Using less processed food to mimic a standard American diet (sad) does not improve nutrient value and may result in a shorter shelf life at a higher financial cost

Authors: Hess, Julie; Comeau, Madeline; SCHEETT, ANGELA - University Of North Dakota; BODENSTEINER, ANNE - University Of North Dakota; LEVINE, ALLEN - University Of Minnesota

Submitted to: Current Developments in Nutrition
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 9/23/2024
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is an emerging topic of high interest among nutrition scientists and public health policymakers. However, while there is interest in restricting UPF consumption as a means to improve public health, the results of this study indicate that processing level does not necessarily reflect nutrient density or healthfulness. This study develops a Standard American Diet, low in nutrients to encourage and high in saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium, that is comprised primarily of less processed foods. This less processed American diet, however, was more costly and less shelf-stable than its equally nutrient-poor but more processed counterpart.

Technical Abstract: Background: The “clean eating” trend suggests that consuming fewer processed foods is important for healthy dietary patterns. Previous research indicates that a menu comprised of mostly ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can meet nutrient and diet quality recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Whether a diet comprised mostly of simple ingredient foods can provide a low-quality diet remains unexplored. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the diet quality, shelf stability, and cost of two similar nutrient-poor menus, one containing primarily UPFs and the other containing less processed foods, as defined by the Nova scale. Methods: Using the NOVA scale we developed a “Western” menu using less processed foods (LPW) to match the meals and recipes of a 2000 kcal menu that contained more-processed foods (MPW). Processing level was determined by external graders using the NOVA taxonomy. The final menus were assessed for nutrient quality and HEI (healthy eating index) score. Shelf stability of foods and ingredients on both menus was determined with information from food storage guidance manuals. The condition of each food item when purchased (room temperature, frozen, refrigerated) was used to estimate the number of days until expiration. Food costs were taken from prices at a local grocery chain in Fall 2023. Results: The less-processed menu had similar nutrient density and diet quality scores to the more-processed menu (HEI scores of 44 and 43, respectively). The LPW included 20% energy (kcal) from UPFs, while the MPW included 67% energy from UPFs. Relative percentages of shelf-stable, frozen, and refrigerated foods were similar between the two. Using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis method, median time to expiration of the LPW menu items was 35 days versus 120 days for the MPW menu items. The “per person” cost reflecting only the amount of the food used in the menu was $34.87/day for the LPW and $13.53/day for the MPW. Conclusions: Less-processed menus can have comparable diet quality to more processed menus while being more costly and less shelf stable.