"Is That 'Beautiful Color' Really Necessary?—New Health Risks of Ultra-Processed Foods"

Candy, soft drinks, cereals, processed meats, and frozen foods line the shelves of supermarkets. They are easy to pick up, visually appealing, and relatively inexpensive. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, these foods support the dining tables of many households.

However, a harsh spotlight is being cast on the convenience these foods offer.

A research team from France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and others have published three studies examining the link between food additives and chronic diseases. The studies analyzed data from over 100,000 participants in France's large cohort "NutriNet-Santé." The research explored the consumption of food colorings, preservatives, antioxidants, and their associations with type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases.

The results were hard for consumers to overlook.

Those who consumed a lot of food colorings had a 38% higher risk of type 2 diabetes, a 14% higher risk of overall cancer, a 21% higher risk of breast cancer, and a 32% higher risk of postmenopausal breast cancer compared to those who consumed less. Regarding preservatives, individuals with high intake showed a 24% higher risk of hypertension and a 16% higher risk of cardiovascular diseases.

Of course, this type of epidemiological study does not directly prove causation, such as "eating additives causes disease." Factors affecting health, such as lifestyle, income, exercise, smoking, and overall diet quality, are intricately intertwined. The research team also advises caution in interpreting the results.

Nevertheless, this study is being taken seriously because it is not an isolated report. Many studies worldwide have accumulated evidence on the relationship between ultra-processed foods and health risks. Mathilde Touvier from Inserm notes that 93 out of 104 studies globally consistently show a link between ultra-processed foods and adverse health effects.

In other words, this study is not a sudden warning. It means that the alarm, which had already been ringing, has grown even louder.

The Issue Is Not Just "Calories"

The term ultra-processed foods does not simply mean "factory-made foods." Generally, it refers to foods made through industrial processes that contain ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens, along with multiple additives, flavorings, colorings, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners.

Until now, nutritional issues have mainly been discussed from perspectives such as "high in sugar," "high in fat," "high in salt," and "high in calories." Of course, these remain important. However, the discussion surrounding ultra-processed foods highlights issues that are not easily visible from nutritional labels alone.

For example, even with the same calories, the impact on the body may differ between meals prepared from ingredients and foods enhanced with additives and flavorings. There are areas that cannot be measured by simple numbers, such as palatability, satisfaction, blood sugar response, gut environment, and long-term metabolic effects.

The food colorings highlighted in this study are often used not because they are essential for food preservation or safety, but to make products more appealing. In children's snacks, drinks, desserts, and cereals, the vibrancy of colors can influence purchasing decisions.

But is that color really necessary? Is it a risk that consumers should bear as potential health risks accumulate? The study raises precisely this question.

The Role of Preservatives and Their Inevitability

On the other hand, preservatives play a role in supporting the distribution and shelf life of food. They offer certain social benefits by reducing food waste and ensuring stable delivery of products to remote areas.

However, it is not simple to say that preservatives are "safe because they are widely used." The study showed a link between additives like potassium sorbate and citric acid, commonly used in processed foods, and hypertension and cardiovascular diseases.

What is important is not just the amount contained in a single food. Consumers consume multiple processed foods in a day. Sweet cereals in the morning, sandwiches with processed meats for lunch, snacks in between, and frozen foods or ready-made meals for dinner. Even if each product is within standards, the overall intake of additives can accumulate in one's diet.

Moreover, the names of additives are technical and difficult to understand. Not many consumers can immediately judge the risks by looking at ingredient labels filled with E numbers and chemical names. Even if the information is displayed, it is not necessarily easy to understand.

This highlights the importance of food labeling policies.

The Political Focus on Mandatory Nutri-Score

In France, a bill is currently being debated to make Nutri-Score labeling mandatory on food products. Nutri-Score is a labeling system that indicates the nutritional balance of food on a scale from A to E with colors. It was introduced in France in 2017 but has been voluntary until now.

The bill includes requirements for Nutri-Score labeling not only on food packaging but also in advertisements. It also proposes imposing a burden equivalent to 2% of domestic sales in France on companies that refuse to display the label, with the revenue directed to health insurance.

This debate is significant because food choices are not easily resolved by "individual effort" alone. Consumers choose foods every day influenced by price, time, advertising, children's preferences, and the environment at work or school. Even if one wants to eat healthily, if cheap, quick, and easy-to-obtain foods are skewed towards ultra-processed foods, the choices themselves become distorted.

For food companies, mandatory labeling is also a significant pressure. Should they continue selling products with low nutritional ratings as they are, or improve their recipes? If evaluations are displayed visibly to consumers, it will also affect companies' marketing strategies.

However, Nutri-Score alone does not solve the problem. Nutri-Score is primarily a system for evaluating nutritional content and does not directly reflect the degree of processing or types of additives. Therefore, even foods with relatively good ratings may be ultra-processed.

This point has sparked debate on social media. While some say "Nutri-Score is enough," others question, "We need labeling that also shows additives and processing levels," or "Even if it's A or B, if it's ultra-processed, it's not reassuring." What consumers are seeking is not just a label, but understandable and reliable information.

Reactions Spreading on Social Media—Anxiety, Anger, and Practical Concerns

Several reactions have spread on social media in response to this article and related reports.

The most common reaction is anxiety. Food colorings and preservatives are widely used in everyday foods such as candy, drinks, processed meats, sauces, bread, and ready-made meals. Reactions include "It's in the snacks my child loves," "Is the cereal I eat every morning okay?" and "Even if I look at the ingredient list, I don't know what to avoid."

Next, noticeable is the anger towards companies and politics. Consumer group Foodwatch strongly urges political action in response to these research findings. On social media, opinions such as "If they know, they should regulate quickly," "Don't make it a matter of personal responsibility," and "Prioritize children's health over easily sellable foods" are spreading.

On the other hand, there are many practical concerns from the perspective of living. Even if one tries to avoid ultra-processed foods, unprocessed or minimally processed foods take time to prepare. For dual-income households, single-person households, low-income groups, and families with children, cheap and long-lasting foods are essential for living. Voices like "Even if they say it's unhealthy, I can't make everything from scratch every day," "Organic and additive-free options are expensive," and "I want more affordable and healthy options" are not just counterarguments but policy issues themselves.

Opinions are divided on the mandatory Nutri-Score. Supporters believe that clearer labeling will make shopping decisions easier and put pressure on companies to improve. Opponents or those cautious about the system worry about oversimplification and the impact on traditional foods, regional products, and small businesses.

Overall, looking at the reactions on social media, consumers seem to agree on the direction of "Don't hide information" and "Make it possible to choose," even as they carry a sense of fatigue from not knowing what to eat anymore.

The Food Environment Cannot Be Left to "Personal Responsibility" Alone

When it comes to improving eating habits, it often becomes a matter of "the individual just needs to be careful." However, the issue of ultra-processed foods is not that simple.

Advertisements emphasize cheapness, fun, and convenience. Products for children strongly appeal with characters, colors, and sweetness. For busy adults, the convenience of just a few minutes in the microwave or simply opening a package resonates. In such product design and sales strategies, it is unrealistic to demand perfect judgment from consumers alone.

Furthermore, healthier foods can be more expensive and time-consuming to prepare. Food issues are deeply connected to income, education, local store environments, working hours, and family circumstances. Reducing ultra-processed foods requires not only individual awareness reform but also comprehensive responses involving the food industry, distribution, advertising, school meals, and public policy.

In that sense, this study is not just a medical paper. It is also a question of what kind of food environment society will allow.

What Consumers Can Do Starting Today

So, what should consumers do?

First, develop the habit of reading ingredient labels. Products with many unfamiliar names, numerous additives, sweeteners, flavorings, and colorings can be a basis for reducing frequency.

Second, think in terms of "reducing frequency" rather than "completely eliminating." A lifestyle of not eating any ultra-processed foods is not realistic for many people. What is important is to shift the daily focus towards foods as close to their natural state as possible, such as vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, fish, meat, eggs, and dairy products.

Third, pay special attention to foods for children. Brightly colored snacks and drinks are attractive but can have long-lasting effects on taste formation and eating habits. It is necessary to create an environment where children are not excessively exposed to marketing, not only at home but also in schools, childcare, and the community as a whole.

Fourth, utilize labeling systems while not over-relying on them. Nutri-Score can serve as a convenient guideline but is not all-encompassing. It is necessary to consider a combination of nutritional evaluation, processing degree, additives, and consumption frequency.

Science Indicates the Need for "Reevaluation," Not "Prohibition"

It is not a matter of saying all food additives are bad. Many are used after safety evaluations and have contributed to food hygiene and preservation.

However, science evolves. It is not uncommon for standards once considered sufficient to be reevaluated based on new data. This study precisely indicates the need for such reevaluation.

Especially for colorings used solely to make food look vibrant or replaceable additives, the question of "Is it really necessary?" cannot be avoided. Even if they are convenient for companies and appealing to consumers, if long-term health risks are suspected, there is room to reconsider their usage and target foods.

Science is not about inciting fear. It is about not ignoring the risks that have been identified and gradually moving the food environment towards a safer direction for society as a whole.

To Avoid Leaving Food Choices Solely to Consumers

The discussions surrounding this study and the mandatory Nutri-Score are aligned in the same direction. That is, how to create an environment where consumers can make healthier choices more easily.

Food companies have the freedom to create products that sell. However, if those products are consumed in large quantities daily and are potentially linked to chronic disease risks, transparency and responsibility are also required.

Politics has the responsibility to reflect scientific knowledge in regulations. Will they leave the research results unaddressed by saying "causation is not yet proven," or will they strengthen labeling and regulations based on the precautionary principle? That is precisely the judgment being questioned.

Consumers have the right to choose. However, to choose, clear information and realistic options are necessary.

The reasons ultra-processed foods have deeply penetrated our lives are clear: vibrant colors, long shelf life, strong flavors, affordability, and convenience. Therefore, distancing ourselves from them requires more than just individual effort.

This study serves as an opportunity to reassess each product on our dining tables. But what is truly being questioned is the larger choice of what kind of food environment we will leave for the next generation.

Source URL

France-Antilles. AFP article on ultra-processed foods, additive research, and Nutri-Score mandatory discussions.
https://www.guadeloupe.franceantilles.fr/actualite/economie/sante-de-nouvelles-preuves-scientifiques-contre-les-aliments-ultra-transformes-1079694.php

Inserm official release. Overview of three studies showing the link between food colorings, preservatives, and risks of cancer, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and hypertension.
https://presse.inserm.fr/colorants-conservateurs-trois-nouvelles-etudes-pointent-des-liens-entre-additifs-alimentaires-et-risque-accru-de-cancer-de-maladies-cardiovasculaires-et-dhypertension/72858/

French National Assembly bill page. Official information on the proposal to mandate Nutri-Score labeling on food packaging and advertising.
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/textes/l17b2599_proposition-loi

French National Assembly bill text. Details on mandatory Nutri-Score, advertising display, and 2% burden for violations.
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/docs/PIONANR5L17B2599.raw

LCP explanation of the Nutri-Score mandatory bill. Explanation by Sandrine Runel, support from 8 factions, and advertising display obligations.
https://lcp.fr/actualites/vers-un-nutri-score-obligatoire-ce-que-preparent-les-deputes-pour-les-consommateurs

TF1 Info report on the Nutri-Score mandatory bill. Introduction in 2017, voluntary display, 60% market use, and 2% burden proposal.
https://www.tf1info.fr/politique/jouer-carte-sur-table-une-proposition-de-loi-vise-a-rendre-obligatoire-le-nutri-score-2434923.html

France Assos Santé explanation of ultra-