A large-scale study published Sept. 22 in the journal Family Medicine and Community Health found that consuming an extra 3½ ounces of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) daily increased chronic disease risk by 14% for cardiovascular events, 4% for cancer, 3% for death, and 2% for metabolic syndrome, according to Fox News and ABC News.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) such as packaged snacks, sugary drinks, and processed meats are linked to heightened risks of chronic diseases, according to a landmark study analyzing data from nearly 8.8 million adults globally. For every additional 100 grams of UPFs consumed daily, researchers observed a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% rise in cancer risk, a 3% increased chance of death from any cause, and a 2% higher likelihood of metabolic syndrome or diabetes, as reported by Fox News and ABC News. The study, which reviewed studies spanning 2 to 32 years, included participants from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania.
The Study’s Scope and Key Findings
Dr. Xiao Liu, lead author and a physician at Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital and research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School, emphasized that UPFs often displace nutrient-dense options. Ultra-processed food is one of the major problems in public health,
Liu told ABC News. The study found that higher UPF consumption correlated with increased risks of heart disease, strokes, obesity, diabetes, and mental health issues. For instance, each 100-gram daily increase in UPFs raised heart disease risk by 14% and blood pressure risk by 11%.
Dietitian’s Perspective: Balance Over Elimination
Maeve Hanan, a member of the British Dietetic Association, analyzed a weekly shopping list and found that while some items were ultra-processed, they didn’t define an unhealthy diet. There’s a good mix of foods which cover each food group,
she said, noting that UPFs like fortified cereals could provide essential nutrients. However, she cautioned against overconsumption, citing that chicken nuggets, while a good source of protein, are higher in fat and salt than a plain chicken breast. Hanan highlighted the growing hysteria around UPFs, arguing that strict avoidance is impractical. One food does not make your diet healthy or unhealthy,
she said. Maya Feller, a registered dietitian, advised consumers to check ingredient lists, noting that if the front says blueberries, then the ingredient list should say blueberries.
Dr. Chris van Tulleken has written books and made documentaries about how bad these foods can be, stating they are almost impossible to avoid
—even his own family’s diet includes a few. Meanwhile, Kelly Springer, a New York-based registered dietitian and founder of Kelly’s Choice, emphasized that the study’s observational nature means it cannot prove causation, though it highlights a clear association between UPF consumption and chronic disease. It’s not that you can never eat them again,
Springer said. It’s the fact that we are not getting real foods—real foods like fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, whole grains.
Debate Over UPFs: Risk vs. Practicality
While the study underscores health risks, some experts question the definition of UPFs. However, the study’s findings align with broader public health concerns. A diet built around whole, minimally processed foods is one of the best investments we can make in our long-term health,
Liu said.
For now, the consensus leans toward moderation and awareness.