Eating just a small amount of ultra-processed foods every day is linked to a significantly higher risk of chronic health conditions and premature death, according to a major scientific analysis published Sept. 22 in the journal Family Medicine and Community Health.
The research pooled data from 51 prospective cohort studies, tracking nearly 8.8 million adults across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Follow-up periods for the participants ranged anywhere from two to 32 years. Researchers evaluated health metrics against intake levels defined by the industrial food classification framework known as the NOVA system.
For every additional 100 grams of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumed daily-roughly the size of a 3.5-ounce bag of corn chips, a small box of candy, or a single-serve cup of mini cookies-researchers found an association with specific increases in health risks:
- 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events
- 4% higher risk of cancer
- 3% higher risk of death from any cause
- 2% higher risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes
Participants who reported the highest overall intake of UPFs experienced elevated relative rates of several conditions compared to those in the lowest consumption tier. These included digestive diseases, depression or anxiety, obesity, cancer, and cardiovascular events.
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?
UPFs are typically packaged and convenient items manufactured through extensive industrial processing. They are often energy-dense, high in sugar and salt, and packed with chemical additives, while remaining lower in dietary fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals. Common examples include sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks, candy, and ready-to-heat frozen meals.
The study’s lead researchers, including Xiao Liu, a cardiologist at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital in China and a research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, noted that these health issues often cluster together.
“Given that UPF-related chronic diseases often cluster as multimorbidity, reducing consumption of UPFs and replacing them with minimally processed alternatives may be relevant for chronic disease prevention and primary care management,” the authors wrote.
Expert Perspectives and Limitations
Independent nutrition experts point out that these heavily processed items often crowd out nutrient-dense, real foods like fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and whole grains. Kelly Springer, a New York-based registered dietitian and founder of Kelly’s Choice, who was not involved in the study, noted that the goal is not strict deprivation.
“It’s not that you can never eat them again,” Springer said. “It’s the fact that we are not getting real foods.”
Instead of focusing solely on removing foods, Springer recommends adding protein and fiber to meals and snacks, such as pairing an apple with peanut butter or building meals around lean proteins and vegetables. “A diet built around whole, minimally processed foods is one of the best investments we can make in our long-term health,” she added.
Experts also emphasized important study limitations. Because the research was observational, it cannot establish a direct, definitive cause-and-effect relationship between UPFs and poor health outcomes. , the analysis relied heavily on participants’ self-reported diets and may not fully account for confounding lifestyle variables, such as socioeconomic status or overall physical activity.
