Are ultra-processed foods bad for your health?
Short answer
Linked to worse health; cause not proven.
Large population studies link eating more ultra-processed food to higher risk of death, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and obesity. These show links, not causes. Two tiny feeding trials found short-term weight gain.
This page says what the research shows. It does not say whether you should eat ultra-processed food.
Where the evidence stands
Each dot is one on-topic paper. Steps near the top answer the question more directly. Select a dot to see the study.
↑ Stronger evidence
-
Trials in people: death and chronic disease
Trials that measured death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer directly.
2 -
Trials in people: other measures
Trials that measured other health or performance measures.
3 -
Trials in people: lab tests or safety
Trials that measured lab tests, side effects or safety.
1 -
Population studies
Studies that followed or surveyed groups of people. They show links, not causes.
17 -
Blood levels and genes
Studies that link blood levels or genes to health.
0None among the papers we read.
↓ Weaker evidence
- Points to benefit
- Mixed
- No difference
- No direction
- Points to harm
Not on the ladder: 10 reviews of many studies (shown below), 5 opinion or narrative papers. Counts are papers, not people. Some studies appear in more than one paper.
See every studyWhat 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. Lane 2024
- 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. Chen 2023, Barbaresko 2025, Lane 2024
- Two small feeding trials (20 and nine adults) found weight gain on ultra-processed diets: 0.9 ± 0.3 kg over 2 weeks, and 1.1 kg more over 1 week. Hall 2019, Hamano 2024
- In 74 563 US women and 39 501 men, the top intake quarter had 4% higher death risk; among people with similar diet quality, links were not consistent. Fang 2024
What the research says
Higher intake linked to more heart disease and deaths
Population studies link more ultra-processed food to more heart and blood vessel disease. In 105 159 French adults, each 10-point rise in its share of the diet went with risk 1.12 times as high. In 3,003 US adults, each extra daily serving went with 7% higher risk.
For death from any cause, a Spanish study of 19 899 graduates found 1.62 times the risk in the top intake quarter, from only 335 deaths. A larger US study found just 4% higher risk and no link with heart disease or cancer deaths.
Studies: Srour 2019, Juul 2021, Rico-Campà 2019, Fang 2024
Type 2 diabetes shows the most consistent link
In three US cohorts, people in the top fifth of intake had 1.46 times the risk of type 2 diabetes. In pooled studies of 415,554 people, each 10% more ultra-processed food went with 12% higher risk.
A UK study of 21,730 adults saw risk climb with each step up in intake. Two large reviews rated the diabetes evidence moderate quality. Yet in the US cohorts, some ultra-processed foods, such as whole-grain breads and yogurt, went with lower risk.
Studies: Chen 2023, Levy 2021, Lane 2024, Barbaresko 2025
Some cancers linked, others not
In 104 980 French adults, each 10% more ultra-processed food went with overall cancer risk 1.12 times as high. A review of five cohorts found higher colorectal (1.11) and one type of stomach cancer (1.43) risk, but no link for liver, gullet, pancreas or rectal cancer.
In 450 111 Europeans, swapping 10% of ultra-processed food for minimally processed food went with lower risk of head and neck, colon and liver cancer. A US study linked high intake to bowel growths that can turn into cancer.
Studies: Fiolet 2018, Meine 2024, Kliemann 2023, Hang 2023
Weight gain shows up in studies and short trials
In 22,659 UK adults, the top intake quarter had 1.79 times the risk of becoming obese. In children the picture was less even: links appeared in boys but not girls, and at ages 3 and 4 but not 5.
In a hospital trial, 20 adults ate 508 ± 106 kcal/day more on an ultra-processed diet and gained 0.9 ± 0.3 kg in 2 weeks. A Japanese trial in nine men found 1.1 kg more gain in 1 week. Both trials were tiny and short.
Studies: Rauber 2021, Chen 2025, Heerman 2023, Hall 2019, Hamano 2024
Unclear whether processing itself or poor diet matters
These population studies show links, not causes. One review says it is unclear whether processing raises risk or ultra-processed food simply marks a poor diet. In a large US study, links with death were not consistent among people with similar diet quality.
Other studies disagree: French cohorts found the cancer and heart disease links held after adjusting for diet quality markers. A meal study found food texture and eating speed explain part of why people eat more from ultra-processed meals.
Studies: Barbaresko 2025, Fang 2024, Fiolet 2018, Srour 2019, Teo 2022
What reviews of many studies found
Reviews pool or sum up earlier studies. They are not on the ladder, because they repeat studies already counted there.
Systematic review · Lane 2024
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.
Pooled review (meta-analysis) · Dai 2024
Updated 39 pooled analyses with 122 articles on 49 health outcomes. High intake was linked to 25 outcomes, most firmly kidney function decline and childhood wheezing; diabetes and obesity evidence was highly suggestive. No study reported a benefit.
Systematic review · Barbaresko 2025
Reviewed 16 publications of pooled analyses. Found moderate-certainty links with death from any cause, heart and blood vessel disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer, but said it is unclear whether processing or poor diet quality is to blame.
Pooled review (meta-analysis) · Pagliai 2021
Combined twenty-three studies, with cohorts of 183 491 people followed 3·5 to 19 years. Highest intake was linked to more death from any cause (risk ratio 1·25) and heart and blood vessel disease (risk ratio 1·29), though in few studies.
How the research grew
The papers we read span 2015 to 2025. 14 of the 38 on-topic papers came out in 2024 to 2026. The earliest trial in people here is from 2019.
- 2015
- 2017
- 2018
- 2019
- 2021
- 2022
- 2023
- 2024
- 2025
Each dot is one on-topic paper, colored by what it found. Rings mark key papers:
- 2015. Brazil survey links intake to obesity. Louzada 2015
- 2018. Large French cohort links intake to cancer. Fiolet 2018
- 2019. Hospital trial: ultra-processed diet led to overeating. Hall 2019
- 2024. Japanese trial repeats weight gain in nine men. Hamano 2024
- 2024. Largest review, covering 9 888 373 people. Lane 2024
Who was studied
Who took part, and how many. The largest trial here had 256 people; the largest population study had 450,111.
- Trials in people
- 20 people · Hall 2019
20 adults with stable weight, average age 31, living in a hospital research unit - 20 people · Sciarrillo 2024
20 adults in the ultra-processed food crossover study (plus 20 in a low-carb vs low-fat study) - Population, blood and gene studies
- 198,636 people · Chen 2023
71,871 + 87,918 US women and 38,847 US men, plus a pooled analysis of 415,554 people - 142,052 people · Hang 2023
142,052 US nurses and health professionals who had a bowel scope test, followed 18 to 20 years - 114,064 people · Fang 2024
74,563 US women and 39,501 US men without cancer, heart disease or diabetes, followed over 30 years - 19,899 people · Rico-Campà 2019
19,899 Spanish university graduates aged 20 to 91, followed about 10 years - People in the study, log scale1101001,00010,000100,0001,000,000
- Points to benefit
- Mixed
- No difference
- No direction
- Points to harm
Bars use a log scale: each step is ten times more people. Reviews, animal studies and papers with no count in the abstract are not shown.
Who funds this research
One of 6 trial papers has a company stake: in the 2019 hospital trial, one author advises Kerry Taste and Nutrition and belongs to a group funded by Abbott, Nestec and Danone. This did not change the confidence.
- Company stake 1
- No disclosure in PubMed 4
- No stake declared 1
- Hall 2019Company stake
- Hamano 2024No disclosure in PubMed
- Sciarrillo 2024No disclosure in PubMed
- de Oliveira 2025No disclosure in PubMed
- Teo 2022No disclosure in PubMed
- Baroni 2024No stake declared
Funding rule. A stake is always shown. Confidence is lowered only when every supporting study comes from a party with a stake. "No disclosure in PubMed" means the PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement. It does not mean there is no conflict.
All 38 on-topic papers
Each paper shows what it tested, what it found, and who has a stake. Every paper also has its own page that explains how much it counts and how it fits. See every study as a list.
-
Randomized trial · measured the question itselfHamano et al., 2024Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · PubMed
Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study.
9 people · 9 overweight or obese Japanese men without other medical conditions
TestedUltra-processed vs non-ultra-processed meals for 1 week each, with a 2-week break, meals matched for calories and nutrients
On the ultra-processed diet, men gained 1.1 kg more weight (95% confidence interval 0.2 to 2.0) and ate 813.5 kcal more per day (342.4 to 1284.7). They chewed less per calorie.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed; funded by a Japanese government ministry.
-
Effect of a lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with overweight on neonatal adiposity: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
256 people · 350 pregnant women with overweight; 256 babies analyzed for birth weight
TestedThree counselling sessions to eat unprocessed and minimally processed foods rather than ultra-processed foods, plus exercise, vs usual care
The counselling had no effect on baby fat share (β 0.52; 95% CI -1.03, 2.06), fat-free mass or birth weight (β 53.23; 95% CI -87.19, 193.64).
No differenceNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Randomized trial · other health measuresSciarrillo et al., 2024The American journal of clinical nutrition · PubMed
Diet order significantly affects energy balance for diets varying in macronutrients but not ultraprocessing in crossover studies without a washout period.
20 people · 20 adults in the ultra-processed food crossover study (plus 20 in a low-carb vs low-fat study)
TestedDid the order of diets (minimally processed then ultra-processed, or the reverse) change results, 2 weeks each with no break
In the ultra-processed vs minimally processed study, the order of the two diets made no clear difference to energy intake, body weight or body fat. Order did matter in a separate low-carb vs low-fat study.
No directionNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Trial, not randomized · other health measuresTeo et al., 2022The American journal of clinical nutrition · PubMed
Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals.
50 people · 50 healthy-weight adults, average age 24.4
TestedFour lunches eaten as much as wanted: soft or hard food, each minimally processed or ultra-processed
Hard-texture meals were eaten slower and cut intake by 21% (food weight) and 26% (energy). Least energy came from hard minimally processed (482.9 kcal), most from soft ultra-processed (789.4 kcal).
MixedNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake.
20 people · 20 adults with stable weight, average age 31, living in a hospital research unit
TestedUltra-processed diet vs unprocessed diet, 2 weeks each in turn, eat as much as wanted
People ate 508 ± 106 kcal/day more on the ultra-processed diet and gained 0.9 ± 0.3 kg. On the unprocessed diet they lost 0.9 ± 0.3 kg.
Points to harmCompany stakeAbstract onlyOne author has been paid to speak at events by food firms, advises Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and a group he is in got funding from Abbott, Nestec and Danone.
-
Effects of dietary energy restriction of ultra-processed foods compared to a generic energy restriction on the intestinal microbiota of individuals with obesity: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
34 people · 34 adults with obesity who finished the trial (43 started)
TestedCalorie cut plus limiting ultra-processed food to 5% of intake vs a general calorie cut, for 6 months
Waist size and body fat fell in both groups. Gut bacteria family Ruminococcaceae rose more in the group limiting ultra-processed food (p-interaction = 0.03).
MixedNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Population study: one-time surveyBauer et al., 2025International journal of environmental research and public health · PubMed
Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Metabolic Parameters in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study.
326 people · 326 adults with type 2 diabetes in Brazil
TestedHigher vs lower intake of processed and ultra-processed food, compared with blood sugar control and cholesterol
No clear link with blood sugar (HbA1c) or body size. Higher intake was linked to higher total cholesterol (Q3: β = 26.6; Q4: β = 26.7) and LDL-cholesterol (Q4: β = 19.8; Q5: β = 17.5).
MixedNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Obesity Development in Canadian Children.
2,217 people · 2,217 Canadian children, diet at age 3 and body size at age 5
TestedEach 10% more energy from ultra-processed food at age 3 and body fat measures at age 5
In boys, each 10% rise in ultra-processed food energy was linked to higher BMI z score (β, 0.08) and higher odds of overweight or obesity (odds ratio, 1.19). No clear links were seen in girls.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared; disclosed grants are from public health bodies.
-
Association of ultra-processed food consumption with all cause and cause specific mortality: population based cohort study.
114,064 people · 74,563 US women and 39,501 US men without cancer, heart disease or diabetes, followed over 30 years
TestedHighest vs lowest quarter of ultra-processed food intake and death
Highest quarter had 4% higher all cause death (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07) and 9% higher death from other causes (1.09). No link with cancer or heart disease death.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyOne author had a short paid consulting job for the Pan American Health Organization; no food company named.
-
Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Hypertension Risk in the REGARDS Cohort Study.
5,957 people · 5,957 US adults without high blood pressure at the start, followed about 10 years
TestedHighest vs lowest quarter of ultra-processed food intake and new high blood pressure
Highest quarter had 23% greater odds of new high blood pressure. Measured by food weight, odds were 1.43 in Black adults and 1.09 in White adults, where the range included no difference.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultra-processed food consumption and BMI-Z among children at risk for obesity from low-income households.
595 people · 595 children, average age 4.3, from low-income households, mostly Hispanic
TestedHigh (1300 kcals/day) vs low (300 kcals/day) ultra-processed food intake at the start, then body size over 36 months
Compared with low intake (300 kcals/day), high intake (1300 kcals/day) was linked to a 1.2 higher BMI-Z at 36 months in 3-year-olds and 0.6 higher in 4-year-olds. There was no clear difference in 5-year-olds or overall.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Blood pressure variation and ultra-processed food consumption in children with obesity.
96 people · 96 children aged 7 to 12 with obesity
TestedMonthly counselling for 6 months to cut ultra-processed food; blood pressure tracked against how much they ate
For every 100 g increase in ultra-processed food, diastolic blood pressure rose by 0.28 mmHg. After adjusting for BMI and activity the rise was 0.22 mmHg.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Population study: followed a groupValmorbida et al., 2023Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.) · PubMed
Consumption of ultraprocessed food is associated with higher blood pressure among 6-year-old children from southern Brazil.
305 people · 305 children in southern Brazil, studied at ages 3 and 6
TestedShare of daily energy from ultra-processed food (40.3% at age 3, 45.2% at age 6) vs blood pressure at age 6
Ultra-processed food intake was linked to higher systolic blood pressure at 6 years (P = .05) and higher diastolic blood pressure at 3 and 6 years (P = .01 and P < .01).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Three Large Prospective U.S. Cohort Studies.
198,636 people · 71,871 + 87,918 US women and 38,847 US men, plus a pooled analysis of 415,554 people
TestedHighest vs lowest fifth of ultra-processed food intake and later type 2 diabetes
Highest vs lowest fifth had a hazard ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 1.39-1.54) for type 2 diabetes. Pooled, each 10% increase in ultra-processed food was linked to 12% higher risk. Some subgroups (whole-grain breads, yogurt) were linked to lower risk.
Points to harmCompany stakeAbstract onlyOne author received speaker and consulting fees from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, an industry group, outside this work.
-
Population study: followed a groupHang et al., 2023Journal of the National Cancer Institute · PubMed
Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of colorectal cancer precursors: results from 3 prospective cohorts.
142,052 people · 142,052 US nurses and health professionals who had a bowel scope test, followed 18 to 20 years
TestedHighest vs lowest fifth of ultra-processed food intake and bowel polyps that can turn into cancer
Highest fifth had higher risk of conventional adenomas (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.26) and serrated lesions (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.28). Results held after removing processed meat.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Food processing and cancer risk in Europe: results from the prospective EPIC cohort study.
450,111 people · 450,111 adults from 10 European countries followed for cancer
TestedSwapping 10% of ultra-processed food for 10% minimally processed food, and cancer at 25 body sites
Swapping 10% of ultra-processed foods for minimally processed foods went with lower risk of head and neck cancers (0·80), colon cancer (0·93) and liver cancer (0·73). Swapping processed foods lowered overall cancer risk (0·96).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared; funded by cancer charities.
-
Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of obesity: a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank.
22,659 people · 22,659 UK adults aged 40 to 69, followed a median of 5 years
TestedHighest vs lowest quarter of ultra-processed food intake and later obesity
Highest quarter had higher risk of overall obesity (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.06─3.03) and belly obesity (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.14─1.48).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Population study: followed a groupJuul et al., 2021Journal of the American College of Cardiology · PubMed
Ultra-Processed Foods and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study.
3,003 people · 3,003 US adults free of heart disease at the start
TestedEach extra daily serving of ultra-processed food and later heart disease
Each extra daily serving was linked to a 7% higher risk of hard CVD (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.12), 9% for hard coronary heart disease, 5% for overall CVD and 9% for CVD death.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Population study: followed a groupLevy et al., 2021Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · PubMed
Ultra-processed food consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence: A prospective cohort study.
21,730 people · 21,730 UK adults aged 40 to 69 without diabetes, followed about 5.4 years
TestedHighest vs lowest quarter of ultra-processed food intake and type 2 diabetes
305 people developed type 2 diabetes. Highest quarter had a hazard ratio of 1.44 (1.04-2.02). Each 10 percentage point rise gave an adjusted HR of 1.12 (1.04-1.20).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé).
105,159 people · 105,159 French adults followed a median of 5.2 years
TestedEach 10-point rise in the share of ultra-processed food in the diet vs heart and blood vessel disease
Each 10-point rise was linked to higher risk of cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio 1.12), coronary heart disease (1.13) and stroke-type cerebrovascular disease (1.11).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study.
19,899 people · 19,899 Spanish university graduates aged 20 to 91, followed about 10 years
TestedHighest vs lowest quarter of ultra-processed food intake and death from any cause
335 deaths. Highest quarter had a hazard ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.33). Each extra serving raised all cause death by 18% (1.18).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.
104,980 people · 104,980 French adults, average age 42.8, followed from 2009 to 2017
TestedHigher share of ultra-processed food in the diet and later cancer
Each 10% rise in ultra-processed food share was linked to higher overall cancer risk (hazard ratio 1.12) and breast cancer risk (hazard ratio 1.11). Results held after adjusting for diet quality.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazilian adolescents and adults.
30,243 people · 30,243 Brazilians aged 10 and over
TestedHighest vs lowest fifth of ultra-processed food intake and body weight
Highest fifth had a BMI 0.94 kg/m(2) higher and higher odds of obesity (OR=1.98; 95% CI: 1.26,3.12). Excess weight was not clearly higher (OR=1.26; 0.95,1.69).
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed food consumption and human health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.
16 studies · People in observational studies, from 16 published reviews
TestedUltra-processed food intake, graded by certainty of evidence
Moderate-certainty evidence linked more ultra-processed food to death from any cause (1.02 per 50 g), heart and blood vessel disease (1.04 per 50 g/d), type 2 diabetes (1.12 per 10%) and colorectal cancer (1.04). Whether processing itself is the cause is unclear.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses.
9,888,373 people · People in observational studies around the world (about 9.9 million in all)
TestedHigher vs lower ultra-processed food intake, pooled across 45 earlier meta-analyses
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.
Points to harmCompany stakeAbstract onlyAuthors' 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.
-
Ultra-processed foods and human health: An umbrella review and updated meta-analyses of observational evidence.
122 studies · People in observational studies of ultra-processed food and health
TestedHigher vs lowest ultra-processed food intake, 39 meta-analyses updated with 122 new articles
High intake was linked to 25 health outcomes. Strongest evidence: kidney function decline (OR: 1.25) and childhood wheezing (OR: 1.42). Diabetes, overweight and obesity were also linked. No study found a benefit.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared; one grant from Cancer Research UK.
-
Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
5 studies, 1,128,243 people · Adults in 5 long-term studies, followed 5.4 to 28 years
TestedHighest vs lowest ultra-processed food intake and gut cancers
Highest intake was linked to colorectal cancer (HR 1.11), colon cancer (HR 1.12) and non-cardia stomach cancer (HR 1.43). No link for liver, gullet, pancreas, upper stomach or rectal cancer.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
11 studies · Adults in 11 studies (8 case-control, 3 cohort) of cancer
TestedHigher vs lower ultra-processed food intake and cancer risk
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).
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Incidence of Obesity and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Adults: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies.
17 studies · Adults in 17 long-term studies
TestedUltra-processed food intake and later obesity and heart and metabolic risk
Studies agreed that more ultra-processed food was linked to new general and belly obesity. Evidence on heart and metabolic risk was more limited, but most studies found higher risk of high blood pressure, diabetes and bad blood fats.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Ultra-processed foods and obesity and adiposity parameters among children and adolescents: a systematic review.
10 studies · Children and teens in 10 studies, mostly in Brazil
TestedUltra-processed food intake and obesity or body fat
Four long studies (over 4 years) found more ultra-processed food linked to more obesity and body fat. The five cross-sectional studies found no link.
Points to harmNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
Impact of the consumption of ultra-processed foods on children, adolescents and adults' health: scope review.
63 studies · Children, teens and adults in 63 studies
TestedUltra-processed food intake and many health outcomes
Evidence was most consistent for obesity in adults. Large cohorts linked ultra-processed food to heart disease, diabetes and cancer, even after adjusting for obesity; four cohorts linked it to all-cause death.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
[Ultra-processed food consumption and obesity-a systematic review].
People in studies of ultra-processed food and obesity
TestedUltra-processed food intake and obesity, from published studies
Studies suggest a link between ultra-processed food and obesity. Different methods and food classification systems made it hard to draw firm conclusions. No numbers given.
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
23 studies, 183,491 people · Adults in 23 studies; 183,491 people followed 3.5 to 19 years in the cohort studies
TestedHighest vs lowest ultra-processed food intake
Highest intake was linked to more all cause death (RR 1·25), heart disease (RR 1·29), stroke (RR 1·34), depression (RR 1·20), and overweight or obesity (+39 %).
Points to harmNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed food consumption and children and adolescents' health.
Children and teens in observational studies
TestedSummary of studies linking ultra-processed food to health in young people
Ultra-processed food use clustered with unhealthy habits and was tied to more obesity and a risk for heart disease and gum disease in young people. No pooled numbers.
No weight on the ladderNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
-
How and why ultra-processed foods harm human health.
General readers; review of NOVA and health
TestedExplains the NOVA food groups and why ultra-processed foods may harm health
Argues that prospective studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses link high ultra-processed food intake to worse diets and adverse health outcomes, and calls for policies to cut production and use. No numbers given.
No weight on the ladderNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed foods and the development of obesity in adults.
Adults in 9 cross-sectional studies, 7 long-term studies and 1 trial
TestedUltra-processed food intake and obesity
Cross-sectional studies (n = 9) and long-term studies (n = 7) showed more ultra-processed food went with more obesity. The one trial found more energy intake and weight gain on the ultra-processed diet.
No weight on the ladderNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed Foods and Cardiovascular Diseases: Potential Mechanisms of Action.
General readers; review of how ultra-processed food might harm the heart
TestedSummary of ways ultra-processed food could raise heart disease risk
Says higher ultra-processed food intake is linked to more cardiovascular disease and describes possible causes: food structure, gut bacteria, additives, blood fats, inflammation and blood pressure. No numbers given.
No weight on the ladderNo disclosure in PubMedAbstract onlyNo disclosure in PubMed.
-
Ultra-processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health-Processing or Nutrient Content?
People in about 9 studies of ultra-processed food and obesity
TestedUltra-processed food intake and obesity and related heart and blood sugar risks
Four of five studies found more ultra-processed food went with overweight or obesity. Only three of nine studies were long-term. It is unclear whether processing or nutrient content is the cause.
No weight on the ladderNo stake declaredAbstract onlyNo competing interests declared.
16 papers we read and set aside as off topic
- Marino et al., 2021. A Systematic Review of Worldwide Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods: Findings and Criticisms. (systematic review)
- Piccini et al., 2024. Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Prevention of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation. (randomized trial)
- Matulonis et al., 2025. ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial of niraparib in recurrent ovarian cancer: Survival and long-term safety. (randomized trial)
- Hägele et al., 2025. Short-term effects of high-protein, lower-carbohydrate ultra-processed foods on human energy balance. (randomized trial)
- Rocha et al., 2021. Health behavior patterns of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among Brazilian adolescents in a nationally representative school-based study. (population study: one-time survey)
- Graciliano et al., 2025. Association between the gut microbiota composition and alpha-diversity on the hormonal response and appetitive measures of individuals with obesity after a meal either rich in ultra-processed foods or without ultra-processed foods: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. (randomized trial)
- Nogueira et al., 2022. The Effect of Exogenous Melatonin on Eating Habits of Female Night Workers with Excessive Weight. (randomized trial)
- Forde et al., 2026. Eating rate has sustained effects on energy intake from ultraprocessed diets: a 2-week ad libitum dietary randomized controlled crossover trial. (randomized trial)
- O'Connor et al., 2023. Metabolomic Profiling of an Ultraprocessed Dietary Pattern in a Domiciled Randomized Controlled Crossover Feeding Trial. (randomized trial)
- Kahleova et al., 2025. Vegan diet, processed foods, and type 1 diabetes: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. (randomized trial)
- Barros et al., 2025. Association Between Psychobehavioral Factors and the Increased Eating Rate of Ultra-Processed Versus Non-Ultra-Processed Meals in Individuals with Obesity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial. (randomized trial)
- Liu et al., 2025. A Low-Intensity Nutrition Intervention Targeting Triglycerides in Gestational Diabetes: A Feasibility RCT. (randomized trial)
- Hecht et al., 2022. Cross-sectional examination of ultra-processed food consumption and adverse mental health symptoms. (population study: one-time survey)
- Juul et al., 2022. Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018. (population study: one-time survey)
- García-Gorrita et al., 2025. Beyond GLP-1 Agonists: An Adaptive Ketogenic-Mediterranean Protocol to Counter Metabolic Adaptation in Obesity Management. (opinion or narrative review)
- Wu et al., 2024. Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Long-Term Risk of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Large-Scale Prospective Cohort Study. (population study: followed a group)
Words on this page
- Hazard ratio (HR)
- Compares how often something happened in two groups over time. 1 means no difference. 0.80 means 20% lower risk; 1.20 means 20% higher.
- Relative risk (RR)
- Compares the risk in two groups. 1 means no difference. 0.85 means 15% lower risk.
- Odds ratio (OR)
- Another way to compare two groups. 1 means no difference. Below 1 means lower odds, above 1 higher odds.
- 95% CI (confidence interval)
- The range where the true result likely lies. If the range includes no effect (1 for ratios, 0 for differences), the result is not clear.
- p-value (p =)
- How likely a result this large would be by chance if there were no real effect. Below 0.05 is usually called a clear result.
- Pooled review (meta-analysis)
- A study that combines the results of many earlier studies to get one overall answer.
- Cohort study
- A study that follows a large group of people over years. It shows links, not causes.
- mmHg
- The unit for blood pressure.
- Systolic pressure
- The top number in a blood pressure reading.
- Diastolic pressure
- The bottom number in a blood pressure reading.
- Marker
- A lab or scan result that stands in for a health outcome. A better marker does not always mean better health.
How the short answer is set
Fixed rules turn the studies into the short answer, so the same studies always give the same answer. The rules start from GRADE, a standard system for rating evidence, in plain language.
| Confidence | What it means |
|---|---|
| High | We are confident the answer is right. |
| Moderate | The answer is probably right, but it could change. |
| Low (this page) | The answer may well change. |
| Very low | Any answer is very uncertain. |
| Not tested in people | Only cell or animal studies exist. |
Why low here
- Evidence on death and disease comes only from population studies, which start low.
- Risk rose with each step up in intake, but most effects were small.
- Some large studies found no link for cancer or heart disease deaths.
- Only two tiny feeding trials, 1 to 2 weeks per diet, measured weight.
Hard limit used. No trial in people has measured death, heart disease, diabetes or cancer, so the answer cannot say ultra-processed food causes them.
How this page was made
Label
- Search
- PubMed, Nov 14, 2026. Searches written by Claude Opus 5.5; papers ranked by PubMed
- First read of all 54 papers
- Claude Sonnet
- Independent second read
- Claude Haiku
- Disagreements settled by
- Claude Opus 5.5
- Page text written by
- Claude Opus 5.5
- Charts
- Drawn by code from the study records
- Source check by a person
- Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.
- Expert review
- No
- Papers read in full
- 0 of 54; all from PubMed abstracts
- Method
- v0.2, created Nov 14, 2026
Search. We ran four PubMed searches for ultra-processed food and death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer: pooled and systematic reviews since 2012 (10 of 95), trials in people (22 of 95), population studies (22 of 810). The first number is how many papers we read; the second is how many PubMed found. We took the ones PubMed ranks as most relevant. See the full PubMed search. Of the 54 papers read, 38 were on topic.
Limits. Digestery reads at most about 60 papers per question, so large fields are sampled, not covered in full. Abstracts can leave out key details, such as side effects and funding.
Review queue
These items wait for a person. Search engines are asked not to list the page until the first one is done.
- OpenThe short answer is new. It waits for a source check by a person.
- OpenFiolet 2018 and Srour 2019 are the same French cohort (NCT03335644) with different outcomes; do not count them as independent evidence.
- OpenHall trial NCT03407053 appears in Hall 2019, Sciarrillo 2024 and O'Connor 2023 (secondary analyses); it is one trial, not three.
- OpenOverlapping people: US nurse and health professional cohorts in Chen 2023, Fang 2024 and Hang 2023; UK Biobank in Rauber 2021 and Levy 2021.
- OpenReviews Lane 2024, Dai 2024, Barbaresko 2025 and Pagliai 2021 pool many of the same cohorts; their agreement is not fully independent.
- OpenMartí Del Moral 2021 direction set to harm, though authors call the evidence inconclusive and give no numbers or study count. Please confirm.
- OpenSciarrillo 2024 kept relevant with direction na: it tests diet order, not whether ultra-processed food harms. Consider marking off-topic.
- OpenHeerman 2023 direction changed to harm; links held only at ages 3 and 4, not age 5 or overall. Please confirm.
- Opentopic.json OUTCOME lists death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer but not weight gain, which this task brief included. Align the topic file.
- OpenBarros 2025 and Graciliano 2025 may be the same Brazilian meal trial (RBR-56nsh92 listed only in Graciliano 2025); both are off-topic now.
- OpenNo COI statement in PubMed for several relevant papers, including Hamano 2024, Pagliai 2021, Barbaresko 2025, Meine 2024 and Hang 2023.
Page history
| Date | Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2026 | Page created from 54 papers. | First version of the page. |
Flag an error
A flag must point to a source: the passage in the paper, or a link to a study this page missed. A flag starts a new check. Votes never change a page.