Ultra-Processed Foods Are Back in the Headlines — A Registered Nutritionist Responds
Are Ultra-Processed Foods Driving Early Deaths? Here’s What the Science (and I) Think
There’s a new study doing the rounds, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, and it’s grabbing headlines for suggesting that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) may be responsible for over 10% of premature deaths in adults aged 30–69 across eight countries.
Yes, that’s a big claim. And yes, it deserves attention. But as someone who works in nutrition and public health, I want to offer a more balanced view — not just about what this study found, but about what it didn’t.
A Quick Summary of the Study
The researchers used modelling to estimate what would happen if people ate fewer UPFs. They looked at dietary data and death rates across countries, including the UK, US, Brazil, Australia, and more. The headline takeaway? If people cut back on UPFs, a significant number of premature deaths could be avoided.
It’s a striking stat. But this is still a modelling study based on observational data, which means we’re not looking at proof of cause and effect. The associations are strong, but they’re still associations.
So... Should We Legislate?
The authors of the paper suggest that UPFs should be a target for public policy, that we need to start regulating.
Maybe we will decide to do that one day. But before jumping the gun, we need to ask a few big questions:
What exactly is problematic about these foods?
Is it their composition? Their level of processing? The additives? The way we eat them — quickly, mindlessly, in large portions?
Are all UPFs an issue, or just some?
Could policies targeting UPFs have unintended consequences, like confusing the public, raising food prices, disrupting supply chains, or losing out on fortified foods?
We’ve been here before with nutritional policy. It’s easy to create black-and-white messages, but food — and how people eat it — lives in the grey.
What Experts Are Saying
Prof. Kevin McConway pointed out something I completely agree with — that the study’s conclusions need to be interpreted carefully. There’s a tendency in media and even in scientific language to talk about correlations as if they’re causal.
Prof. Nita Forouhi added that while the study has limitations, it does contribute to the growing body of evidence that diets high in UPFs are unlikely to be healthful. I think that’s fair — we’re seeing this link repeated across multiple types of studies and populations.
What We’re Still Missing
As often happens in the media cycle, we fixate on the latest headline-grabbing study. But only a couple of weeks ago, the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) released their second report on UPFs. And their conclusion was clear:
“The association between higher consumption of (ultra) processed foods and adverse health outcomes is concerning. However, limitations in the available evidence meant that it was unclear whether these foods are inherently unhealthy.[...] Further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn and policy actions considered."
That’s an important reminder. We’re dealing with a complex set of variables — not just in what we eat, but in how we live, what we can afford, how food is marketed, and what’s available in our environments.
That Doesn’t Mean We Should Sit Back
Although legislation may be premature, it doesn’t mean we should just sit back and nibble on a box of popcorn (shop-bought or homemade).
There’s plenty we can and should be doing:
Support researchers who are digging deeper into what makes UPFs harmful.
Encourage diets rich in fibre, colour, whole plants, and healthy fats — while keeping alcohol in check.
Advocate for food systems and urban design that make the healthy choice the easy choice.
My Final Thoughts
Ultra-processed foods are likely contributing to poor health outcomes; that’s not up for debate anymore. But what do we do about that fact? That needs to be grounded in good science, thoughtful policy, and an understanding of real-world consequences.
Let’s not jump into blunt legislation just because a headline said “10% of early deaths.” Instead, let’s keep asking the right questions, pushing for better data, and creating healthier environments for everyone, not just those who already have the privilege of choice.
Clémence Cleave (MSc, RNutr) is an advisory board member of foodfacts.org, a UK non-profit fighting food and nutrition misinformation. Clémence is also an award-winning registered nutritionist, published author, trained chef, lecturer, and public speaker on food, nutrition, and public health matters.
She works with individuals, groups, and organisations, empowering people to improve their health and holistic wellbeing.
References + Further Reading
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you, Unfork, for featuring me!