Are ultra-processed foods a public health hazard?

Ultra-processed foods and public health — gathering the latest evidence on their risks.

Yes, the current scientific consensus considers high consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) a significant public health hazard, although experts emphasize nuance - not all UPFs appear equally harmful.

1. What are ultra-processed foods?

The most widely used framework is the NOVA classification system, developed by Monteiro and colleagues in 2010. It categorizes foods into four groups according to processing level, with Group 4 being ultra-processed foods.

These are described as:

> "industrial formulations with five or more ingredients" that contain substances that aren't typically used in culinary preparations

or more formally:

> 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

Examples include ready-to-eat products such as deli meat, microwaveable dinners, chips, sugary drinks, packaged cookies and pastries. Common examples across studies include packaged baked goods, dehydrated soups, potato chips, and sugary sodas. They typically have long ingredient lists with additives such as preservatives, oil, sugar, salt, coloring and flavoring.

The World Health Organization is in the process of developing a uniform definition, as is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and HHS, FDA and USDA have stated that addressing overconsumption of ultra-processed foods is a key element to Make America Healthy Again

2. Evidence linking UPFs to adverse health outcomes

A large body of epidemiological evidence consistently links high consumption with multiple chronic diseases.

The largest-ever review, published Feb. 28, 2024 by The BMJ, is an umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses involving about 10 million people in total.

> Consistent evidence shows that higher exposure to ultraprocessed 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

Other descriptions of the same review:

> Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and metabolic health outcomes

> Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorders and mortality outcomes

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

Specific effect sizes reported:

Other large studies support a dose-response relationship:

The 2025 Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods, bringing together 43 international experts and drawing on more than 100 long-term studies, concluded that the global rise of UPFs is a central driver of the worldwide increase in obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic conditions and found consistent links between UPF consumption and at least 12 health conditions

Proposed mechanisms beyond poor nutrient profile include excessive calories, high saturated fats, added sugars and sodium (HFSS), high energy density and combinations of refined carbohydrates and fats rarely found in minimally processed food that increase addictive potential and overconsumption, and NF-κB-driven inflammatory mechanisms.

3. Nuance: Not all UPFs are equally harmful

Despite that consensus, major expert groups caution against treating the entire NOVA Group 4 as uniformly hazardous:

> Whether it's cooking, freezing, or fortifying with nutrients, the term 'processed' itself can be misleading... It's not necessarily the processing that's harmful — it's what happens during that process

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

The American Heart Association has issued a scientific advisory challenging the idea that all ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, noting certain processing methods help keep foods safe, nutritious, and affordable.

> While many ultra-processed foods tend to be of poor nutritional quality and should generally be limited or avoided, processing itself is not inherently harmful

Research suggests:

Critics argue the NOVA classification does not take into account nutritional value, so healthy foods can be classified as ultra-processed while minimally-processed foods can still be unhealthy, and that lumping subgroups together distorts understanding:

> Different groups of UPF evaluated within the same epidemiological study often show markedly different associations with the incidence of the health endpoints

> The available evidence regarding how different UPF were associated with health... question the possibility that ultraprocessing per se is the real culprit

Public health concern is increasingly framed not as food processing as a broad technological practice, but the increasing displacement of minimally processed foods and freshly prepared meals by industrially formulated ultra-processed foods.

4. Public health interpretation

Major public health authorities and reviews now treat high UPF consumption patterns — particularly those high in sugary drinks, processed meats, and salty, energy-dense snacks — as a dietary risk factor comparable to other diet-related hazards:

Current guidance therefore tends to recommend:

This is general information only and not medical advice. If you are concerned about your diet, consult a healthcare professional or registered dietitian.