Federation of Institutes of Food Science and Technology of ASEAN (FIFSTA) and IUFoST

[bragamiguel]

IUFoST/FIFSTA (Federation of Institute of Food Science and Technology in ASEAN) Scientific Roundtable Discussion (SRD) on:

"Navigating the ultra-processed food debate: Scientific insights and ASEAN perspectives".

Overview

This IUFoST-FIFSTA roundtable examines the complex issues surrounding ultra-processed foods bringing a scientific lens to the debate and addressing their implications for the ASEAN region. With a focus on bridging science policy and innovation the discussion highlights the critical role of food processing in ensuring food safety nutrition sustainability while challenging misconceptions about ultra-processed foods.
By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue among leading experts and stakeholders the event seeks to provide a platform for ASEAN professionals to engage in evidence-based discussions paving the way for sustainable innovations in food processing and consumption.

This Forum is to encourage questions/comments/responses to the Roundtable and the challenges/innovations/opportunities around navigating the ultra-processed food debate from ASEAN perspective.  The questions/comments here have been asked/noted by the attendees to this impactful and widely attended Roundtable held earlier this year.  To view the Roundtable video and reference speakers and their profiles, visit: https://iufost.org/navigating-ultra-proc...rspectives.

Questions, comments are listed by number. Questions are being responded to by the Roundtable experts and experts within the AAU and IUFoST. Please feel free to contribute to this Forum and engage in this discussion and work with us to find the solutions.

Question and comments

1. What is the temperature range of the environment for the ultra-processed food to be eaten outside where it cannot affect the texture, appearance, oxidation, rancidity,flavor and quality deterioration?

2. Thank you, Prof Hariyadi! Do you have any data on processed food contribution to micronutrient intake?

3. What do you think the best way to spread awareness toward Indonesian society (or any other southeast Asian countries) about how to consume UPF with safe and minimum adverse effect for health?

4. Excellent session! Prof Jeya, there are so many traditional foods prepared by deep frying method, high in sugar and salt. These foods are detrimental to health too and may have major role in NCD. Why Montero's group target food industries related to food processing only? Do they have any other agenda?

5. I think the bigger question is can human foods be better managed to retain proper nutrients during harvesting through processing and storage?  Yes - and it will vary depending on how consumers are willing to pay for and educated on how to choose food and willingness to go back to fresh foods which not fits too well with their lifestyles.  Monitoring and retain nutrients during processing adds R&D cost but necessary for some sectors of consumers particularly children and elderly, for examples.  Question is will there be the interests for some sectors who are willing to walk this path and still make good business. I hope ASEAN are optimizing the balanced nutrition intake from their indigenous resources.  It could be new development for the regions on food for health.

6. Dr. Jaya Henry has talked about the importance of collaboration between private sector, gov organizations and academia. What the panel recommends to promote these kind of collaborations. In recent months, the industry has been penalized to participate in international congresses supported by the FAO or WHO. Without our ability to be part of the discussion, I don't see how we are going to progress at all levels.

7. Quick thought: is the issue more of processing-centric or ingredient-centric? in my understanding, the ingredients' interaction in the processing and after consumption result to inflammation.

8. In the new classification, will there be a need to have flexibility on parameters, so that each region/country can readjust to their needs, not crossing the essence.

9. Despite the flaw in NOVA classification, WHO seems to back the use of this definition for UPF. What efforts shall be done or what have been done to rectify this?

10. Brilliant presentations. Thank you. How can we educate policymakers—starting with WHO (PAHO) and national regulators - to critically assess and avoid the scare-mongering tactics of NOVA and the ambiguous use of the term "ultra-processed foods" (UPF)?

11. Thank you for all the wonderful presentations! Are there any ASEAN countries having discussions on updating dietary guideline or food regulations regarding Food processing?

12. I agree that we should look at formulation rather than processing alone. Traditional processing of food within ASEAN has been overlooked. The perception was either old / traditional ‘is better’ or definitely ‘not-as-good’. My question is, shall we do a data gathering effort on what is the formulation of these often-home-made processed food and conduct an epidemiological analysis on health indicators?

13. How can we communicate ambiguities around the topic. For example, the industry uses regularly UHT and HTST process provides far better nutrient retention than LTLT but yet people do not know this fact. Yet, this may be seen as UPF? And requirements on disclosing nutrition retention have improved but not widely inclusive.

14. One challenge on UPF is the hyper-palatable (by additives) as an association to overconsumption. Unlike food safety or nutrient profile, not sure if palatability has a standard. What would be a scientific-balanced view on additives/palatability?

15. In processing, different nutrients are affected which affects their bioavailability. How can we separate how processing affects nutrition if this is the case? Especially policy, what sort of recommendations can be made?

16. Currently, there is a trend towards plant-based proteins. However, the solubilization, extraction, purification processes involve using a number of chemicals and Ultra Processing. So, to begin with, they fall into the UPF category. What are your thoughts on that?

17. I think that FOOD is not for filling the empty stomach to avoid hungry; Foods serve many functions including providing nutrients for our body, providing satisfaction for our desire of sensory needs, yet providing social needs.  Processed foods are then meeting the needs.  No food is junk, only the eating habit is junk, because people are not eating right; they need to have a balanced dietary practice, that means including both minimaly processed and processed.

18. Is there an existing survey or study on the acceptance and perception of Asian consumers on ultra-processed foods?

19. Could you share the presentation decks with us please? Thank you!

[bragamiguel]

Comment from Food Industry Asia CEO:

There’s a lot of debate lately about the packaged food industry with regards to the levels of processing to make products that we consumer daily or for occasions.

And it centers on relatively new definition that tries to dissect what is less processed and what is ‘ultra’ processed (it could have been mega, uber or mucho processed, I guess).

But that ‘ultra’ term has caused controversy and a whole bunch of sensationalist media headlines (yes, a whinge: British past time) that simply don’t encourage a balanced debate.

So, it was refreshing to be invited to speak on behalf of Food Industry Asia (FIA) at a virtual roundtable organised by IUFoST and The Federation of The Institutes of Food Science and Technology in ASEAN (FIFSTA) to discuss this hot topic.

Entitled ‘Navigating the Ultra-Processed Food Debate: Scientific Insights & ASEAN Perspectives’ it was genuinely a great conversation with fellow panelists and tough questions from the online audience on Tuesday, February 11.

It provided insights into the science behind processed foods, regulatory perspectives, nutrition and the implications for ASEAN’s food systems from the eminent Prof Jeya Henry, Prof Aman Wirakartakusumah and Prof Purwiyatno Hariyadi, excellently co-chaired and facilitated by Dr Richard Khaw and Prof Samuel Godefroy, to foster an evidence-based discussion.

There were some clear action items to be taken up:

1. IUFOST/FIFSTA to investigate definitions/classification systems and the implications for ASEAN
2. Collaboration on research
3. Consumer information campaigns

Each one of those areas is critical. Why?

We have horrendous challenges with malnutrition (stunting and wasting, in particular) in Southeast Asia and many processed foods products try to help solve this intractable challenge but would otherwise be demonised as ultra-processed; even novel foods and amazing innovations like cultivated meat are caught up in this one-size fits all approach.

And even if we take the most ‘healthy’ consumers who want ‘real’ food (no, it’s not a scientific term but my wife and teen daughter say this a lot and as a wise husband and father, I simply nod), they still want products that meet their needs for indulgence and convenience.

Few people (including the two family members I just mentioned) live all the time in one way of eating. We all move across the spectrum of more or less healthy or processed depending on our needs and occasions.

People see the debate about processed foods in so many ways and this means consumers will define it in their own minds and context. Something we must explore in research and consumer information in Southeast Asia.

Photo to show the animated discussion perfectly demonstrated by Samuel Godefroy who is always immaculately dressed!