Are ultra-processed foods a public health hazard?

Based on the weight of current evidence, yes — a strong and growing body of science indicates ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are a significant public health hazard, though some nuances and debates remain. Here's the picture:

The Evidence Is Substantial and Consistent

The largest review to date — the largest-ever review of studies about the dangers of diets high in ultra-processed foods, published online in 2024 by The BMJ, came from a review of 45 analyses published in the last three years, involving about 10 million people in total. This analysis found consistent evidence 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.

Specific risk figures from that review are striking: 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.

2025: The Scientific and Policy Consensus Hardens

This year brought even stronger statements. A major Lancet series involving dozens of international experts concluded that although more research on UPFs will continue to be valuable, the current science is already strong enough to justify immediate public health action, and waiting for further studies would allow UPFs to gain an even stronger hold in global diets. The researchers went further, pushing back against criticism of their work, saying efforts to "manufacture scientific doubt" on the subject were similar to tactics used by the tobacco industry.

U.S. federal health agencies have also taken a firm stance. In 2025, HHS, FDA, and USDA noted that dozens of scientific studies have found links between consumption of ultra-processed foods and numerous adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, and neurological disorders. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated that "the threats posed to our health by foods often considered ultra-processed are clear and convincing, making it imperative that we work in lockstep with our federal partners to advance...a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods."

Scale of the Problem

This isn't a fringe dietary issue — it's mainstream. Approximately 70% of packaged products in the U.S. food supply are foods often considered ultra-processed, and children get over 60% of their calories from such foods. Globally, UPFs now account for over half of all calories consumed in the US, UK and Australia, with intake rising worldwide.

A 2025 study estimated real mortality impact: potentially 124,000 Americans die prematurely every two years due to ultra-processed food consumption, with each 10% increase in ultra-processed food intake increasing the risk of early death (between ages 30-69) by 3%.

Important Caveats

That said, the science isn't entirely settled. Some reviewers urge caution:

Bottom Line

The consensus among major health bodies (FDA, HHS, USDA, Harvard, NIH) and leading journals (The Lancet, The BMJ) in 2025 is that UPFs represent a genuine and growing public health threat, serious enough to warrant policy action rather than just individual behavior change. Experts are now explicitly calling for world policy reform with actions targeting the production, marketing and consumption of ultra-processed foods. However, the field acknowledges that the category is broad, the strength of evidence varies by specific health outcome, and more mechanistic research is needed to fully explain why UPFs appear harmful — whether it's the processing itself, the additives, the lack of fiber, or simply that UPFs tend to be calorie-dense and nutrient-poor.