To document perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA) and bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure in four First Nation communities in northern Quebec compared with the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS Cycle 5 2016–2017) and examine the associations between dietary consumption and chemical exposure.

We used cross-sectional data from the JES-YEH! project conducted in collaboration with four First Nation communities in 2015. A FFQ collected information on diet, and PFAA and BPA were measured in biological samples. We used generalised linear models to test the associations between food intake and chemical biomarkers.

Northern Quebec.

Youth aged 3–19 years (n 198).

Mean perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) levels were significantly higher in JES-YEH! than CHMS, and BPA levels were higher among those aged 12–19 years compared with CHMS. Dairy products were associated with PFNA among Anishinabe and Innu participants (geometric mean ratio 95 % CI: 1·53 (95 % CI 1·03, 2·29) and 1·52 (95 % CI 1·05, 2·20), respectively). PFNA was also associated with ultra-processed foods (1·57 (95 % CI 1·07, 2·31)) among Anishinabe, and with wild fish and berries (1·44 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·94); 1·75 (95 % CI 1·30, 2·36)) among Innu. BPA was associated with cheese (1·72 (95 % CI 1·19, 2·50)) and milk (1·53 (95 % CI 1·02, 2·29)) among Anishinabe, and with desserts (1·71 (95 % CI 1·07, 2·74)), processed meats (1·55 (95 % CI 1·00, 2·38)), wild fish (1·64 (95 % CI 1·07, 2·49)) and wild berries (2·06 (95 % CI 1·37, 3·10)) among Innu.

These results highlight the importance of better documenting food-processing and packaging methods, particularly for dairy products, and their contribution to endocrine disruptors exposures as well as to promote minimally processed and unpackaged foods to provide healthier food environments for youth in Indigenous communities and beyond.

To determine how children interpret terms related to food processing; whether their categorisation of foods according to processing level is consistent with those used in research; and whether they associate the degree of processing with healthfulness.

Qualitative data were collected from ten focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted.

Four elementary and afterschool programmes in a large, urban school district in the USA that served predominantly low-income, racial/ethnic minority students.

Children, 9–12 years old, in the fourth–sixth grades (n 53).

The sample was 40 % male, 47 % Hispanic with a mean age of 10·4 ± 1·1 years. Children’s understanding of unprocessed foods was well aligned with research classifications, while concordance of highly processed foods with research categorisations varied. Five primary themes regarding the way children categorised foods according to their processing level emerged: type and amount of added ingredients; preparation method; packaging and storage; change in physical state or sensory experience; and growing method. Most children associated processing level with healthfulness, describing unprocessed foods as healthier. The most common reason provided for the unhealthfulness of processed foods was added ingredients, including ‘chemicals’ and ‘sugar’.

The current study demonstrated that children have a working knowledge of processing that could be leveraged to encourage healthier eating patterns; however, their understanding is not always consistent with the classification systems used in research. The vocabulary used by researchers and consumers to talk about processing must be reconciled to translate findings into actionable messages.

To examine the availability of packaged food products in New Zealand supermarkets by level of industrial processing, nutrient profiling score (NPSC), price (energy, unit and serving costs) and brand variety.

Secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data on packaged supermarket food and non-alcoholic beverages. Products were classified according to level of industrial processing (minimally, culinary and ultra-processed) and their NPSC.

Packaged foods available in four major supermarkets in Auckland, New Zealand.

Packaged supermarket food products for the years 2011 and 2013.

The majority (84 % in 2011 and 83 % in 2013) of packaged foods were classified as ultra-processed. A significant positive association was found between the level of industrial processing and NPSC, i.e. ultra-processed foods had a worse nutrient profile (NPSC=11·63) than culinary processed foods (NPSC=7·95), which in turn had a worse nutrient profile than minimally processed foods (NPSC=3·27), P<0·001. No clear associations were observed between the three price measures and level of processing. The study observed many variations of virtually the same product. The ten largest food manufacturers produced 35 % of all packaged foods available.

In New Zealand supermarkets, ultra-processed foods comprise the largest proportion of packaged foods and are less healthy than less processed foods. The lack of significant price difference between ultra- and less processed foods suggests ultra-processed foods might provide time-poor consumers with more value for money. These findings highlight the need to improve the supermarket food supply by reducing numbers of ultra-processed foods and by reformulating products to improve their nutritional profile.

To assess time trends in the contribution of processed foods to food purchases made by Brazilian households and to explore the potential impact on the overall quality of the diet.

Application of a new classification of foodstuffs based on extent and purpose of food processing to data collected by comparable probabilistic household budget surveys. The classification assigns foodstuffs to the following groups: unprocessed/minimally processed foods (Group 1); processed culinary ingredients (Group 2); or ultra-processed ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat food products (Group 3).

Eleven metropolitan areas of Brazil.

Households; n 13 611 in 1987–8, n 16 014 in 1995–5 and n 13 848 in 2002–3.

Over the last three decades, the household consumption of Group 1 and Group 2 foods has been steadily replaced by consumption of Group 3 ultra-processed food products, both overall and in lower- and upper-income groups. In the 2002–3 survey, Group 3 items represented more than one-quarter of total energy (more than one-third for higher-income households). The overall nutrient profile of Group 3 items, compared with that of Group 1 and Group 2 items, revealed more added sugar, more saturated fat, more sodium, less fibre and much higher energy density.

The high energy density and the unfavourable nutrition profiling of Group 3 food products, and also their potential harmful effects on eating and drinking behaviours, indicate that governments and health authorities should use all possible methods, including legislation and statutory regulation, to halt and reverse the replacement of minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients by ultra-processed food products.