A new global study has linked common foods to a higher risk of early death – and they may be responsible for 18,000 deaths a year
The modern diet relies heavily on fast food, snacks, and sugary treats. In fact, studies have shown that these ultra-processed foods make up more than half of people's energy intake in the UK – among the highest levels in Europe.
But ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been increasingly linked to poor health in recent years, including an heightened risk of obesity, heart disease, and cancers.
Now, scientists believe there is a relationship between people eating UPFs and an increased risk of early death.
What are ultra-processed foods?
There is no strict definition of UPFs but examples include sweets, sugary drinks, biscuits, ice cream, and crisps. Common household items such as breakfast cereals and mass-produced bread are also considered to be ultra-processed.
UPFs often contain high levels of saturated fat, salt, sugar and additives like preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours, which experts warn are not used when people cook from scratch and leave less room in diets for more nutritious foods.
An alarming number of studies have shown that diets rich in UPFs can significantly harm our health, with one study even suggesting these foods could weaken the immune system and fuel dangerous inflammation in just two weeks.
A recent study revealed that common ingredients in UPFs, like sweeteners, preservatives and emulsifiers, could interact with each other and increase the risk of developing diabetes.
Other studies also suggest they could be causing harm in children and young people, with research linking UPF consumption to lower grades at school, as well as evidence to suggest they could be impacting our dental health, causing an "epidemic of jaw shrinkage".
What did the new ultra-processed foods study find?
A diet rich in UPFs has been linked to 32 different diseases, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, cancers, and depression.
For the first time, researchers have now estimated the number of early deaths caused by UPFs across the globe, highlighting that "policies that disincentivise the consumption of UPFs are urgently needed globally."
The study looked at data from eight countries – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, United Kingdom, and United States – and found that thousands of early deaths are linked to UPFs.
The research found UPFs reached 53 per cent of people’s energy intake in the UK – the second highest in the study after 55 per cent in the US. Early deaths attributable to UPFs ranged from 4 per cent in lower consumption settings, such as Colombia, up to 14 per cent of premature deaths in the UK and US.
Eduardo Nilson, lead investigator of the study, said the study found "each 10 per cent increase in the participation of UPFs in the diet increases the risk of death from all causes by three per cent".
The researchers suggested that 17,781 premature deaths in the UK could have been linked to UPFs in 2018/19, according to their model.
Dr Nilson, from the scientific body the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil, said: "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."
Dr Nilson also said it is "concerning" that UPF consumption is increasing in low and middle-income countries, calling on governments to issue dietary recommendations aimed at cutting consumption of UPFs.
However, experts not involved in the study have noted that the study was observational, meaning it can only highlight an association between UPFs and early death and not a cause.
"This type of research cannot prove that consumption of ultra-processed foods is harmful, but it does provide evidence linking consumption with poorer health outcomes," said Stephen Burgess, statistician in the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge.
Burgess added: "It is possible that the true causal risk factor is not ultra-processed foods, but a related risk factor such as better physical fitness – and ultra-processed foods is simply an innocent bystander.
"But when we see these associations replicated across many countries and cultures, it raises suspicion that ultra-processed foods may be more than a bystander."
Responding to the study, a spokesperson from the Food and Drink Federation, a membership organisation that represents and advises UK food and drink manufacturers, 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 irresponsible and 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 yoghurt, 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. It is irresponsible to state these ingredients are a risk to health."