6% (95% CI 28.5–30.7%) for adults. There were no differences in UPF consumption between 2004 and 2014/2015. The products contributing most to UPF consumption were processed meat (14.3%), cakes, pies, pastries (8.9%), sweet biscuits (7.7%) and soft drinks (6.7%). The UPF dietary share was significantly lower during consumption days when participants met the WHO salt intake recommendation (≤ 5 g/day) and when saturated fat was ≤ 10% of their total energy intake. The dietary share of unprocessed/minimally processed foods was significantly higher during consumption days when participants met the WHO salt and fruit/vegetable intake (≥ 400 g/day) recommendations and when saturated fat was ≤ 10% of their total energy intake.
The UPF dietary share is substantial and associated with lower diet quality. Internationally recommended policies to limit UPF accessibility and marketing need to be implemented to reduce UPF consumption.
KeywordsUltra-processed foods Diet quality Food consumption surveys Belgium
The authors want to thank the Ministry of Health to provide funding for the national food consumption surveys of 2004 and 2014/2015.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.GBD 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390:1423–1459Google Scholar
- 4.Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2018) Country Profile Belgium. http://www.healthdata.org/belgium. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
- 6.De Ridder K, Bel S, Brocatus L et al (2016) De consumptie van voedingsmiddelen en de inname van voedingsstoffen. In: Bel S, Tafforeau J (eds) Voedselconsumptiepeiling 2014–2015. Rapport 4. Wetenschappenlijk Instituut voor Volksgezondheid, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 9.Monteiro C, Cannon G, Levy RB et al (2016) NOVA. The star shines bright. World Nutr 7(1–3):28–38Google Scholar
- 12.Martinez SE, Baraldi LG, Louzada ML et al (2016) Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 6:e009892Google Scholar
- 20.Martinez SE, Popkin BM, Swinburn B, Monteiro CA (2017) The share of ultra-processed foods and the overall nutritional quality of diets in the US: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Popul Health Metr 15:6Google Scholar
- 28.Pan American Health Organization (2015) Ultra-processed food and drink products in Latin America: trends, impact on obesity, policy implications. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 33.European Food Safety Authority (2009) General principles for the collection of national food consumption data in the view of a pan-European dietary survey. EFSA J 17:1435Google Scholar
- 38.FAO (2015) Guidelines on the collection of information on food processing through food consumption surveys. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- 39.Pan American Health Organization (2016) PAHO nutrient profile model. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 44.Wetenschappenlijk Instituut voor Volksgezondheid (2016) Voedselconsumptiepeiling 2014–2015. Rapport 1: Voedingsgewoonten, antropometrie en voedingsbeleid. Wetenschappenlijk Instituut voor Volksgezondheid, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 46.Ministerio de Salud (2016) Guia alimentaria para la poblacion uruguaya. Para una alimentacion saludable, compartida y placentera. http://msp.gub.uy/sites/default/files/archivos_adjuntos/MS_guia_web.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
- 47.Fiolet T (2018) Quoi dans mon assiette: Objectifs du PNNS 2018–2022. https://quoidansmonassiette.fr/objectifs-pnns-2018-2022-pour-politique-nutritionnelle-et-sante-en-france/. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
- 48.New York Times (2018) In sweeping war on obesity, Chile slays tony the tiger. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/health/obesity-chile-sugar-regulations.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
- 50.Hernandez F, Batis C, Rivera JA, Colchero MA (2018) Reduction in purchases of energy-dense nutrient-poor foods in Mexico associated with the introduction of a tax in 2014. Prev Med 118:16–22Google Scholar
- 51.Biro A (2015) Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier? Food Policy 54:107–115Google Scholar