New research from Northeastern University’s Network Science Institute can be used to measure a food’s chemical alteration through a formula for universal nutrient behavior. A corresponding database of 50,000 foods hopes to help consumers identify ultra-processed foods and find similar alternatives. 

The paper shows how nutrient concentrations in food display universal behavior. Using a formula, researchers can estimate the extent of processing. “Food processing is known to change the nutrient balance by altering the concentration of the native nutrients and through the addition of salt, sugars, fats and numerous additives,” the study reads. 

To index the degree of processing of food items in the U.S. food supply, the research team created True Food, a publicly available database. True Food captures and compares the degree of processing of 50,000 foods. Each food item receives a score, out of 100, based on hidden ingredients and additives. The team estimated that 73 percent of the U.S food supply is ultra-processed. 

The study defines ultra-processed foods according to the NOVA Food classification system as “industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable).” Examples of ultra-processed foods include ice creams, candy, industrial breakfast cereal, soda, chips, and pre-prepared meals– foods that are highly caloric but offer little nutritional value. 

These findings surprised senior research scientist Dr. Giulia Menichetti. “It also surprised me how a considerable amount of highly processed food is mistakenly considered ‘healthy’ because the public narrative still focuses on one nutrient at a time, instead of evaluating food as a whole (complex system thinking),” Menichetti tells Food Tank. 

Dr. Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, weighs in on the relationship between processing and nutrition. “Processing per se is not necessarily harmful, and some can be good such as pasteurization of milk and other means of ensuring microbial safety…” he tells Food Tank. Willett continues, “However, four forms of processing have serious adverse effects on the quality of food: refining grains (removes nutrients, fiber, and phytochemicals and increases glycemic index), partial hydrogenation of oils (creates trans fats and destroys essential fatty acids), refinement of sugar cane to make sugar (making sugar very cheap and abundant), and adding excessive amounts of salt (and some other preservatives).” 

The several thousand chemicals that appear in food are largely unknown and unquantified. The USDA National Nutrient Database has collected information on close to 8,000 food items and 150 food components. Menichetti’s research and TrueFood database will help fill in those gaps. The FDA regulates food labels, but neither the mandatory nutrients nor ingredient statements encompass the breadth of a food’s journey. 

Under the leadership of Dr. Albert-László Barabási, the research is part of a larger initiative that seeks to define the relationship between public health and lifestyle factors, such as diet. The implications of this study are significant, as more than 60 percent of caloric intake in the U.S. comes from processed food. Willett explains that the amount of processed food is increasing in urban areas of other middle income countries, too. 

While ultra-processed food is hyperpalatable and easily affordable, a burgeoning field of research correlates the consumption of ultra-processed food to chronic illness, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and other non-communicable diseases. One large prospective cohort study in France concluded that a 10 percent increase in ultra-processed food consumption is associated with a 10 percent increase for risk of cancer. 

Menichetti and her team are excited to advance their research. Two follow-up papers are currently under review. Menichetti tells Food Tank, “I really would love to use complexity science to characterize foods according to bio-availability, bio-accessibility, and food matrix composition.” She goes on, “According to my preliminary studies, while these concepts still lack precise quantification, they appear to be the leading factors in explaining how current ultra-processed food negatively affects our health. We need to come up with a mathematical definition of ‘whole food’ versus ‘disrupted food’.” 

These findings are promising for public health initiatives and policy. Menichetti believes the recent discoveries can be used to strategize dietary guidelines, change consumer behavior without compromising their diet, identify potential food desserts, increase food literacy, and evaluate food assistance programs.

Willett advocates for a more nuanced approach. “Processing can profoundly affect the healthfulness of foods, but I think we need to look more deeply at the types of processing and the foods that are being processed to determine food and nutrition policy,” he tells Food Tank. He further explains, “However, I think the whole nutrition community agrees that most Americans are consuming far too much added sugar, refined starch, and salt, and shifting current dietary patterns to include more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes would greatly improve wellbeing and reduce premature death.”