Some consider it one of the most important things in life and love it; others hate it. But is Marmite good for you?
Or, whisper it — is it one of those “ultra-processed foods” experts say it’s linked to obesity and other health problems, including, as the Mail reported a few days ago, a higher risk of early death if you have diabetes have type 2?
The cost of Marmite is skyrocketing, a large pot will cost you almost £6 – good news for manufacturer Unilever, which has rising revenues from price hikes, it was revealed last week.
And many consumers won’t want to give up their favorite sandwich filling: not just because of the taste, but also because of the boast that it ‘contains B vitamins’.
It also supplies potassium — and eating potassium-rich foods could be more beneficial for lowering blood pressure than cutting back on salt, especially for women who eat a lot of salt, according to a study published in the European Heart Journal last year.
(Potassium helps by relaxing the walls of blood vessels and encouraging the body to excrete sodium.)
Marmite falls into the ultra-processed food or UPF category (stock image)
This was also the finding of an ongoing research programme, involving 96,000 users of the Zoe app, which is led by Professor Tim Spector, an expert in epidemiology and gut health at King’s College London.
Speaking of the results, Professor Spector admitted his surprise to find that yeast extract (one of Marmite’s main ingredients) topped a list of the most potassium-rich foods, with 2,100 mg per 100 g (this is comparable to a banana, traditionally thought of as one of the ultimate high-potassium foods, with about 358mg per 100g).
All of this raises an interesting conundrum: Marmite falls into the category of ultra-processed foods, or UPF. These are foods that, by and large, come in packages, are subject to industrial processing, and contain ingredients you wouldn’t see in a home kitchen (but more on that definition in a moment).
Marmite is made with processed yeast extract – a by-product of the brewing industry. It’s certainly not the most extreme example of UPF: others contain a range of unrecognizable ingredients. But does this matter if a food also provides beneficial nutrients?
This question is something of a nutritional hot potato. While some experts point to research linking increased UPF intake to a growing list of modern diseases, others say the research fails to account for the fact that people who tend to eat the most UPFs may also have other factors. that contribute to poor health, such as low income.
Another point of contention is the definition of a UPF – some say it is so broad that it falsely vilifies foods that may have a nutritional benefit, such as supermarket sliced whole wheat bread (which provides fiber), baked beans (also a source of fiber and that counts as one of your five a day, because of the beans and tomato), and — love it or hate it — Marmite, which, according to the manufacturer, provides 76 percent of your vitamin B12 needs in an 8 g serving (about a half tablespoon).
Baked beans are also a source of fiber and count as one of your five a day, because of the beans and tomato (stock image)
The starting point for what constitutes a UPF is the NOVA classification – the original definition created by scientists in Brazil in 2009.
NOVA defines UPFs as industrially manufactured products made primarily from substances extracted from foods (such as oils, fats, sugar, starches and proteins), or derived from food ingredients (such as hydrogenated fats or modified starches) – and with little, if any all raw ingredients.
(This is the definition used by the UN – a leading expert who spoke to Good Health dismissed a popular definition of UPFs as foods with “five or more ingredients” because it is the nature of the ingredients, not the number, that is important). For example, as it stands, a mug of instant vegetable soup has the same classification as an iced donut.
This sort of anomaly led the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), an official body that provides “independent scientific advice” to the UK government, to say last month that the NOVA UPF classification groups foods “with different nutritional characteristics”.
“People assume that nutritional value is taken into account when foods are defined as ultra-processed, and that’s not the case,” says Professor Judy Buttriss, chair of the board of directors of the Academy of Nutrition Sciences and former director general of the British Nutrition Foundation.
She thinks the NOVA UPF rating is “unhelpful, because it pulls out important foods, as well as those high in sugar, saturated fat, or salt.”
“In a sense, it implies that wholesome foods processed in a factory are automatically nutritionally different from the same foods I make in my kitchen.”
In addition, she argues, some UPFs have valuable nutritional benefits. ‘Have some low-sugar, high-fiber breakfast cereals such as wholemeal flakes. These would be classified as a UPF despite containing important dietary fiber and other nutrients.
“And the most important thing about cutting something out of your diet is what you’re replacing it with — giving your child a high-fiber cereal, which is technically a UPF, is probably a more nutritious start to the day than alternatives like a homemade sweet muffin,” adds Professor Buttriss to it. Plus, products like Marmite may not be all bad, as it contains “a wide variety of B vitamins such as B1, B2, B3, folic acid, and B12 — but it’s high in salt” — salt doesn’t count as an “upf” ingredient.
This view was reflected in a study published in the Journal of Nutrition in June, which showed that it was perfectly possible to use NOVA to create a weekly menu of 2,000 calories per day that fit into a ‘healthy diet’. defined UPFs that make up more than 80 percent of the intake.
It wasn’t perfect, the US-based authors said — mainly because it contained “insufficient whole grains” and an “excess of sodium,” but the menu provided adequate amounts of “all macro and micronutrients except vitamin D, vitamin E and choline’.
But other experts, including Dr Kiara CM Chang, a research fellow at the School of Public Health at Imperial College London, say we shouldn’t forget that UPFs are “industrial products” made “by deconstructing food into nutrients, often by chemically modifying them. and putting them back together so there is little original food left in a UPF product.”
The definition of a UPF — some say it’s so broad that it falsely vilifies foods that may have a nutritional benefit, such as supermarket sliced whole wheat bread (which provides fiber) (stock image)
Dr. Chang, who published research earlier this year on a possible link between UPFs and cancer, argues that “UPFs are designed to replace all other minimally processed foods and freshly prepared meals on which our traditional diets have largely been based.”
Plus, she says, “UPFs are cheap and convenient—some people might see this as a good thing, but UPFs can be priced competitively because of the cheap (industrially modified) ingredients they’re produced with.”
If there’s a debate over the definition itself, the UPF classification has helped focus research on the adverse effects of these highly processed foods, says Tim Lang, emeritus professor of food policy at the City University of London. “Because of that broad classification, it has led to a large number of studies that have found positive correlations between the consumption of UPFs and public health problems,” he tells Good Health.
Sure, the studies are piling up. Research published in the Lancet in March, involving more than 400,000 people, found that replacing just 10 percent of UPFs or processed foods with less processed foods reduced the risk of several cancers.
And a landmark 2019 study published in the BMJ and based on data from 105,000 participants revealed that a 10 percent increase in UPF intake was linked to a 12 percent increase in cardiovascular disease risk.
It’s not clear how UPFs might have these effects: That work is ongoing – one line being explored is to see if emulsifiers (which help combine ingredients) or other constituents of UPFs harm the microbiome, the community of microbes that live in the gut life and play a key role in many areas of health.
Meanwhile, the debate over UPFs has become “too heated an environment,” as Gunter Kuhnle, a professor of food and nutrition science at the University of Reading, puts it. His view is that UPF “has become this scary term and people feel bad about eating UPF food and not having the time to cook from scratch every day – but that’s not realistic for everyone.”
He believes that the term UPF causes consumer confusion and guilt. ‘For those who want to do research, UPF is a useful term. But in general it’s too broad a definition,’ he says.
“If I use gravy granules to thicken my gravy, will that make my gravy — and my home-cooked roast dinner — UPF?”
Dr. Chang agrees that more research is needed “to understand whether some UPFs are better than others, and the underlying mechanisms that link UPF to poor health outcomes.” But she adds, “It’s important that we are aware of the health risks and limit UPF intake as much as possible.”
She advises checking the ingredients list. “If it contains food additives, or something we’re not familiar with or don’t usually use in home cooking (e.g., flavor enhancers, high fructose corn syrup), that indicates the product is UPF.”
Professor Buttriss suggests that, rather than focusing on processing, “a better way to get a sense of how to choose a healthy diet is to look at the traffic light label, which (while flawed) gives you the idea right away can indicate whether a food contains a lot of salt or fat or sugar’.
The choice is yours.