Sociodemographic factors associated with the consumption of ultra-processed foods in Colombia

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the consumption of ultra-processed foods in the Colombian population across sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

We used data from the 2005 National Survey of the Nutritional Status in Colombia. Food consumption was assessed using a 24-hour food recall in 38,643 individuals. The food items were classified according to the degree and extent of industrial processing using the NOVA classification.

RESULTS

The mean calorie contribution of ultra-processed foods ranged from 0.2% in the lowest quintile of consumers to 41.1% in the highest quintile of consumers. The greatest increases were due to the consumption of industrialized breads, sweet and savory snacks, sugary drinks, processed meats, and confectionery. No major differences were found in the consumption of ultra-processed foods between men and women. We observed significant differences by age, socioeconomic status, area of residence, and geographic region. Children and adolescents showed a higher intake of ultra-processed foods, almost double that of participants over 50 years of age. Children consumed significantly more snacks, confectionery products, processed cereals, milk-based drinks and desserts. Participants over 50 years consumed fewer products from these sub-groups of ultra-processed foods but had the highest consumption of industrialized bread. Individuals from urban areas, those with high socioeconomic status, participants residing in the Bogotá region had 1.5 to 1.7 times higher calorie intake from ultra-processed foods compared with those from a lower socioeconomic status and those residing in rural regions.

CONCLUSION

In Colombia, industrialized bread is the ultra-processed product that is most easily assimilated into the traditional diet, along with snacks and sugary drinks. Children and adolescents residing in urban areas and households with greater purchasing power have some of the highest intakes of ultra-processed foods in the country.

Indigenous and tribal peoples' health (The Lancet-Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): a population study

BACKGROUND

International studies of the health of Indigenous and tribal peoples provide important public health insights. Reliable data are required for the development of policy and health services. Previous studies document poorer outcomes for Indigenous peoples compared with benchmark populations, but have been restricted in their coverage of countries or the range of health indicators. Our objective is to describe the health and social status of Indigenous and tribal peoples relative to benchmark populations from a sample of countries.

METHODS

Collaborators with expertise in Indigenous health data systems were identified for each country. Data were obtained for population, life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, low and high birthweight, maternal mortality, nutritional status, educational attainment, and economic status. Data sources consisted of governmental data, data from non-governmental organisations such as UNICEF, and other research. Absolute and relative differences were calculated.

FINDINGS

Our data (23 countries, 28 populations) provide evidence of poorer health and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples than for non-Indigenous populations. However, this is not uniformly the case, and the size of the rate difference varies. We document poorer outcomes for Indigenous populations for: life expectancy at birth for 16 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1 year in 15 populations; infant mortality rate for 18 of 19 populations with a rate difference greater than one per 1000 livebirths in 16 populations; maternal mortality in ten populations; low birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in three populations; high birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in one population; child malnutrition for ten of 16 populations with a difference greater than 10% in five populations; child obesity for eight of 12 populations with a difference greater than 5% in four populations; adult obesity for seven of 13 populations with a difference greater than 10% in four populations; educational attainment for 26 of 27 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 24 populations; and economic status for 15 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 14 populations.

INTERPRETATION

We systematically collated data across a broader sample of countries and indicators than done in previous studies. Taking into account the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we recommend that national governments develop targeted policy responses to Indigenous health, improving access to health services, and Indigenous data within national surveillance systems.

FUNDING

The Lowitja Institute.

Indigenous and tribal peoples' health (The Lancet-Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): a population study

BACKGROUND

International studies of the health of Indigenous and tribal peoples provide important public health insights. Reliable data are required for the development of policy and health services. Previous studies document poorer outcomes for Indigenous peoples compared with benchmark populations, but have been restricted in their coverage of countries or the range of health indicators. Our objective is to describe the health and social status of Indigenous and tribal peoples relative to benchmark populations from a sample of countries.

METHODS

Collaborators with expertise in Indigenous health data systems were identified for each country. Data were obtained for population, life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, low and high birthweight, maternal mortality, nutritional status, educational attainment, and economic status. Data sources consisted of governmental data, data from non-governmental organisations such as UNICEF, and other research. Absolute and relative differences were calculated.

FINDINGS

Our data (23 countries, 28 populations) provide evidence of poorer health and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples than for non-Indigenous populations. However, this is not uniformly the case, and the size of the rate difference varies. We document poorer outcomes for Indigenous populations for: life expectancy at birth for 16 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1 year in 15 populations; infant mortality rate for 18 of 19 populations with a rate difference greater than one per 1000 livebirths in 16 populations; maternal mortality in ten populations; low birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in three populations; high birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in one population; child malnutrition for ten of 16 populations with a difference greater than 10% in five populations; child obesity for eight of 12 populations with a difference greater than 5% in four populations; adult obesity for seven of 13 populations with a difference greater than 10% in four populations; educational attainment for 26 of 27 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 24 populations; and economic status for 15 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 14 populations.

INTERPRETATION

We systematically collated data across a broader sample of countries and indicators than done in previous studies. Taking into account the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we recommend that national governments develop targeted policy responses to Indigenous health, improving access to health services, and Indigenous data within national surveillance systems.

FUNDING

The Lowitja Institute.