Diets packed with ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) have created to a ‘pandemic of chronic disease’, leading global experts have warned.
Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to at least 32 health conditions including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Experts have even called for UPFs—typically anything edible that has more artificial ingredients than natural ones—to be slashed from diets.
Now, 43 of the world’s leading scientists and researchers have argued that UPFs are ‘displacing’ fresh foods and meals, as food firms ‘put profit above all else’.
They have called for governments around the world to start treating food manufacturers like the tobacco industry, and introduce measures such as taxing UPFs and banning adverts.
In a series of three papers published in the prestigious journal, The Lancet, the team also said that while some countries have brought in rules to reformulate foods and control UPFs, ‘the global public health response is still nascent, akin to where the tobacco control movement was decades ago’.
They added: ‘The rise of UPFs in human diets is a leading cause of the diet-related chronic disease pandemic.’
But experts today also critiqued the findings, arguing that the authors ‘based their claims on relatively weak evidence’, when it reality there is still ‘little convincing high-quality evidence that UPFs are inherently unhealthy’.
Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer
In the series, the scientists and researchers carried out a systematic review of 104 long-term studies.
They found 92 reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases, and early death from all causes.
The dietary share of UPFs remains below 25 per cent in countries such as Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and across Asia, but it is 50 per cent in the US and UK, the researchers also said.
Yet, for some in the UK and US, especially people who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, a diet comprising as much as 80 per cent UPF is typical.
Government policy, including in high-income countries such as the UK, had done little to change the ‘commercial and structural determinants of the problem’, they added.
However, the rise of UPFs in diets ‘is not inevitable’ they said and while research into their effects continue, this should not delay policies aimed at promoting diets based on whole foods.
Previous studies cited by the British Heart Foundation have linked UPFs to a greater risk of heart disease, stroke, and early death.
A 2023 meta analysis in the PubMed journal also said evidence suggested an association between UPF intake ‘and the risk of overall and several cancers, including colorectal, breast and pancreatic cancer’.
But, several experts not involved with the research cautioned that existing studies had shown that there may be a link with poor health and UPFs but had not established causation.
The Nova classification system, created by Brazilian scientist Carlos Monteiro in 2009, has long been lauded as one of the more robust ways to assess UPFs, splitting food into four groups based on the amount of processing they have gone through.
Recent research, however, has shown that Nova may not necessarily now be the most useful way to understand how a product impacts health.
Dr Jordan Beaumont, a senior lecturer in food and nutrition at Sheffield Hallam University, said: ‘The authors surmise that UPFs are inherently unhealthy due to the level and nature of their processing.
‘There is little convincing, high-quality evidence that UPFs are inherently unhealthy.
‘Indeed, the authors of this paper base their claims on relatively weak evidence such as observational studies and narrative reviews.
‘To understand the true impact UPFs have on health, we need numerous large-scale and robust randomised controlled trials.
‘We also need to move beyond these simplistic views of “good” and “bad” foods and instead truly address the fundamental issues in our food system that limit access and affordability of healthy foods.’
Kevin McConway, an emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, also said ‘it seems to me likely that at least some UPFs could cause increases in the risk of some chronic diseases.
‘Certainly not all — there’s little evidence of an increase in cancer risk, for instance.
‘But this certainly doesn’t establish that all UPFs increase disease risk. There’s still room for doubt and for clarification from further research.’
He added that he was not advocating that no public health action about UPFs is taken until all the research gaps have been filled but said there was a need for ‘transparency’ about ‘what we have good evidence for and what we don’t.’
