Digestery
Diet and food › Ultra-Processed Food › Studies

Pooled review (meta-analysis)

Pooled review of 11 studies: ultra-processed food linked to higher cancer risk

Isaksen and colleagues · Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023

Original title: Ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Points to harm

Each 10% rise in ultra-processed food share of the diet was linked to higher overall cancer risk (HR = 1.13) and breast cancer (HR = 1.11). High intake was linked to colorectal cancer (1.30) and pancreatic cancer (1.49).

The study at a glance

Type of study
Pooled review (meta-analysis)
Who or what was studied
11 studies · Adults in 11 studies (8 case-control, 3 cohort) of cancer
What was tested
Higher vs lower ultra-processed food intake and cancer risk
What it measured
The question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer
Who has a stake
No stake declared
No competing interests declared.
Journal
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2023
Source
PubMed record 37087831. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Pools the results of 11 studies.
  • •A pooled review is only as strong as the studies it pools.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
  • ✓No competing interests declared.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

This paper is not on the ladder. It is a pooled review (meta-analysis), and reviews and opinion pieces discuss studies that are already counted on the steps below.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: death and chronic disease

    2

    1 no difference, 1 harm

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    3

    1 mixed, 1 no direction, 1 harm

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 mixed

  4. Population studies

    17

    1 mixed, 16 harm

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Are ultra-processed foods bad for your health?”

Linked to worse health; cause not proven.

Confidence: low. Based on 38 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer
  • Listed with the other papers, but not quoted in the page’s main findings.

Other reviews on this question

See all 38 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads agreed on every checked field. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.