Food Industry Engineering Is Less Important Than Access to Gut Microbiota-Accessible Foods for Preventing Chronic Disease

Context: In this commentary, we applaud Gearhardt and colleagues’ focus on the negative health effects of consuming ultra-processed foods but suggest that the bigger dietary contributor to obesity risk is American consumers’ lack of access to a diverse range of gut microbiota-accessible foods.

Methods: We cite scientific literature supportive of the health benefits of consuming fiber-rich, polyphenol-rich, minimally processed plant foods, which are more likely to provide substrate to one’s commensal gut microbes than would consuming ultra-processed foods. We also cite results from randomized, controlled feeding studies showing that study participants who were switched from an ultra-processed food condition to a minimally processed food condition did not report withdrawal symptoms or evidence of tolerance, thereby undermining Gearhardt and colleagues’ thesis that consumers’ overconsumption of calories could be attributed to the addictiveness of ultra-processed foods.

Findings: We cite scientific literature illustrating the health benefits of consuming traditional dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean dietary pattern, which feature a diversity of fiber-rich, polyphenol-rich, minimally processed foods.

Conclusions: We conclude that government agricultural and educational policies that increase consumer access to gut microbiota-accessible foods may be a more effective long-term approach to reducing nutrition-related chronic diseases than policies that limit the ability of the food industry to increase the hyper-palatability of ultra-processed foods.