Characterization of the degree of food processing in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: Application of the Nova classification and validation using selected biomarkers of food processing

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_HUYBRECHTS_Characterization_of_the_degree_of_food_processing_in_2022.PDF (633.49 KB)
Citações na Scopus
19
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
Autores
HUYBRECHTS, Inge
NICOLAS, Genevieve
CASAGRANDE, Corinne
KLIEMANN, Nathalie
WEDEKIND, Roland
BIESSY, Carine
SCALBERT, Augustin
TOUVIER, Mathilde
ALEKSANDROVA, Krasimira
Citação
FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION, v.9, article ID 1035580, 17p, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between the degree of food processing in our diet and the risk of various chronic diseases. Much of this evidence is based on the international Nova classification system, which classifies food into four groups based on the type of processing: (1) Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, (2) Processed culinary ingredients, (3) Processed foods, and (4) ""Ultra-processed"" foods (UPF). The ability of the Nova classification to accurately characterise the degree of food processing across consumption patterns in various European populations has not been investigated so far. Therefore, we applied the Nova coding to data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) in order to characterize the degree of food processing in our diet across European populations with diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds and to validate this Nova classification through comparison with objective biomarker measurements. Methods: After grouping foods in the EPIC dataset according to the Nova classification, a total of 476,768 participants in the EPIC cohort (71.5% women; mean age 51 [standard deviation (SD) 9.93]; median age 52 [percentile (p)25-p75: 58-66] years) were included in the cross-sectional analysis that characterised consumption patterns based on the Nova classification. The consumption of food products classified as different Nova categories were compared to relevant circulating biomarkers denoting food processing, measured in various subsamples (N between 417 and 9,460) within the EPIC cohort via (partial) correlation analyses (unadjusted and adjusted by sex, age, BMI and country). These biomarkers included an industrial transfatty acid (ITFA) isomer (elaidic acid; exogenous fatty acid generated during oil hydrogenation and heating) and urinary 4-methyl syringol sulfate (an indicator for the consumption of smoked food and a component of liquid smoke used in UPF). Results: Contributions of UPF intake to the overall diet in % grams/day varied across countries from 7% (France) to 23% (Norway) and their contributions to overall % energy intake from 16% (Spain and Italy) to >45% (in the UK and Norway). Differences were also found between sociodemographic groups; participants in the highest fourth of UPF consumption tended to be younger, taller, less educated, current smokers, more physically active, have a higher reported intake of energy and lower reported intake of alcohol. The UPF pattern as defined based on the Nova classification (group 4;% kcal/day) was positively associated with blood levels of industrial elaidic acid (r = 0.54) and 4-methyl syringol sulfate (r = 0.43). Associations for the other 3 Nova groups with these food processing biomarkers were either inverse or non-significant (e.g., for unprocessed and minimally processed foods these correlations were -0.07 and -0.37 for elaidic acid and 4-methyl syringol sulfate, respectively). Conclusion: These results, based on a large pan-European cohort, demonstrate sociodemographic and geographical differences in the consumption of UPF. Furthermore, these results suggest that the Nova classification can accurately capture consumption of UPF, reflected by stronger correlations with circulating levels of industrial elaidic acid and a syringol metabolite compared to diets high in minimally processed foods.
Palavras-chave
food processing, Nova, EPIC, biomarkers, elaidic acid, syringol
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/51664
Referências
  1. Adams J, 2015, INT J BEHAV NUTR PHY, V12, DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0317-y
  2. Astrom AN, 2022, ACTA ODONTOL SCAND, DOI 10.1080/00016357.2022.2153736
  3. Braesco V, 2022, EUR J CLIN NUTR, V76, P1245, DOI 10.1038/s41430-022-01099-1
  4. Canella DS, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0092752
  5. Canhada SL, 2020, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V23, P1076, DOI 10.1017/S1368980019002854
  6. Cediel G, 2021, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V24, P1698, DOI 10.1017/S1368980019004737
  7. Cediel G, 2018, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V21, P125, DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001161
  8. Chajes V, 2017, ANN ONCOL, V28, P2836, DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdx482
  9. Chajes V, 2011, NUTR CANCER, V63, P1235, DOI 10.1080/01635581.2011.617530
  10. Louzada MLD, 2018, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V21, P94, DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001434
  11. Louzada MLD, 2015, PREV MED, V81, P9, DOI 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.018
  12. Louzada MLD, 2015, REV SAUDE PUBL, V49, DOI 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006132
  13. Mendonca RD, 2017, AM J HYPERTENS, V30, P358, DOI 10.1093/ajh/hpw137
  14. Mendonca RD, 2016, AM J CLIN NUTR, V104, P1433, DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004
  15. Deoula MS, 2020, INT J CANCER, V146, P1333, DOI 10.1002/ijc.32689
  16. Deschasaux M, 2018, PLOS MED, V15, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002651
  17. El Kinany K, 2020, EUR J NUTR, V59, P953, DOI 10.1007/s00394-019-01954-1
  18. Fardet Anthony, 2018, Adv Food Nutr Res, V85, P79, DOI 10.1016/bs.afnr.2018.02.002
  19. Fiolet T, 2018, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V360, DOI 10.1136/bmj.k322
  20. Gibney MJ, 2019, CURR DEV NUTR, V3, DOI 10.1093/cdn/nzy077
  21. Handakas E, 2022, CLIN NUTR, V41, P2537, DOI 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.002
  22. Julia C, 2018, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V21, P27, DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001367
  23. Juul F, 2018, BRIT J NUTR, V120, P90, DOI [10.1017/S0007114518001046, 10.1017/s0007114518001046]
  24. Juul F, 2015, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V18, P3096, DOI 10.1017/S1368980015000506
  25. KlipsteinGrobusch K, 1997, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V26, pS174, DOI 10.1093/ije/26.suppl_1.S174
  26. Lavigne-Robichaud M, 2018, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V21, P172, DOI 10.1017/S136898001700115X
  27. Low Energy Ovens Project, 2007, BAKERY BAKE OFF MARK
  28. Machado PP, 2019, BMJ OPEN, V9, DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029544
  29. Marron-Ponce JA, 2019, J ACAD NUTR DIET, V119, P1852, DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.020
  30. Monteiro CA., 2019, ULTRA PROCESSED FOOD
  31. Monteiro CA, 2019, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V22, P936, DOI 10.1017/S1368980018003762
  32. Monteiro CA, 2018, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V21, P18, DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001379
  33. Moubarac JC, 2017, APPETITE, V108, P512, DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.006
  34. Moubarac JC, 2013, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V16, P2240, DOI 10.1017/S1368980012005009
  35. Nardocci M, 2019, CAN J PUBLIC HEALTH, V110, P4, DOI 10.17269/s41997-018-0130-x
  36. Open Food Facts, 2022, COLLABORATIVE FREE O
  37. Poti JM, 2015, AM J CLIN NUTR, V101, P1251, DOI 10.3945/ajcn.114.100925
  38. Rauber F, 2015, NUTR METAB CARDIOVAS, V25, P116, DOI 10.1016/j.numecd.2014.08.001
  39. Rauber F, 2020, PLOS ONE, V15, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0232676
  40. Rauber F, 2018, NUTRIENTS, V10, DOI 10.3390/nu10050587
  41. Riboli E, 2002, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V5, P1113, DOI 10.1079/PHN2002394
  42. Romaguera D, 2010, AM J CLIN NUTR, V92, P912, DOI 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29482
  43. Slimani N, 2002, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V5, P1125, DOI 10.1079/PHN2002395
  44. Slimani N, 2009, EUR J CLIN NUTR, V63, pS206, DOI 10.1038/ejcn.2009.82
  45. Srour B, 2019, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V365, DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1451
  46. Srour B, 2021, ECLINICALMEDICINE, V32, DOI 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100747
  47. Srour B, 2020, JAMA INTERN MED, V180, P283, DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942
  48. Steele EM, 2017, NUTRIENTS, V9, DOI 10.3390/nu9030209
  49. Steele EM, 2020, PLOS ONE, V15, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0236738
  50. Steele EM, 2017, POPUL HEALTH METR, V15, DOI 10.1186/s12963-017-0119-3
  51. Steele EM, 2016, BMJ OPEN, V6, DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892
  52. Stender S, 2006, NEW ENGL J MED, V354, P1650, DOI 10.1056/NEJMc052959
  53. Stender Steen, 2006, Ugeskr Laeger, V168, P1654
  54. Stratakis N, 2022, ELIFE, V11, DOI [10.7554/eLife.71332, 10.7554/eLife.71332.sa0, 10.7554/eLife.71332.sa1, 10.7554/eLife.71332.sa2]
  55. Wareham NJ, 2003, PUBLIC HEALTH NUTR, V6, P407, DOI 10.1079/PHN2002439
  56. Wedekind R, 2019, AM J CLIN NUTR, V110, P1424, DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqz222
  57. WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015, ELIMINATING T FATS E

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/Outros
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/38
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03