Elizabeth K Dunford1,2, Barry Popkin2,3, Shu Wen Ng2,3. 1. Food Policy Division, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2. Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how to define "junk food." In 2016, Chile implemented the most comprehensive set of obesity-preventive regulations in the world, including criteria to define unhealthy foods. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the amount of energy, sodium, sugar, and saturated fat consumed by US adults defined as junk food using the Chilean criteria. METHODS: We used 2 nationally representative surveys of food intake in 10,001 US adults: NHANES 2015-2016 and NHANES 2017-2018. The main outcome measures were the contributions of energy, total sugars, saturated fat, and sodium deriving from junk food sources. Mean intake and proportion of energy, sugar, saturated fat, and sodium for junk food overall and each food category were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 47% of energy, 75% of total sugar, 46% of sodium, and 48% of saturated fat consumed by US adults derived from junk food sources. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) were responsible for more than 40% of total sugar intake deriving from junk foods. Non-Hispanic black adults had the highest mean energy, total sugar, and sodium intake deriving from junk foods, with non-Hispanic white adults having the highest saturated fat intake. Non-Hispanic black adults had the highest intake of total sugar deriving from junk food sources of SSBs (26.7 g/d), with SSBs representing >40% of total sugar intake deriving from junk food sources for all race/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Foods that meet the Chilean criteria for junk food provide approximately half or more daily energy and food components to limit in the diet of US adults, with important differences observed between race/ethnic groups. Policy efforts to reduce junk food intake, particularly the intake of SSBs, must be expanded to improve the cardiometabolic health equitably in the United States.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how to define "junk food." In 2016, Chile implemented the most comprehensive set of obesity-preventive regulations in the world, including criteria to define unhealthy foods. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the amount of energy, sodium, sugar, and saturated fat consumed by US adults defined as junk food using the Chilean criteria. METHODS: We used 2 nationally representative surveys of food intake in 10,001 US adults: NHANES 2015-2016 and NHANES 2017-2018. The main outcome measures were the contributions of energy, total sugars, saturated fat, and sodium deriving from junk food sources. Mean intake and proportion of energy, sugar, saturated fat, and sodium for junk food overall and each food category were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 47% of energy, 75% of total sugar, 46% of sodium, and 48% of saturated fat consumed by US adults derived from junk food sources. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) were responsible for more than 40% of total sugar intake deriving from junk foods. Non-Hispanic black adults had the highest mean energy, total sugar, and sodium intake deriving from junk foods, with non-Hispanic white adults having the highest saturated fat intake. Non-Hispanic black adults had the highest intake of total sugar deriving from junk food sources of SSBs (26.7 g/d), with SSBs representing >40% of total sugar intake deriving from junk food sources for all race/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Foods that meet the Chilean criteria for junk food provide approximately half or more daily energy and food components to limit in the diet of US adults, with important differences observed between race/ethnic groups. Policy efforts to reduce junk food intake, particularly the intake of SSBs, must be expanded to improve the cardiometabolic health equitably in the United States.
Authors: Katherine M Flegal; Deanna Kruszon-Moran; Margaret D Carroll; Cheryl D Fryar; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Fernanda Rauber; Kiara Chang; Eszter P Vamos; Maria Laura da Costa Louzada; Carlos Augusto Monteiro; Christopher Millett; Renata Bertazzi Levy Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Eurídice Martínez Steele; Larissa Galastri Baraldi; Maria Laura da Costa Louzada; Jean-Claude Moubarac; Dariush Mozaffarian; Carlos Augusto Monteiro Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marlijn Huitink; Maartje P Poelman; Jacob C Seidell; Milan Pleus; Tom Hofkamp; Carlijn Kuin; S Coosje Dijkstra Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anne Barnhill; A Susana Ramírez; Marice Ashe; Amanda Berhaupt-Glickstein; Nicholas Freudenberg; Sonya A Grier; Karen E Watson; Shiriki Kumanyika Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2022 Impact factor: 1.604
Authors: Heidi T Cueto; Bjarke H Jacobsen; Anne Sofie Dam Laursen; Anders H Riis; Elizabeth E Hatch; Lauren A Wise; Ellen Trolle; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Kenneth J Rothman; Amelia K Wesselink; Sydney Willis; Benjamin R Johannesen; Ellen M Mikkelsen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 6.918