Last night, Joe Wicks: Licensed to Kill, aired on Channel 4. The new show from the personal-trainer-turned-national-treasure has one simple aim: to educate the nation on the risks associated with ultra-processed foods and lobby the government into making changes to their food legislation.
But he's done so with a twist: by developing a protein bar that might appear like a nutritious snack option upon first glance, but actually, is packed full of harmful yet entirely legal ingredients.
Labelled by Wicks and his team as the "UK's most dangerous health bar," the KILLER bar was developed in a bid to "expose the truth of ultra-processed food" and highlight the potentially harmful ingredients permitted by food regulators and sold on our shelves.
Wicks is pretty passionate about the harm that ultra-processed foods are having on our health, stating that the UK is currently in a "health crisis." And he's clearly trying to use his platform for good and to make changes to the current food legislation in the UK. But the show has seen mixed reviews. While many top experts agree that UPFs need stricter regulation and that there's scientific evidence to prove that they are harmful to human health, other nutritionists and dieticians have questioned Wicks' motives, black-and-white framing of food groups as "good" and "bad," and claims that UPFs are "linked to 14% of premature deaths in the UK, cancer, diarrhoea, and stroke."
Below, they share their take, delving into Wicks' latest move, plus what the scientific research currently proves about UPF consumption.
Joe Wicks is wagering a war against ultra processed foods - but what do nutritionists and dieticians think?
First up - let's get into what UPFs actually are. As registered and licensed nutritionist and naturopath Lauren Windas explains, they're a type of food group categorised by the extent of their industrial processing.
"Forming part of the NOVA system, a food classification system developed by a team of public health researchers at the University of São Paulo that groups foods based on the extent and purpose of their industrial processing, UPFs include foods that are industrially-manufactured and often contain ingredients not typically used in home cooking, like flavour enhancers, emulsifiers and preservatives," she shares.
Since UPFs go through a whole myriad of different processing steps, they tend to be much lower in fibre, vitamins and minerals than their less-processed counterparts, and they are also typically higher in sugar, saturated fat and salt, she adds.
So, what does the scientific research currently say about UPFs? Are they best avoided altogether, or okay to consume as part of a healthy, balanced diet? For context, it'd be hard to avoid UPFs altogether - tofu, for example, technically classifies as an ultra-processed food.
As nutritionist Jenna Hope explains, those who consume a high volume of UPFs are at a much higher risk of obesity and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. "One UK Biobank study examining nearly 23,000 adults over five years found that those who had the highest proportion of UPFs in their diet had a 79% higher risk of developing obesity, a higher BMI and body fat compared to those with the lowest proportion of UPFs in their diet," Windas adds.
Further studies have showcased that the highest UPF consumers also have a higher risk of all-cause mortality than those with a lower consumption of UPFs. "It's thought that this might be driven by higher levels of inflammation, metabolic disturbances, and endothelial dysfunction (associated with a higher UPF intake)," Windas continues.
That said - and as Wicks has pointed out for years now on his social media accounts - ultra-processed foods are hard to avoid in everyday life. More obvious examples include crisps, biscuits, sweets, and sugary cereals, but the label also spans a lot of bread types, sausages, soups and desserts. As Windas points out, "Not all UPFs are equal, and they can vary in their nutritional value. For example, a fortified plant-based milk, baked beans or an oatcake cracker could be a much better nutritional option than crisps, sweets or pizzas and higher in protein, vitamin and mineral content."
So while it's important to be mindful of UPF intake, it'd be difficult to never consume them at all. "When it comes to how much UPFs should appear in our diets, the jury is still out in terms of official advice," shares Windas. "The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) are still hesitant to provide specific dietary guidance. Further review of the evidence is needed to provide future guidance."
Licensed to Kill - or fine in moderation?
Back to the show. Wicks kicks off the show by highlighting what a "health crisis" the UK is currently in, linking this directly to "our over-consumption of ultra-processed food." He also claims that UPF consumption is "linked to 14% of premature deaths in the UK, cancer, diarrhoea, and stroke."
So, what do the experts reckon? All of the qualified experts we spoke to agreed that UPFs are contributing to the health crisis, both in the UK and globally.
But Hope believes they're just one part of a bigger problem. "UPFs definitely play a role in the food crisis; however, we can't ignore the impact of social media addiction, general phone use, lack of physical activity, stress and more on our health. It's too reductionist to suggest that UPFs are the sole driver of our health crisis," she warns.
Windas also points out that the claim used in much of the marketing for the show was slightly misrepresented. "The link made between overconsumption of UPFs and 14% premature deaths in the UK comes from an international study that points to an association between the two (this is associated with 17,781 early deaths in England every year). Correlation does not necessarily mean causation," she points out.
TLDR: It's still not fully clear which aspect of UPFs is involved in this mortality risk, so it's impossible for any one study to be fully sure that over-consuming UPFs is the direct cause of these premature deaths. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine the factors underlying this association before claims like this can be made.
Grabbing attention and kickstarting conversations
The entire hook of Wicks' show is the KILLER protein bar he's invented, packed full of a staggering 96 different ingredients. So what are the science-backed risks of consuming them?
The fact that the bar alone has that many ingredients really proves his point: you don't have to have read the latest research journals to know that a snack bar that contains nearly 100 different ingredients shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as "healthy." "It also contains a variety of artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, stabilisers and preservatives which could impact health if consumed frequently over a period of time," Windas stresses.
Take aspartame, for example, which is included in Wicks' bar and classed by the World Health Organisation as a type 2B carcinogen. "Other sweeteners included in the bar are sugar alcohols (maltitol, xylitol and sorbitol), which can cause GI disturbances (bloating, gas, and diarrhoea) if consumed to excess," she goes on.
Of course, you'd have to eat a lot of these bars to experience the side effects Wicks warns of in his programme, but as Hope highlights, "he's definitely grabbed attention and opened up the conversation with this campaign."
Does the show encourage a reductionist and black and white approach to food?
Wick's aim with the bar and show seems simple enough - to encourage the nation to eat more wholefoods, and further, to lobby the government to change our legislation to ensure UPFs aren't everywhere you look. But some experts warn that labelling foods in this way - into black or white, "good" and "bad" categories - could do more harm than good.
Nutritional therapist and nutritional advisor to Wiley’s Finest, Alexa Mullane, thinks Joe has good intentions - but warns that it is ultimately a publicity stunt. "He's clearly very passionate about real food and wants to draw attention to the undesirable ingredients in some processed health bars. However, he's also demonising food, which is never a good idea," she explains. "For some people, these convenience foods are helpful for various reasons, and some of them do contain good amounts of protein and fibre."
She goes on: "While I agree that ultra-processed foods are responsible for a growing obesity epidemic, especially among children and young people, I don’t agree with his shock tactics. Demonising food like this will just alienate the very people that he’s trying to help and could lead to disordered eating. That said, the stunt is achieving exactly what he hoped for - people are at least talking about ultra-processed foods."
For food freedom psychologist and health coach Lara Zibarras, Wicks is demonising a good group - and it could have worrying consequences. "Wicks is making people scared of a product that can be eaten healthily alongside a balanced and nutritious diet," she shares. "Demonising UPFs really ignores the nuance - like, why people are eating UPFs in the first place, and whether they can actually afford "healthier" alternatives."
She stresses that in her practice, she sees people almost daily who are confused by this kind of messaging - and warns that it can do more harm than good, especially coming from health experts with over four million followers on Instagram. "They end up lost and overwhelmed and not knowing what is considered healthy," she adds.
The trainer has also been criticised for including protein bars in his meal plans in the past, encouraging his app users and followers to consume them as part of a healthy, balanced diet. "Wicks has partnered with a well-known protein company in the past, and his range of recommended products is still on their website, including ultra-processed protein bars containing some of the ingredients (palm oil, sweeteners, soya protein isolate, and emulsifiers) that he is demonising with his KILLER bar," points out Mullanea. And herein lies another problem we're seeing shockingly regularly in the health industry at the moment: influencers promoting products as the holy grail of health and wellbeing and then 180'ing on their claims or associations with the product a few years later.
Windas raises an interesting point in conclusion, though, that the point being made by this campaign is that if this type of food is allowed to be sold and marketed as a “health food” despite its UPF classification. "This is where the public confusion lies, and many people can become misled by packets and promises in the pursuit of healthy eating," she explains. "Of course, if this misguided UPF intake occurs on a much wider scale within the diet, this may drive up chronic disease risk."
Governmental change or better education?
Ultimately, all of the experts we spoke to also agreed that the government needs to change our food laws. "There should be stricter rules on labelling UPFs and limits on marketing UPFs, including a ban on misleading consumers about the health aspects of these food products," Windas shares.
Hope agrees, adding: "The government have a lot to do in this space and work needs to be done."
But it's also not as simple as that - education, affordability, and accessibility are all part of the conversation, too. "UPFs need to be studied further and understood in regard to what components are driving up this disease risk and risk of premature death," Windas adds, with Hope sharing: "We need to provide a better education to our population and our children in schools."
Bottom line?
Ultimately, as a nation, it's important for us to take responsibility for what we're eating. As all of the experts have pointed out in this piece, education is absolutely key, as is accessibility - many households rely on UPFs, purely because the price points are lower.
And Wicks' messaging, while undoubtedly sensationalist and extreme, isn't necessarily wrong. Obesity is placing immeasurable strain on the NHS and, in 2022/23 alone, accounted for over 1.2 million NHS hospital admissions in England.
So yes, change does need to happen. And often, extreme marketing - like with Wicks KILLER bar and programme - is the only way to grab attention. "While we wait to see whether there will be changes to the food industry and to food marketing practices, it's our individual responsibility to educate ourselves," encourages Hope. "There is more misinformation than ever from influencers online; however, there's also an opportunity to access science-backed information from health care professionals. It's our duty to seek it out, if not for our own health, for the health of our children and the generations which come after us. After all, if we stop buying these products, the industry will stop making them."
