Digestery
Diet and food › Ultra-Processed Food › Studies

Systematic review

Review of 45 pooled analyses: ultra-processed food linked to 71% of health measures

Lane and colleagues · BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024

Original title: Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses.

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

More ultra-processed food was linked to 32 (71%) of the health measures, including death from heart and blood vessel disease (risk ratio 1.50), type 2 diabetes (1.12), death from any cause (1.21) and obesity (odds ratio 1.55). Most evidence was low or very low quality.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Systematic review
Who or what was studied
9,888,373 people · People in observational studies around the world (about 9.9 million in all)
What was tested
Higher vs lower ultra-processed food intake, pooled across 45 earlier meta-analyses
What it measured
The question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer
Who has a stake
Company stake
Authors' university centre gets funding from Be Fit Food, Bega Dairy and Drinks, and a2 Milk Company; some authors work on a Be Fit Food-funded trial.
Journal
BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024
Source
PubMed record 38418082. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • •Sums up studies found with a set search method, without pooling the numbers.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
  • –Company stake: Authors' university centre gets funding from Be Fit Food, Bega Dairy and Drinks, and a2 Milk Company; some authors work on a Be Fit Food-funded trial.
  • •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 systematic review, 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
  • Quoted in “What we found”: A review of 45 pooled analyses (9 888 373 people) linked more ultra-processed food to 32 (71%) of health measures; most evidence was rated low or very low quality.
  • Quoted in “What we found”: In pooled studies of 415,554 people, each 10% more ultra-processed food went with a 12% higher risk of type 2 diabetes; two reviews rated this evidence moderate quality.
  • Part of the finding “Type 2 diabetes shows the most consistent link”.
  • Summed up in “What reviews found”: Gathered 45 pooled analyses covering 9 888 373 people. Higher intake was linked to 32 (71%) of health measures, with convincing links for heart and blood vessel disease death and type 2 diabetes. Most evidence rated low or very low.
  • Marked as a key paper in the research timeline: Largest review, covering 9 888 373 people.
  • Open item for a person: Reviews Lane 2024, Dai 2024, Barbaresko 2025 and Pagliai 2021 pool many of the same cohorts; their agreement is not fully independent.

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 reviewer corrected 3 fields after reading the abstract. 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.