Ultra-processed foods linked to more than 30 illnesses
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are linked to 32 different health issues, a study suggests.
Fizzy drinks, ready meals and sugary cereal have become a staple of the British diet and make up more than half of some people’s daily calorie consumption.
The category is broad and includes anything that could not be made in a domestic kitchen with the definition being food made from “industrial formulations”.
A study of 45 different analyses including almost 10 million participants found that consumption of UPFs is linked to health issues including cancer risk, high blood pressure, anxiety, asthma and Type 2 diabetes.
The study found evidence that higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with about a 50 per cent increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and about a 50 per cent higher risk of anxiety and common mental disorders.
Data came from a range of sources including questionnaires and asking people what they ate in the last 24 hours.
Each link between UPFs and a health condition was graded and ranked, and the scientists from Deakin University in Australia, who conducted the study, have called for “urgent mechanistic research and public health actions” to cut down consumption of these foods by the general public.
Unconnected scientists from the University of São Paulo wrote in an accompanying editorial, also published in the BMJ, that labels on packaging, advertising limits and banning sales of UPFs near schools should be implemented.
The authors of the editorial also called on the United Nations to bring countries together and create a way for UPFs to be treated in a similar way to tobacco.
However, some scientists have criticised the paper and also doubted the assertion that UPFs are intrinsically bad.
Most of the links between the foods and health conditions in the study are of weak strength, with only diabetes, obesity, prostate cancer and all cause mortality having a “moderate” quality rating.
Reliably measuring UPF intake is difficult, as recollections of diet can be extremely flawed.
Gunter Kuhnle, a professor of nutrition and food science at Reading University, said that some of the claims in the study are confusing and exaggerated.
“My worry with the paper is that fairly weak evidence is pushed in a way to make it seem that urgent action is required, when in reality a large number of nutrition scientists (including the Government’s advisory panel) do not think that urgent action is required,” Prof Kuhnle said.
“There is a small group of scientists and publicists who push a narrative of extreme risk, which is not really supported by the evidence – and I don’t think they consider the consequences.
“When people [abandon] diet soft drinks for the “full fat” version because of what they heard about sweeteners, they are at much higher risk of obesity and diabetes.”
Dr Duane Mellor, a dietitian and senior lecturer at Aston University, said the statistical methodology of the study leaves it open to flaws, and “the findings of this analysis might not represent what the real effect actually is”.
“The results reported in this paper could be a significant over- or underestimate of what the true associated link between ultra-processed foods and health might be.”
But Dr Daisy Coyle, a dietician at the George Institute for Global Health in London, said the study “highlights a troubling reality” about the risks of UPFs.
“The statistics are staggering – these foods may double your risk of dying from heart disease or from developing a mental health disorder,” she said.
Recommended
Ultra-processed foods are harming our health – here's everything you need to know
