Are ultra-processed foods a public health hazard?

Ultra-processed foods and public health — I'll gather the latest evidence on their risks.

Yes, mounting scientific and public health evidence indicates ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are a significant public health hazard, though debate continues about definition, heterogeneity, and mechanisms.

What are ultra-processed foods?

Under the NOVA classification system, the most widely used system in nutrition research and policy, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”.

More fully, they are described as:

> "industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyperpalatable)

Recent overviews define them as industrially manufactured products made up of several ingredients including sugar, oils, fats and salt in higher amounts than in processed foods and food substances of no or rare culinary use, using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying and additives to make final product palatable or hyperpalatable.

Typical examples are packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks, sugary cereals, and ready-to-eat or heat products, which often contain colours, emulsifiers, flavours, and other additives. They typically have long ingredient lists, with lots of additives such as preservatives, oil, sugar, salt, coloring, and flavoring, and tend to be low in dietary fiber and high in calories, salt, added sugar and fat, and low in vitamins and fibre.

There is currently no commonly accepted definition by Codex Alimentarius and food regulators such as the European Food Safety Authority.

They are ubiquitous. As of 2023, the United States and the United Kingdom lead consumption, with 58% and 57% of daily calories, respectively, and in some high income countries they can account for up to 58% of total daily energy intake.

Evidence for health harms

Large-scale reviews

The largest evidence synthesis to date was published Feb. 28, 2024 in The BMJ - a review of 45 analyses published in the last three years, involving about 10 million people in total.

Researchers have found links between consumption of ultra-processed foods and a range of negative health outcomes, including obesity, cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and mental disorders, as well as an increased risk of death, and the 2024 review found "convincing" evidence that a diet high in UPFs increases risk of death from...

The BMJ umbrella review noted:

> Need more reasons to stop eating ultra-processed food? How about 32 of them? That's the number of health problems noted in the largest-ever review

When scientists graded the evidence, they found the most convincing or highly suggestive evidence linked diets rich in ultra-processed foods with increased risks for premature death, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, diabetes, obesity, and sleep problems.

In more detail:

> Consistent evidence shows that higher exposure to ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of 32 damaging health outcomes including cancer, major heart and lung conditions, mental health disorders, and early death.

Grading was as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or no evidence. Overall, higher exposure was consistently associated with increased risk of 32 adverse health outcomes.

Convincing evidence showed:

Highly suggestive evidence also indicated a 21% greater risk of death from any cause, a 40-66% increased risk of heart disease related death, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and sleep problems, and a 22% increased risk of depression.

Epidemiological data suggest that consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with non-communicable diseases and obesity.

Specific disease areas

Mechanisms proposed include promotion of overeating and weight gain, largely due to soft texture, high energy density and hyperpalatable nutrient combinations that alter satiety and food-reward, presence of contaminants, additives, and high heat treatment, and possible food addiction.

Public health bodies reflect this. WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer endorse public health strategies to limit intake of components commonly present in ultra-processed foods, including high levels of added sugar and non-sugar sweeteners. In June 2025, PAHO issued a call for experts to help develop a WHO guideline on the consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Public and policy perception as hazard

In the U.S., a nationally representative survey of 2,000 adults in June 2025 found:

> More than 60% of survey respondents agreed that such foods are addictive and major causes of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Respondents perceived health risks as less serious than cigarettes but roughly equivalent to alcohol and worse than fast food.

The editorial linked to the BMJ umbrella review argued it is now time for United Nations agencies, with member states, to develop and implement a framework convention on ultra-processed foods similar to the framework on tobacco, with calls for front-of-pack labels, restricting advertising and prohibiting sales near schools and hospitals. A 2026 study in Milbank Quarterly compared addiction mechanisms of UPFs to cigarettes and called for similar regulations to tobacco control.

Nuance and criticism

Despite the association, experts caution against simple demonization:

Harvard nutrition professor David Ludwig argued ultra-processed foods are defined imprecisely and studies have not definitely shown that diets without them have long-term health benefits. He noted the definition — having at least one major food component or additive not used in traditional cooking — would include actually healthy foods such as olive oil.

Bottom line

The weight of observational evidence — nearly 10 million participants across 45 meta-analyses — consistently links high UPF consumption to increased risks for cardiovascular death, type 2 diabetes, obesity, anxiety/depression, and all-cause mortality, supporting calls for urgent mechanistic research and public health actions that seek to target and minimise ultra-processed food consumption for improved population health.

Because the category is broad, poorly defined, and includes some nutritious foods, most health authorities recommend limiting or reducing UPFs high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, rather than a blanket elimination, and focus policies on improving overall diet quality, labeling, marketing restrictions, and affordability of minimally processed foods.