A new global study reveals that consuming ultra-processed foods significantly increases the risk of premature death, with researchers estimating these foods may cause up to 124,000 early deaths annually in the United States alone.
At a Glance
- Ultra-processed foods are linked to a 3% higher risk of premature death for every 10% increase in calorie intake from these products
- Up to 14% of premature deaths in countries like the US and UK could be attributed to ultra-processed food consumption
- Ultra-processed foods make up approximately 70% of the US food supply and over half of calorie intake in Western diets
- Health risks from ultra-processed foods extend beyond their high sugar, salt, and fat content to include potential harm from additives, preservatives, and industrial processing methods
- Experts recommend an 85/15 approach: 85% whole, minimally processed foods and no more than 15% ultra-processed foods
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods and Why Are They Concerning?
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become a dominant part of modern diets, making up approximately 70% of the food supply in the United States and more than half of the caloric intake in countries like the UK. These products are defined by the NOVA classification system, which categorizes foods based on the extent and purpose of processing. UPFs aren’t simply processed foods like canned beans or frozen vegetables—they represent the most heavily industrialized food products that bear little resemblance to their original ingredients.
“These are foods that definitely don’t exist in nature by themselves,” explains Scott Keatley, R.D., of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy. UPFs typically contain artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and various additives designed to enhance taste, appearance, and shelf life. Common examples include packaged snacks, breakfast cereals, ready-to-eat meals, soft drinks, sugary desserts, and reconstituted meat products like chicken nuggets or hot dogs.
What distinguishes UPFs from other foods is not just their ingredient list but the industrial processes used to create them. These foods undergo extensive transformation using techniques not typically used in home cooking. The result is products that are hyper-palatable, convenient, and shelf-stable—but nutritionally compromised.
“Ultra-processed foods are engineered for shelf stability and hyper-palatability, not nutritional integrity,” notes Keatley. This fundamental difference in manufacturing purpose explains why health experts have grown increasingly concerned about their potential impact on public health as their consumption continues to rise globally.
The Groundbreaking International Study
Published on April 28, 2025, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, a comprehensive international study has shed new light on the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and premature death. Researchers analyzed data from more than 240,000 individuals across eight countries, making it one of the largest and most diverse investigations into this topic to date.
The findings revealed a consistent pattern: for every 10% increase in caloric intake from ultra-processed foods, there was a corresponding 3% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality. “We first estimated a linear association between the dietary share of UPFs and all-cause mortality, so that each 10% increase in the participation of UPFs in the diet increases the risk of death from all causes by 3%,” explains Dr. Eduardo Nilson of the Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health at the University of São Paulo, who led the study.
Perhaps most alarming was the estimation that up to 14% of premature deaths (defined as deaths before age 70) in countries with high UPF consumption like the United States and United Kingdom could be attributed to these foods. In concrete numbers, the researchers calculated that approximately 124,107 premature deaths in the US and 17,781 in England annually could be linked to ultra-processed food consumption.
What makes this study particularly compelling is its consistency across different populations and consumption levels. “The authors showed that regardless of the general consumption levels, there were consistently higher mortality levels among the subset of the population within each of those countries who consumed the most vs. the least UPF,” notes Christopher Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University.
I'm often asked why more young people- like people under 50- are getting cancer. Some thoughts below breaking down a complex scientific issue….
Cancer is one of the main causes of illness and death across the world. Each year, there are 20 million new cancer cases and around…
— Prof. Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) December 18, 2024
How Ultra-Processed Foods May Harm Health
The mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may contribute to premature death are multiple and complex. Traditional nutritional concerns about excessive sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats only tell part of the story. Emerging research suggests that the very nature of industrial food processing and the additives used may independently impact health.
“UPFs affect health beyond the individual impact of high content of critical nutrients – sodium, trans fats, and sugar – because of the changes in the foods during industrial processing and the use of artificial ingredients, including colorants, artificial flavors and sweeteners, emulsifiers, and many other additives and processing aids, so assessing deaths from all causes associated with UPF consumption allows an overall estimate of the effect of industrial food processing on health,” explains Eduardo Augusto Fernandes Nilson, the study’s lead author.
Regular consumption of ultra-processed foods has been associated with numerous health risks, including insulin resistance, increased visceral fat, chronic inflammation, and obesity. Research has linked UPFs to at least 32 adverse physical and mental health outcomes, ranging from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes to depression and various cancers.
The food matrix — how nutrients are structured within foods — is significantly altered during ultra-processing. This transformation may affect how our bodies metabolize these foods, potentially leading to faster digestion, blood sugar spikes, and altered gut microbiome composition. Additionally, packaging materials used for many UPFs may leach chemicals with potential endocrine-disrupting properties.
Important Limitations and Challenges
Despite the concerning findings, several experts caution against overstating the conclusions or misinterpreting the nature of the evidence. The study, while comprehensive, has important limitations that should be considered when evaluating its implications.
“I’d be pretty cautious about the details and specific numerical estimates in this paper, for reasons I’ll explain. Also, some of the terminology in the paper and the press release appears, in my opinion, much more definite about what’s causing what than the evidence in the paper merits. That’s partly because some of the technical wording, even though it’s standard in this kind of research, doesn’t mean quite the same as it means in ordinary English,” warns Professor Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics at The Open University.
The most significant limitation is that this research, like most nutritional studies, is observational rather than interventional. This means it can identify correlations but cannot definitively prove that ultra-processed foods cause premature death. Dr. Stephen Burgess from the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge explains, “This study assesses observational associations rather than interventions, and so it is not able to make reliable causal claims. That is to say, it shows that individuals who consume higher levels of ultraprocessed foods have greater risk of premature mortality, rather than showing that increasing your consumption of ultraprocessed foods would increase your mortality risk.”
The NOVA classification system itself has limitations and has been criticized for potentially causing consumer confusion. Some critics, including the Food and Drink Federation, argue that the term “ultra-processed food” unfairly demonizes a variety of foods that can be part of a balanced diet. There are ongoing debates about whether processing itself or the nutritional composition of these foods is more problematic for health.
Practical Recommendations for Consumers
Despite the limitations of the research, most health experts agree that reducing ultra-processed food consumption is a prudent approach. Nutritionists suggest an 85/15 guideline: aim for 85% of your diet to consist of whole, minimally processed foods, while allowing up to 15% for more processed options, including some UPFs.
“It’s not inherently that the foods are a one-way ticket to early death,” explains Jessica Cording, R.D., a dietitian and health coach. “It’s more so the fact that if you’re having a lot of them in your diet, you’re crowding out nutrients that your body does need to function optimally.”
For consumers looking to reduce their UPF intake, practical strategies include:
1. Gradually replace ultra-processed foods with minimally processed alternatives like whole grains, fresh fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, nuts, and dairy.
2. Learn to read food labels and ingredient lists. Generally, shorter lists with recognizable ingredients indicate less processing.
3. Cook more meals at home where you can control ingredients and processing methods.
4. Plan meals ahead to avoid relying on convenient UPFs when hungry or time-constrained.
5. Be mindful of beverages, as sugar-sweetened drinks are a major source of ultra-processing in many diets.
The Need for Policy-Level Interventions
The researchers behind the study emphasize that addressing ultra-processed food consumption requires more than individual action. Given the ubiquity of these products and the powerful marketing forces promoting them, policy-level interventions may be necessary to create healthier food environments.
“The consumption of UPFs contribute quite significantly to an increased risk of death (and disease) and that we should all work harder (and encourage greater regulation) to reduce the consumption of UPFs both in our own lives and in the food systems as well,” argues Dana Hunnes, senior clinical dietitian at the UCLA Medical Center.
The study authors call for governments to update dietary guidelines specifically addressing ultra-processed foods and implementing regulatory and fiscal policies to limit their consumption. These could include restricting marketing of UPFs, particularly to children, limiting sales in schools and workplaces, and implementing taxes on ultra-processed products while subsidizing healthier alternatives.
Some countries have already begun taking action. The United Kingdom, for instance, has implemented measures to limit junk food advertising to children and empowered local authorities to block new fast-food outlets near schools. Brazil’s dietary guidelines explicitly recommend limiting ultra-processed food consumption. However, coordinated global action remains elusive as the burden of diet-related diseases continues to grow, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where ultra-processed food consumption is rapidly increasing.
As researchers continue to investigate the complex relationship between food processing and health, the evidence increasingly suggests that our modern, industrialized food supply may be contributing significantly to premature mortality. While the precise mechanisms and extent of harm remain subjects of ongoing research, the precautionary principle suggests that reducing ultra-processed food consumption — both individually and through policy interventions — could yield substantial public health benefits.
