Study alleges ultra-processed foods link to risk of premature death

A study has been released by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that has compiled evidence from eight studies from around the world with the aim of estimating the risk of ‘all-cause mortality’ linked to consumption of so-called ultra-processed foods (UPF).

Defining UPFs

There is no universally agreed definition of ultra-processed foods, but the report’s authors and various bodies, including the Food Standards Agency (FSA), refer to the NOVA classification for reference, which lists foods that contain “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by a series of industrial techniques and processes”.

UPFs are commonly said to be foods that contain ingredients you might not find in your kitchen at home. Examples include sweetened breakfast cereals, confectionary, crisps, supermarket breads and ready meals.

The American Journal of Preventive Medicine study analysed observational cohort studies from eight countries (Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Australia, Canada, the UK and the US) to assess the association between UPF consumption and all-cause mortality. The report notes that UPFs are becoming dominant in the global food supply and “already account for over half of the average daily energy content of the diets in many high-income countries”.

Of the countries in the report, the US (54.5%) and the UK (53.4%) have the highest UPF intake, with Columbia (15%) and Brazil (17.4%) the lowest.

The study claims that it found a “linear dose-response association between the ultra-processed food consumption and all-cause mortality” and concluded that food intake “contributes significantly to the overall burden of disease in many countries and should be included in national dietary guideline recommendations”.

However, it also noted: “A major limitation of assessing individual nutrients and specific foods is that possible synergies between them and their impacts on population health are not incorporated in the analyses. In addition, epidemiologic studies assessing the association between specific foods and nutrients on health outcomes are prone to residual confounding by other constituents of diet.”

Government guidelines

The latest review of evidence by the Government’s Scientific Advisory on Nutrition (SACN), published on 2nd April 2025, concluded that there are significant limitations in the evidence base on processed foods and health. SACN states: “It remains unclear to what extent observed associations between UPFs and adverse health outcomes are explained by established relationships between nutritional factors and health outcomes on which SACN has undertaken risk assessments.”

“The term ‘ultra-processed foods’ is confusing for consumers.”

FDF spokesperson

With reference to the study, a spokesperson from The Food & Drink Federation (FDF) said: “When it comes to the food we eat we must be guided by the science and led by independent expert bodies. To date, those bodies have said that there’s insufficient scientific evidence on the concept of ‘Ultra-Processed Foods’ and so it shouldn’t be used to inform dietary guidance or policy making. They have also said there isn’t strong evidence to show a link between food processing and poor health.

“We believe that the term ‘ultra-processed foods’ is confusing for consumers. It goes against Government’s healthy eating guidelines and demonises a wide variety of foods that can help people achieve a healthy balanced diet, such as yogurt, pasta sauces or bread. Similarly, all additives that are used by food manufacturers are approved by the Food Standards Agency, who have robust processes in place to ensure that these are safe for us to eat and drink.”

British Meat Processors Association (MPA) sustainability manager Lucas Daglish comments: ”We share the concerns raised in the study about the health impacts of ultra-processed foods and would support Government interventions to steer people to more fresh, healthy options. But the big question is how unhealthy foods get defined.

“Given the criticisms that have been levelled at the existing NOVA system, which just looks at the extent of processing and the number, and type of ingredients while ignoring nutritional value, it seems logical that a new system of food classification or a review and update of the existing system is needed. This should take into account nutritional content, chemical and physical components of foods and how they’re digested and metabolised.

“We must ensure that the fresh, minimally processed meat our members produce doesn’t get wrongly classified as a result of the many flawed scientific studies currently circulating that we’ve highlighted in the past. Any change to dietary advice must acknowledge the key part that fresh meat plays in a healthy balanced diet along with other fresh whole foods. Importantly, any push to improve British people’s diets must also be backed up with support for our domestic farming industry to ensure a ready supply of accessible, healthy whole foods.”

Future concerns

It is not possible to definitively prove the impact that UPFs have on premature deaths as the studies cannot take into account the effect of overall diet, exercise and lifestyle factors. However, as UPFs continue to make up a significant portion of diets around the world, their impact will be something for future observation.

Tony Goodger, head of marketing and communications at AIMS commented: “The report’s key conclusion, namely, ‘that adherence to ultra-processed dietary pattern represents a relevant public health concern in middle- and high-income countries’ could be seen as yet another health emergency that we humans are inflicting on ourselves.

“With easy 24/7 access to food coupled with a perception that we are time-poor and therefore convenience is the key to efficient living suggests to me that we are in danger of forgetting the pleasure and importance of eating good food.

“I hope that the debate around UPF is a wake-up call to all policy makers and that lower income countries see the impact that poor dietary choices could have on future national economic prosperity.”