Global experts are urging immediate action to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foodsdue to their potential risks to health, according to a comprehensive review published in The Lancet.
The review highlights a significant shift in global diets, with people increasingly moving away from fresh, whole foods toward inexpensive, highly-processed meals.
This trend is linked to a higher likelihood of developing chronic health conditions, including obesity and depression.
The researchers call on governments to “step up” by implementing warning labels and higher taxes on UPFs, with the goal of using the funds to improve access to healthier foods.
However, some scientists caution that the review does not definitively prove that UPFs directly cause harm, emphasizing the need for further studies and clinical trials.
UPFs are identified under the Nova Classification system, which categorizes foods into four groups.
On one end are minimally processed foods, like fruit, vegetables, and eggs, while on the other are ultra-processed products such as crisps, fizzy drinks, supermarket bread, and ready meals.
These foods typically contain more than five ingredients that are unlikely to be found in a home kitchen, including emulsifiers, preservatives, additives, dyes, and sweeteners.
Examples include sausages, pastries, biscuits, instant soups, ice cream, and supermarket bread.
Research shows that these industrially manufactured products are increasingly dominating diets worldwide, often contributing excessive sugar and unhealthy fats while lacking fiber and protein.
The global review, conducted by 43 experts and analyzing 104 long-term studies, found links between UPF consumption and a higher risk of 12 health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney diseases, depression, and premature death.
Prof Carlos Monteiro, from the University of Sao Paulo and creator of the Nova classification, said the growing intake of ultra-processed foods “is reshaping diets worldwide, displacing fresh and minimally processed foods and meals.”
He added, “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.”
Co-author from the University of Sydney, Dr Phillip Baker, said the solution required “a strong global public health response – like the coordinated efforts to challenge the tobacco industry.”
The review notes that there are few clinical trials directly proving how UPFs harm health, but stresses this should not delay protective measures.
Critics argue that it’s challenging to separate the effects of UPFs from other factors, such as lifestyle, behavior, and socio-economic status.
Some have also questioned the Nova system for focusing on the degree of processing rather than the nutritional value of foods.
For instance, items like wholegrain bread, breakfast cereals, low-fat yogurts, baby formula, and fish fingers are classified as ultra-processed but contain beneficial nutrients.
Emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, Prof Kevin McConway, commented, “A study like this can find a correlation, but it can’t be certain about cause and effect.”
He added, “It seems to me likely that at least some UPFs could cause increases in the risk of some chronic diseases. But this certainly doesn’t establish that all UPFs increase disease risk.”
The exact components of UPFs that might contribute to disease remain unclear.
Prof Jules Griffin, from the University of Aberdeen, noted that some food processing can be beneficial and emphasized that “more research to understand how it influences our health is urgently needed.”
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), representing the industry, says UPFs can still be part of a balanced diet, pointing to foods like frozen peas and wholemeal bread.
The FDF’s chief scientific officer, Kate Halliwell, stated,“Companies have been making a series of changes over many years to make the food and drink we all buy healthier, in line with government guidelines.”
She added that sugar and salt in supermarket products have decreased by a third since 2015.
Earlier this year, the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition described the link between higher UPF consumption and negative health outcomes as “concerning,” but noted that it remains “unclear” whether the harm is due to processing itself or high levels of calories, saturated fat, salt, and sugar.
Current UK dietary guidance continues to recommend increasing fruit, vegetables, and fiber intake, while reducing sugar, fat, and salt consumption.
