Ultra Processed Foods vs Light (Some personal observations)

?

Professor Tim Spector sent me an e-mail yesterday.? OK, no he didn’t, it was a marketing e-mail and I’m sure I am one of thousands of people, maybe one of tens of thousands or more who received the same e-mail.

I was about the delete the e-mail, we all get overloaded with marketing e-mails, but I started to read the e-mail with interest.? I see parallels in the issues with food quality and Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) with the quality of light issues we see all too often on projects where light is devalued to the lowest common denominator, price!

Here is the e-mail I received with some annotations based on my personal thoughts and observations, my notes are in bold…

Hi there,

The House of Lord’s Report on?Food, Diet and Obesity was released last week featuring recommendations from?Prof. Tim Spector, ZOE’s Scientific Co-founder.?Today, he shares his insights and suggestions.

Every few weeks, I write exclusively to ZOE’s members. This time, the message is so important that I want to share it more broadly. If you feel as passionate as I do about the issues discussed below, feel free to forward this to friends or family members who might be interested in joining ZOE’s movement towards a healthier food environment.

Earlier this year, I was asked to give evidence at the House of Lords Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity. For US readers, the House of Lords is an important part of the UK government, which helps shape our laws and hold the government to account.

I’d like to take this opportunity to share what was discussed and how, thankfully, the Lords took my evidence and recommendations seriously. We still have much work ahead to fix our broken food landscape, but this marks an early and decisive step in the right direction.?

(I believe that we definitely have much work ahead to fix the lighting landscape to ensure that everyone has the right to high quality light).

The Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity was formed in response to the steady increase in obesity, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diet-related conditions. For instance, in the UK, two-thirds of us are overweight, and one-third have obesity.

(Professor Glen Jeffery has shown that light, long wavelengths of light can influence mitochondrial function.? More specifically long wavelenths of light stimulate mitochondria, and when stimulated our mitochondria need an energy source, so they pull glucose out of the bloodstream helping to lower blood glucose levels.? If we harness food quality with light quality could we help to reduce the growing incidence of type 2 diabetes?? I would also add that a new term seems to have been coined recently and I believe that it came from Glen Jeffery , Robert A E Fosbury , Scott Zimmerman , and Roger Seheult , the term is ‘Photo-metabolism’ and it describes the activation of our metabolism through light).

Diet-related conditions are an epidemic, cutting millions of lives short while costing health services billions each year. One of the main drivers of this increase in ill health is the increase in consumption of industrial?ultra-processed foods ?(UPFs). Large-scale studies show that people who eat the most UPFs have an increased risk of?type 2 diabetes , obesity, high blood pressure,?depression , heart disease, and unhealthy levels of blood fats.

(There are more parallels here in this paragraph, no one element is on its own, it’s not just our food consumption, it is our light consumption, it is our lack of exercise, it is our reduced sleep cycle.? We are an indoor generation, and we need to tackle all of these elements somehow, ideally not as individual elements but as a collective process to drive better health.? I’m currently reading Health & Light by Dr John Nash Ott, the book was first published in 1973 and Dr Ott suggests that we need a proper Light Diet and this was 50 years ago!? Should we not be considering the nutritional content of light in the same way we do food?)

We also have evidence from tightly controlled clinical trials that UPFs are linked to increased energy intake – around 500 extra calories per day, coupled with increased hunger.

(One could argue that poor light quality and poor circadian stimulus leads onto circadian disruption that leads onto things like poor food choices which ultimately also leads onto increased evergy intake).

To help the committee understand the links between UPFs, the food industry and health, they invited a wide range of scientists, activists and other experts to provide evidence. I was honoured to participate in the discussion.?

ZOE’s mission is to improve the health of millions, and this high-level engagement gave me an opportunity to help guide recommendations towards this ambitious goal.

Over recent decades, food manufacturers have become experts at producing easy-to-eat, delicious food-like substances that lack beneficial nutrients. With no?fiber ?but masses of sugar, saturated fat and?additives , these products play a pivotal role in the health crisis we are currently navigating.?

(Legislation around energy efficiency has meant that light sources have become incredibly efficient at delivering visible light, however we need more.? We need 'fibre' in our light sources, we need nutritional content in our light sources, we need to be nourished and not just fed).

The food industry, which only cares about profits, has free reign to create and market these hyper-palatable products that are making us sick. When it comes to UPFs, the UK has some of the weakest standards in Europe.?

(This is where things differ a bit.? Legislation has pushed the lighting industry to deliver ever more efficient light sources, but they lack the important stuff, the bits either side of the visible spectrum.? However there should to be legislation to ensure that everyone has the right to high quality light.? Light is prescribed onto others through the specification process, high quality light is often value engineered to a very low quality, based almost always on price, without any comprehension of the potential longer term human impact).

So, there is no incentive for food companies to produce food that?isn’t unhealthy, especially in a competitive market – their only guardrails are to ensure that their profits increase and their shareholders get richer. In short, they’re putting profits ahead of the health of nations, an unacceptable state of affairs.?

(Similarly, what are the incentives for luminaire manufacturers to produce fittings that deliver high quality light if the reductive VE process means that ultimately price is the final qualifier?)

I explained to the House of Lords committee that this situation reminds me of the passive smoking debate, which rumbled on for years. Tobacco companies did their best to create a “nanny state” agenda, exactly as the food industry does now. Finally, as evidence accumulated, the government responded. Now, it’s time for them to respond to the dangers of UPFs.?

We certainly need to continue researching UPFs’ impact on health. We also need a better way to assess which foods have a worse impact than others – something that ZOE will continue to investigate to work on. However, the evidence is already strong enough to justify immediate action to reduce: Currently, 60% of the energy we consume comes from UPFs.

Just as we strictly regulate tobacco, we need strong regulation of UPFs. But where do we start? In my statement, I outlined four measures that I think can have a real impact.

1. Introduce warning labels

I suggested placing warning labels on UPFs. Many countries, particularly in Latin America, have already moved in this direction. Chile was the first country to use this approach, adding black octagonal stickers to UPFs and removing all attractive, colorful and cartoon characters from children’s cereals and snacks.

(I’ve presented my thoughts on this on a number of occasions, I think light sources should come with a label similar to a nutritional facts label, this way specifiers and consumers alike would have a much better idea of what they are getting.? This could put the value engineering of light to an end, where the usual comment ‘I can get you the same for half the price’ could be challenged very easily through simple, easy to understand and easy to compare metrics).

2. Bolster the sugar tax

Currently, the UK only has a sugar tax on soft drinks – largely due to the powerful and well-funded lobbyists employed by the food industry. This is a good start but doesn’t go nearly far enough.?

I suggested to the committee that this sugar tax should be extended to other products, including children’s yoghurts and sweet dairy products, which often contain high levels of sugar hidden behind health claims like ‘high in calcium’ or ‘good for bone health’.

3. Support young people and patients

I recommended that taxpayer-funded institutions like hospitals and schools reduce UPF consumption to less than 10%. Good nutrition is vital at all times of life, but it’s even more crucial for growing children and people who are already sick.???

4. Mandatory reformulation

Finally, I recommended they enforce industry-wide reformulations to create healthier food products. The industry will likely need to be dragged kicking and screaming, but this is necessary to support the health of the nation.?

By making it compulsory for all manufacturers, we level the playing field. With all manufacturers in the same boat, changing all foods becomes a realistic goal.

(Should there be reforms for healthier light?? Light impacts our physiology in so many ways, consider our circadian rhythms, the potential to reduce blood glucose levels, the rising levels of myopia, the rising levels of anxiety and depression).

What did the committee decide?

This month, the House of Lords published its final report. They lay out a range of recommendations, many of which include my suggestions.?

Firstly, they recommend that the government work towards making healthier options more affordable and easier to access. This is vital. As it stands, UPFs are cheap, and healthier products are often more expensive. We need to flip this on its head so that everyone can afford to follow a diet that will support their health.

As I suggested, the committee also recommended adding warning labels to UPFs and making ineffective voluntary reformulation programmes mandatory.??

I believe this will make a big difference to our country’s health – no food manufacturers will voluntarily reformulate or add warning labels to popular products for fear of denting their profits. We can’t rely on Big Food’s goodwill in the face of a competitive market where there’s profit to be made or lost. This is why the committee recommends enforcing these changes with fines.

Along similar lines, they suggest increasing the sugar tax, expanding it to products other than soft drinks, and extending it to include salt.

Importantly, they also call for heavy restrictions on advertising foods and drinks that are high in fat, salt, or sugar across all media, not just television. This has had a powerful effect on the sale of tobacco products, and I’m confident it will help move the needle with UPF sales, too.

The committee recognizes that we need to continue investigating the links between UPFs and health outcomes. They call for more independent research, which?ZOE ?is ready and willing to continue.?

Beyond scientific research, ZOE is already helping people make better-informed decisions about food. For instance, our personalized food scores in the app consider the level of processing. This helps lift the veil, allowing our members to see beyond the?misleading health claims ?on food packaging as they can scan foods in supermarkets and get instant feedback on their likely health impact.

I and the team at ZOE are passionate about supporting health through nutrition. We know that what we eat is vital for our well-being, disease risk and longevity. Some complain that food regulation creates a ‘nanny state’. This is simply wrong; people are being misled by Big Food. We want to give people agency to make informed decisions for their health.?

The food industry won’t make these changes – they’re driven by profit alone. Only when the government takes action will it be forced to provide consumers with the information they need to eat for more healthy years?

This issue is close to my heart, and I am confident that, together, we can create real change. The government will respond to the report in January 2025, so we’ll continue to raise awareness as they decide. We’ll also share more resources to help you act and create opportunities for change.

Thanks for your support.?

Prof. Tim Spector

ZOE Scientific Co-founder?

As a final note and in the context of Professor Tim Spector’s e-mail, would the lighting industry have the same power to make governments stop and think about the impact that light can have on the health of nations? Can our industry deliver better light, absolutely we can! Should quality of light be compromised? Definitely not!

Thank you, Professor Tim Spector and the team at ZOE for sending me this e-mail.? Human health & wellbeing is vitally important and needs a considerable amount of joined up thinking.

#light #health #nutrition #wellbeing #Zoe #qualityoflightisqualityoflife