TL;DR
Get coffee and tea gear delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
A new analysis of nearly 9 million people found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events, cancer, obesity, diabetes, depression, digestive diseases and all-cause mortality. The research shows associations, not causation, and adds to a growing body of evidence on UPFs.
A new analysis involving nearly 9 million people has found that those who consumed more ultra-processed food had higher risks of several chronic health conditions and death from any cause, according to a report by Good Housekeeping’s Nutrition & Fitness Lab. The findings add substantial weight to a growing body of research connecting ultra-processed foods, also known as UPFs, to poor health outcomes — though the study design means it cannot prove the foods directly cause disease.
The analysis examined the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and multiple health outcomes. Compared with people consuming less UPF, those with higher intake had greater risks of cardiovascular events, cancer, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes, depression and anxiety, digestive diseases, and all-cause mortality.
Researchers also looked at how risk changed as UPF intake rose. For each additional 100 grams of ultra-processed food consumed per day, the analysis found an association with a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% higher risk of cancer, and a 3% higher risk of death from any cause.
Despite its size, the study has clear limitations. Researchers observed dietary habits — most of them self-reported — and health outcomes rather than assigning participants to eat different amounts of UPF. As Stefani Sassos, a registered dietitian and director of the Good Housekeeping Institute Nutrition & Fitness Lab, noted, it is not possible to say that eating an additional 100 grams of UPF directly caused a 14% increase in cardiovascular events. Other factors, including exercise, alcohol consumption, overall diet quality and smoking, could also play a role.
Why the Findings Carry Weight
The sheer scale of the analysis — nearly 9 million participants — combined with the fact that it found associations across multiple health outcomes, gives researchers and readers reason to pay attention. Multiple earlier observational studies have already linked higher UPF intake to cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and some cancers, and more recent research found that being more active and eating fewer ultra-processed foods were linked to lower diabetes risk even among people with higher genetic risk.
For readers, the practical takeaway is directional rather than categorical. A diet made up mostly of heavily processed foods is unlikely to be the healthiest, and this analysis reinforces that pattern. But experts caution that ultra-processed food is a massive and varied category: a packaged food is not automatically a poor choice because it falls into the UPF category, nor is a food automatically nutritious because it avoids that label.
The Labeling Battle Around UPFs
The research arrives amid growing consumer confusion about what “ultra-processed” actually means. The U.S. government has not yet issued a formal definition, and the FDA’s definition remains pending. In the meantime, labeling programs are multiplying. California recently passed Assembly Bill 2244, which creates a state-backed Non-UPF Certified program, and the Non-GMO Project launched its own Non-UPF Verified program last year.
That means shoppers may increasingly encounter products marketed as “Non-UPF” or carrying UPF-related certifications. But according to the Good Housekeeping report, a Non-UPF label does not automatically signal the most nutritious choice. Some products may lack the stamp simply because they have not applied for certification, and the label says nothing about whether a food is high in fiber or protein, or low in added sugar and sodium.
“It doesn’t prove that ultra-processed foods cause those diseases, but the findings are compelling, especially given the number of people included.”
— Stefani Sassos, M.S., R.D.N., C.D.N., director of the Good Housekeeping Institute Nutrition & Fitness Lab
What the Study Cannot Prove
The central uncertainty is causation. Because the study was observational — relying on self-reported dietary data and observed health outcomes rather than a controlled trial — the reported risk increases reflect associations only. Confounding factors such as exercise, alcohol use, smoking and overall diet quality were not fully ruled out, so the per-100-gram risk figures should not be read as direct causal effects.
It also remains unclear how the findings apply to individual foods within the broad UPF category, which includes items with very different nutritional profiles. Some foods, like candy and soda, are obviously ultra-processed, while others, such as certain yogurts and cereals, are less clear-cut — a problem compounded by the absence of an official government definition of the term.
Pending Definitions and Dietary Guidance
The FDA’s definition of ultra-processed food is still pending, and its eventual release could reshape how foods are classified and labeled in the United States. California’s state-backed Non-UPF Certified program under Assembly Bill 2244 and the Non-GMO Project’s Non-UPF Verified program are expected to expand consumers’ exposure to UPF-related labeling, even as experts urge caution about treating such labels as health shortcuts.
In the meantime, dietitians recommend focusing on the overall composition of the diet — prioritizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds — rather than judging each packaged item by whether it technically qualifies as a UPF. Further research is expected to continue building on the observational evidence this analysis added to.
Key Questions
Does the study prove ultra-processed foods cause disease?
No. The analysis was observational, using mostly self-reported dietary data, so it shows associations rather than causation. Factors like exercise, alcohol, smoking and overall diet quality could also influence the results.
How much did risk increase in the study?
For each additional 100 grams of ultra-processed food consumed per day, the analysis found an association with a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% higher risk of cancer, and a 3% higher risk of death from any cause — compared with lower intake levels.
Is a food bad just because it is ultra-processed?
Not necessarily. Experts note that the UPF category is broad and includes foods with very different nutritional profiles. A packaged food is not automatically a poor choice because it is classified as a UPF.
Should I trust Non-UPF labels on packaging?
Only as one piece of information. A Non-UPF label does not indicate whether a food is high in fiber or protein, or low in added sugar and sodium, and some products may lack the stamp simply because they have not applied for certification.
Has the U.S. government defined ‘ultra-processed food’?
Not yet. The FDA’s definition is still pending, although California has passed Assembly Bill 2244 creating a state-backed Non-UPF Certified program, and the Non-GMO Project runs a Non-UPF Verified program.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
