Are ultra-processed foods a public health hazard?

Ultra-processed foods and public health — I'll pull the latest evidence for you.

Yes, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are increasingly described as a public health hazard by major health authorities and researchers, though the evidence is nuanced.

What are ultra-processed foods?

Ultra-processed foods is a category of the NOVA classification that described a group of food that are typically industrially manufactured, generally derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds.

More specifically, the NOVA system defines them as:

> Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF; NOVA "Group 4") refers to "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

The most recent overview defines ultra-processed food as:

> Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt
> Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying

Examples include packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks, sugary cereals, and ready-to-eat or heat products, undergo multiple industrial processes and often contain colours, emulsifiers, flavours, and other additives. These products also tend to be high in added sugar, fat, and/or salt, but are low in vitamins and fibre.

There is currently no commonly accepted definition of ultra-processed food by codex alimentarius and food regulators such as the European Food Safety Authority.

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

Evidence linking UPFs to health harms

Researchers have found links between the consumption ultra-processed foods (UPFs) 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.

The most cited evidence is a 2024 umbrella review published in The BMJ:

> 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.

The review included 45 distinct pooled meta-analyses from 14 review articles involving almost 10 million participants. 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, and findings were published online Feb. 28, 2024, by The BMJ.

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.

Specifically:

> Convincing evidence showed that higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with around a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease related death, a 48-53% higher risk of anxiety and common mental disorders, and a 12% greater risk of type 2 diabetes.

> Highly suggestive evidence also indicated that higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with 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.

Other large pooled analyses support a dose-response relationship:

> each additional 100 grams per day of ultra-processed foods was associated with roughly a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% higher risk of cancer and a 3% higher risk of death from any cause.

Institutional assessments as a hazard

The World Health Organization (WHO) has listed ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and alcohol among four products that cause of 19 million deaths per year globally.

A new report from the WHO claimed that UPFs and alcohol, alongside tobacco and fossil fuels, cause 34% of global deaths each year.

In Europe, Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), alcohol, tobacco and fossil fuels are killing 2.7 million Europeans a year, according to the World Health Organization.

In November 2025, The Lancet published a three-paper series warning:

> This change in what people eat is fuelled by powerful global corporations who generate huge profits by prioritising ultra-processed products, supported by extensive marketing and political lobbying to stop effective public health policies to support healthy eating.

The series concluded that rising global consumption poses a major threat to health and called for countries to subject some products to marketing restrictions and taxes.

The BMJ editorial linked to the umbrella review argued:

> These findings support urgent mechanistic research and public health actions that seek to target and minimise ultra-processed food consumption for improved population health

and proposed policies including front-of-pack labels, restricting advertising and prohibiting sales in or near schools and hospitals, and even a framework convention on ultra-processed foods similar to the framework on tobacco.

Nuances and ongoing debate

Not all research indicates that processing itself is inherently harmful:

> However, not all ultra-processed foods are unhealthy; some can support a healthy diet, such as whole grain breads, plant milks, yogurts, and jarred pasta sauces, which although highly processed, are nutritious and convenient.

Critics note:

> This paper underscores that not all ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are created equal, and grouping them together as universally detrimental is overly simplistic.

Studies separating different types of ultra-processed food have found adverse effects only for some subgroups, such as soft drinks and animal products, while other subgroups, such as cereals, showed an inverse effect.

Some authors have criticised the concept as poorly defined, and the Nova classification system as too focused on the type rather than the amount of food consumed.

Researchers acknowledge that umbrella reviews can only provide high-level overviews and they can't rule out the possibility that other unmeasured factors and variations in assessing ultra-processed food intake may have influenced their results, and that evidence for associations with asthma, gastrointestinal health, some cancers and cardiometabolic risk factors remains limited.

Proposed mechanisms beyond poor nutrient profile include:

Conclusion

Based on epidemiological data suggesting consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with non-communicable diseases and obesity and the umbrella review of 32 adverse outcomes, most public health agencies and peer reviewers now consider diets high in UPFs a population-level hazard. The WHO and Lancet authors argue bold, coordinated policy action – from including markers of UPFs in front-of-package labels to restricting marketing and taxing production – is needed.

However, researchers caution against demonizing all UPFs equally. Health effects appear heterogeneous by food sub-type, confounded by overall diet quality, and mechanistic and randomized trial evidence remains limited. Public health guidance generally recommends reducing consumption of UPFs high in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium – particularly sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and packaged salty/sweet snacks – while emphasizing whole and minimally processed foods, rather than eliminating every industrially processed item.