Ultra Processed Foods Accused of Reducing Jaw Size
- Details
- Published: Tuesday, 21 January 2025 11:06
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 875
High consumption of Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) has already been linked to an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, mental health issues and some cancers. Now they have been implicated in increasing malocclusions.
Research at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at the Catholic University of Valencia has suggested that the move away from a ‘hunter-gatherer’ diet based on meat and plant foods has reduced the size of jawlines. It links the rise in UPFs and a softer diet to patterns of dental development that result in teeth becoming increasingly crowded.
The researchers examined the dietary habits of 3 to 5 year olds, suggesting a link between soft diets and jaw development. They found that diets high in UPFs limit the necessary chewing activity that stimulates bone growth, strengthens facial muscles, and supports proper dental alignment.
High profile nutrition expert and Professor of Genetics, Dr Tim Spector has now weighed in to the debate. He has said that the modern diet is leading to an ‘epidemic of jaw shrinkage’ and causing orthodontic issues in children, as the typical size of younger generations’ jaws shrinks as a result of dietary changes.
Common examples of UPFs include ice cream, ham, sausages, crisps, mass-produced bread, breakfast cereals and biscuits. ‘Hyper palatable’, UPF’s are designed to be eaten in large quantities, according to the researchers.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Dr Spector said: “We’ve been going through this epidemic of jaw shrinkage for a few hundred years but it has really accelerated over the last two decades. As a result, we’re seeing a huge rise in orthodontic problems in children – a massive use of braces, and far more crooked teeth.
“The strongest current theory about why the jaws have been shrinking so rapidly is that we’re feeding our kids baby food really for the whole of their lives – so that they just don’t develop the jaw muscles or the size of the jaw, and you aren’t really adapted for chewing.”
Dr Spector added that scientists have not paid enough attention to the harmful impacts of soft texture foods, rather than the chemicals within UPFs: “This is just another sign of how Western countries like the UK and the US have succumbed to this wave of soft, ultra-processed foods that is now the main diet of children, so many of whom are never really having hard proper foods.”
The study’s researchers investigated the diet of children between the ages of three and five and noted that consuming a diet primarily made up of liquids and semi-solid foods had an impact on jaw development. The research, which analysed the children’s dental structures and skull shape compared to their eating habits, found that softer foods were linked to crowded teeth and a lack of natural spaces in children.
Dr Laura Marques Martinez, paediatric dentist and co-author of the study, said: “Chewing plays a crucial role in the proper development of the jaws as it stimulates bone growth, strengthens facial muscles, and promotes proper dental alignment.
“Chewing solid and fibrous foods, such as fruits, vegetables, or natural proteins, exercises the jaws, helping to prevent issues like malocclusion and deficiencies in the size and shape of dental arches.
“On the other hand, diets based on ultra-processed foods, which are soft and require minimal effort to chew, negatively impact jaw development. These foods, by failing to adequately stimulate the maxillofacial muscles and bones, can lead to underdeveloped bone structures and increase the risk of malocclusion and respiratory problems.”
This research adds to growing concerns about the long-term impact of UPFs on children’s health. The researchers emphasize the importance of incorporating natural, fibrous foods into children’s diets to support optimal jaw development and overall health.
Tim Spector!!!!
at last found the paperhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/38397313/
its is even worse than i thought- the study was undertaken on only 25 children between 3 and 6 years old and IMHO over anaylised with statisics that have thrown up a few 'statisicaly significant' findings. Out off 100 statistical tests only 6 were 'significant' ; it is very likley theses 'positive' results were found purely by chance
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments