As you add more ultraprocessed foods to your diet, your risk of a premature death from any cause rises, according to a new meta-analysis of research involving more than 240,000 people. “We looked at the risk of a person dying from eating more ultraprocessed foods between the ages of 30 and 69, a time when it would be premature to die,” said study coauthor Carlos Augusto Monteiro, emeritus professor of nutrition and public health in the School of Public Health at Brazil’s University of São Paulo. “We found that for each 10% increase in total calories from ultraprocessed foods, the risk of dying prematurely rose by nearly 3%,” said Monteiro, who coined the term “ultraprocessed” in 2009 when he developed NOVA, a system of classifying foods into four groups by their level of processing. Group one of the NOVA system is unprocessed or minimally processed foods in their natural state, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. Group two includes culinary ingredients such as salt, herbs and oils. Group three consists of processed foods that combine groups one and two — canned goods and frozen vegetables are examples. Group four includes ultraprocessed foods. By Monteiro’s definition, ultraprocessed foods contain little to no whole food. Instead, they are manufactured from “chemically manipulated cheap ingredients” and often use “synthetic additives to make them edible, palatable and habit-forming.” “No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products,” Monteiro cowrote in a 2024 editorial in the journal The BMJ. “The body may react to them as useless or harmful, so its systems may become impaired or damaged, depending on their vulnerability and the amount of ultra-processed food consumed.” The new study is misleading and will lead to consumer confusion, said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for the Consumer Brands Association, which represents the food industry. “Demonizing convenient, affordable and shelf ready food and beverage products could limit access to and cause avoidance of nutrient dense foods,” Gallo said in an email, “resulting in decreased diet quality, increased risk of food-borne illness and exacerbated health disparities.” Just a serving a day matters, studies say This study is not the first to find an association between negative health outcomes and small increases in ultraprocessed food. A February 2024 study found “strong” evidence that people who ate more ultraprocessed food had a 50% higher risk of cardiovascular disease-related death and common mental disorders. Higher intake of ultraprocessed foods might also increase the risk of anxiety by up to 53%, obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, development of type 2 diabetes by 40% and the risk of depression or an early death from any cause by 20%. Researchers in the February study defined a higher intake as one serving or about 10% more ultraprocessed foods per day. A May 2024 study found that adding just 10% of ultraprocessed food to an otherwise healthy diet may also increase the risk of cognitive decline and stroke, while 2023 research determined that including 10% more ultraprocessed foods was linked to a greater chance of developing cancers of the upper digestive tract. It’s estimated that as much as 70% of the US food supply is ultraprocessed. “Two-thirds of the calories children consume in the US are ultraprocessed, while about 60% of adult diets are ultraprocessed,” Fang Fang Zhang, associate professor and chair of the division of nutrition epidemiology and data science at Tufts University in Boston, told CNN in an earlier interview. Zhang was not involved in the new research. A global estimate of preventable deaths The latest study, published Monday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, took an additional step by estimating how many deaths might be prevented in eight countries with low, medium and high consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Premature preventable deaths due to the consumption of UPFs can vary from 4% in countries with lower UPF consumption to almost 14% in countries with the highest UPF consumption,” lead study author Eduardo Augusto Fernandes Nilson, a researcher at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, said in a statement. However, it’s important to note that the study was unable to determine if the deaths were “caused by UPF consumption. The methods of this study simply cannot determine this,” said nutrition scientist Nerys Astbury, an associate professor of diet and obesity at the UK’s University of Oxford, in a statement. He was not involved in the study. The United States has the highest level of ultraprocessed food consumption in the world — nearly 55% of the average American’s diet, according to the study. Researchers estimated reducing the use of those ultraprocessed foods to zero would have prevented over 124,000 deaths in the US in 2017. In countries where consumption of ultraprocessed foods is low, such as Colombia (15% of the diet) and Brazil (17.4%), reducing the use to zero would have prevented nearly 3,000 deaths in the former country in 2015 and 25,000 deaths in the latter in 2017, according to the study. “The authors set the theoretical minimal risk level to be 0. This implies a scenario where all UPFs are eliminated, which is highly unrealistic and nearly impossible in our current society,” Zhang said in an email. “As a result, the estimated burden of pre-mature death due to UPFs could be overestimated.” Stephen Burgess, a statistician in the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the UK’s University of Cambridge, said that while the study cannot prove the consumption of ultraprocessed foods is harmful, “it does provide evidence linking consumption with poorer health outcomes.” “It is possible that the true causal risk factor is not ultraprocessed foods, but a related risk factor such as better physical fitness — and ultraprocessed foods is simply an innocent bystander,” said Burgess, who was not involved in the study, in a statement. “But, when we see these associations replicated across many countries and cultures, it raises suspicion that ultraprocessed foods may be more than a bystander.”
Eating more ultraprocessed food ups the risk of premature death, study finds
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Study Links Increased Ultraprocessed Food Consumption to Higher Risk of Premature Death"
CNN
7.0
TruthLens AI Summary
A recent meta-analysis has revealed a concerning link between the consumption of ultraprocessed foods and an increased risk of premature death. The study involved over 240,000 participants and indicated that for every 10% increase in calories derived from ultraprocessed foods, the risk of dying prematurely rises by nearly 3%. Carlos Augusto Monteiro, a coauthor of the study and a prominent figure in nutrition research, defined ultraprocessed foods as those manufactured from chemically manipulated ingredients and synthetic additives, which often lack whole food components. The findings of the study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, highlight significant health risks associated with diets high in ultraprocessed foods, including an increased likelihood of cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, and other health issues. Notably, it is estimated that ultraprocessed foods comprise about 70% of the U.S. food supply, with children and adults consuming alarming proportions of these products in their diets.
The implications of the study extend beyond individual health, as researchers also assessed potential preventable deaths in various countries based on their levels of ultraprocessed food consumption. They estimated that as many as 124,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2017 could have been prevented if ultraprocessed foods were eliminated from diets entirely. However, critics of the study, including nutrition scientists, caution against drawing definitive conclusions about causation due to the study's limitations. They argue that while there is a strong association between ultraprocessed food intake and health risks, other factors, such as overall lifestyle and physical fitness, could also play significant roles. The findings underscore the need for greater awareness of dietary choices and their implications for public health, prompting discussions about nutritional quality and access to healthier food options across different populations.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents findings from a meta-analysis indicating that increased consumption of ultraprocessed foods correlates with a higher risk of premature death. This study, involving over 240,000 participants, provides a significant insight into dietary impacts on health. The co-author, Carlos Augusto Monteiro, emphasizes the dangers of ultraprocessed foods, which are typically devoid of whole food components and are manufactured with synthetic additives. The language used in the article implies a strong stance against ultraprocessed foods, raising questions about public perception and potential bias.
Purpose of the Publication
The study aims to inform the public about the health risks associated with ultraprocessed foods, potentially encouraging healthier dietary choices. By highlighting the link between these foods and premature death, the intention may be to advocate for a more nutritious diet and raise awareness about food quality.
Public Perception
The article seeks to create a sense of urgency regarding dietary choices among readers. It portrays ultraprocessed foods negatively, potentially influencing public opinion to view them as harmful. This could lead to increased scrutiny of food manufacturers and encourage consumers to demand healthier options.
Information Omission
While the article provides compelling statistics, it may downplay other factors that contribute to health risks, such as lifestyle choices and socioeconomic factors. This selective focus could mislead readers into attributing health issues solely to ultraprocessed food consumption, without considering a broader context.
Manipulative Elements
The article employs a strong narrative against ultraprocessed foods, which may evoke emotional responses from readers. By framing these foods in a negative light, it could be perceived as manipulative, aiming to instill fear about dietary choices. The choice of words, such as “demonizing,” suggests a potential bias against food industry practices.
Trustworthiness of the Information
The findings are based on a large sample size and appear to be grounded in scientific research, enhancing their credibility. However, the framing of the narrative, particularly the negative portrayal of ultraprocessed foods, raises questions about objectivity. While the data presented is likely valid, the implications drawn may reflect a particular agenda.
Comparative Analysis
This article aligns with a growing trend in media focusing on health and diet, especially concerning ultraprocessed foods. It may be part of a larger discourse advocating for public health reforms and healthier eating habits, similar to other recent studies emphasizing the dangers of processed foods.
Potential Societal Impact
The implications of this research could lead to increased consumer demand for whole foods and a shift in dietary habits. It may also influence policymakers to consider regulations on food labeling and advertising practices related to ultraprocessed products.
Target Demographics
This narrative is likely to resonate more with health-conscious individuals and communities advocating for nutritional awareness. It may also appeal to parents concerned about their children's diets and overall well-being.
Market Implications
The article could have repercussions on stocks related to food manufacturing, particularly those heavily invested in ultraprocessed products. Investors may reassess the viability of companies that do not adapt to the growing demand for healthier food options.
Geopolitical Context
While the article primarily focuses on individual health, it touches on broader themes of public health that can influence global health policies. The discussion around food quality and health has implications for international trade, especially concerning food exports and imports that prioritize nutrition.
Potential AI Usage
There is a possibility that AI tools were employed in drafting or editing the article to ensure clarity and conciseness. Models like GPT could help in structuring the narrative to emphasize certain points, potentially guiding the reader's perception. The analytical framing could have been influenced by AI algorithms designed to highlight public health issues.
Conclusion
In summary, the article presents a scientifically backed yet potentially biased view on ultraprocessed foods, aiming to influence public health perceptions and dietary choices. While the data is credible, the framing and language may suggest manipulation to advocate for a specific agenda.