Are ultra-processed foods a public health hazard?
Yes, a substantial and growing body of evidence indicates that high consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) poses a significant public health hazard, contributing to the global rise in obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, mental health issues, and premature mortality. However, the evidence is primarily observational (showing strong associations rather than definitive causation in all cases), the NOVA classification used to define them has limitations and critics, and not all UPFs are equally harmful.[1]
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?
UPFs are defined primarily by the NOVA classification system (developed by Brazilian researchers and used by FAO and others). They are industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods (e.g., oils, fats, sugars, starches, proteins) or derived from food constituents, often with cosmetic additives (flavors, colors, emulsifiers) not typically used in home cooking. They undergo multiple industrial processes (e.g., extrusion, molding, hydrogenation) and are designed for convenience, long shelf life, hyper-palatability, and profitability.[2]
Examples include:
In high-income countries like the US, UPFs often supply 50–60%+ of adults’ calories and even more for children. Global sales and consumption have risen sharply, displacing traditional diets based on whole or minimally processed foods.[3]
Key Evidence of Health Risks
Multiple large-scale umbrella reviews, meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies, and a 2025 Lancet series synthesize findings from dozens to over 100 studies involving millions of participants:
Particularly concerning subtypes include sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. Some UPFs (e.g., certain whole-grain breads or fortified products) may be less harmful or even neutral/beneficial in isolation, but the overall dietary pattern high in UPFs is consistently linked to poorer outcomes. No major studies report broad benefits from high UPF intake.[6]
Plausible mechanisms include:
Limitations, Criticisms, and Nuances
Public Health Response
Experts and bodies increasingly view high UPF intake as a major challenge (“the health challenge of our time”). The WHO is developing guidelines on UPF consumption (expected to build on nutrient-focused advice and include operational definitions), alongside work on food profiling. FAO has published on NOVA and diet quality. Recommendations and policies discussed include:
In summary, while more research (especially long-term trials and mechanistic work distinguishing processing effects from nutrients/additives) is needed, the totality of evidence supports treating diets dominated by UPFs as a public health hazard driving chronic disease burdens. Reducing their share of the diet in favor of less-processed alternatives is a prudent, evidence-based step for individuals and a priority for policy. Consult a healthcare professional or dietitian for personalized advice, as overall dietary patterns, lifestyle, and individual factors matter most.
Citations (8)
- https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310.abstract
Backs: “However, the evidence is primarily observational (showing strong associations rather than definitive causation in all cases), the NOVA classification used to define them has limitations and critics, and not all UPFs are equally harmful.”
- https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5277b379-0acb-4d97-a6a3-602774104629/content
Backs: “They undergo multiple industrial processes (e.g., extrusion, molding, hydrogenation) and are designed for convenience, long shelf life, hyper-palatability, and profitability.”
- https://www.aamc.org/news/health-challenge-our-time-what-academic-experts-want-you-know-about-ultra-processed-foods
Backs: “Global sales and consumption have risen sharply, displacing traditional diets based on whole or minimally processed foods.”
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067362501565X
Backs: “It calls displacement of traditional diets by UPFs a key driver of the global burden of diet-related diseases.”
- https://www.patientcareonline.com/view/excess-intake-of-ultraprocessed-foods-tied-to-higher-cardiometabolic-risk-aha-advisory-says
Backs: “An American Heart Association advisory notes excess intake (beyond ~10–15% of calories) tied to higher cardiometabolic risk.”
- https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/are-all-ultra-processed-foods-bad-you
Backs: “No major studies report broad benefits from high UPF intake.”
- https://waltersport.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/NATURE-The-validity-and-utility-of-Nova-and-the-concept-of-ultra-processed-foods-for-science-and-policy-Khandpur-et-al.-2026.pdf
Backs: “Defenders note its predictive utility for health outcomes and that complexity does not invalidate the construct.”
- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)02326-8/fulltext
Backs: “Limit UPFs where possible; prioritize whole foods; read labels.”