A global review published in The Lancet by 43 international experts warns that the rising consumption of ultra-processed foods poses a major public health threat, linking it to increased risks of chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and depression. The authors call for urgent policy actions, including taxes and warnings on these products, to curb their impact on diets worldwide.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are defined as industrially manufactured items containing more than five ingredients not typically found in home kitchens, such as emulsifiers, preservatives, and artificial sweeteners. Common examples include sausages, crisps, pastries, biscuits, instant soups, fizzy drinks, ice cream, and mass-produced bread. Surveys indicate these foods are increasingly dominating diets globally, displacing fresh and minimally processed options and contributing to poor nutritional quality with excessive sugar, unhealthy fats, and a lack of fiber and protein.
The review, based on 104 long-term studies, associates UPFs with a greater risk of 12 health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and premature death. In the United States, for instance, over half of daily calories come from ultra-processed foods on average, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This shift in eating habits is driven by powerful global corporations that prioritize profit through extensive marketing and political lobbying, which often hinders effective public health policies.
Experts emphasize that the threat is not just individual but systemic, requiring a coordinated global response similar to efforts against the tobacco industry. They advocate for policies that target production, marketing, and consumption, such as higher taxes on UPFs to fund access to nutritious foods and improved labeling to inform consumers. However, some scientists caution that the evidence, while concerning, primarily shows correlation rather than causation, and more clinical trials are needed to understand the exact mechanisms by which UPFs harm health.
Critics of the Nova classification system, used to categorize UPFs, argue that it focuses too much on processing levels rather than nutritional value, potentially overlooking healthier options like whole-grain bread or low-fat yogurt. Despite this, the review’s authors stress that the potential harms justify immediate action to protect public health, rather than waiting for further research. They note that delaying measures could exacerbate the global burden of chronic diseases, which are already straining healthcare systems.
Public support for regulation is growing, with polls indicating that a majority of parents, regardless of political affiliation, favor increased government oversight of dyes, chemical additives, and highly processed foods. In the U.S., this aligns with movements like “Make America Health Again”, which advocates for removing synthetic additives from food products. The food industry, represented by groups like the Food and Drink Federation, counters that UPFs can be part of a balanced diet and points to reductions in sugar and salt content in products since 2015.
Looking ahead, the authors urge governments to step up efforts to promote healthier eating by emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and proteins. They warn that without intervention, the continued rise of UPFs could lead to worsening health outcomes and increased mortality rates. The debate highlights the need for a balanced approach that combines regulatory action with public education to address this complex issue effectively.
