A growing body of research is sounding the alarm about ultraprocessed foods—those convenient, packaged, and shelf-stable items that dominate modern diets. A new meta-analysis examining over 240,000 people suggests that even a modest increase in these foods could raise the risk of premature death. As scientists uncover more about the health consequences of industrially engineered diets, questions about food policy, public awareness, and global nutrition inequities come into sharper focus.
A growing risk on our plates
Ultraprocessed foods—often recognizable as packaged snacks, sodas, frozen meals, and mass-produced baked goods—may be more harmful than previously thought. According to a new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, every 10% increase in calories from ultraprocessed foods is associated with a nearly 3% rise in the risk of premature death between the ages of 30 and 69.
The research, which reviewed health data from over 240,000 adults across multiple countries, is part of a mounting body of evidence that links these industrially altered foods with serious long-term health consequences. Study coauthor Carlos Augusto Monteiro, who developed the NOVA classification system for food processing, warned that ultraprocessed foods “contain little to no whole food” and are designed to be hyper-palatable, addictive, and nutritionally poor.
Monteiro, a professor emeritus at Brazil’s University of São Paulo, coined the term “ultraprocessed” in 2009. Under his NOVA system, these foods fall into the fourth and most altered category—far removed from natural or minimally processed items like vegetables, fruits, meats, and eggs. “No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products,” Monteiro wrote in a 2024 BMJ editorial, arguing that such foods may damage bodily systems depending on exposure and individual vulnerability.
Just one serving can matter
Alarmingly, researchers say the impact of ultraprocessed food can be felt with relatively small increases. A February 2024 study showed that just one additional daily serving was associated with a 50% higher risk of cardiovascular disease-related death, along with elevated risks for anxiety, sleep disorders, obesity, depression, and type 2 diabetes.
Even those following otherwise healthy diets may not be immune. A May 2024 paper found that adding 10% more ultraprocessed foods to a balanced diet increased the risk of cognitive decline and stroke. And in 2023, another study linked that same level of increase to a higher chance of developing cancers of the upper digestive tract.
Currently, it’s estimated that around 70% of the U.S. food supply is ultraprocessed. Fang Fang Zhang, a nutrition epidemiologist at Tufts University, notes that roughly 60% of adult calorie intake in the U.S. comes from ultraprocessed foods. For children, the figure rises to two-thirds. These numbers highlight just how embedded these products are in daily diets—not just in the U.S., but increasingly worldwide.
A global burden of preventable deaths
One of the most eye-opening elements of the new study was its global modeling of premature deaths linked to ultraprocessed food consumption. Using data from eight countries with varying consumption patterns, researchers estimated that up to 14% of premature deaths could be linked to ultraprocessed diets in countries with high consumption rates.
In the United States—where nearly 55% of daily calories come from these foods—eliminating ultraprocessed items entirely could have prevented over 124,000 deaths in 2017, according to the study’s authors. In Brazil and Colombia, where ultraprocessed foods make up 17.4% and 15% of diets respectively, the death toll was lower but still significant: an estimated 25,000 and 3,000 lives, respectively, could have been saved.
However, not all experts are convinced by the strength of these projections. Nutrition scientist Nerys Astbury from the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that the study’s methods “cannot determine causation.” And Fang Fang Zhang points out that the study assumes an ideal scenario where ultraprocessed food consumption drops to zero—an unlikely and arguably unrealistic goal in most societies.
Industry pushback and public confusion
The food industry has pushed back against the study’s conclusions, arguing that not all ultraprocessed foods are nutritionally void. Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association, warned that “demonizing convenient, affordable and shelf-ready food” could reduce access to essential nutrients and exacerbate food insecurity.
Indeed, affordability and convenience are among the key drivers of ultraprocessed food consumption—especially in lower-income communities. For many people, these products are not just easy choices; they are sometimes the only choice due to cost, time constraints, or lack of access to fresh food.
Stephen Burgess, a statistician from the University of Cambridge, offers a more measured take: “It is possible that the true causal risk factor is not ultraprocessed foods, but a related risk factor such as poor physical fitness.” Still, he adds, “When we see these associations replicated across many countries and cultures, it raises suspicion that ultraprocessed foods may be more than a bystander.”
What now?
While debates over causation continue, many researchers agree that the overwhelming presence of ultraprocessed foods in modern diets warrants urgent public health attention. Governments and health organizations may need to rethink food labeling, marketing practices, and subsidies that currently favor these products.
For consumers, the message is becoming clearer: even modest reductions in ultraprocessed food intake may yield meaningful health benefits. Prioritizing whole foods, cooking at home when possible, and reading nutrition labels carefully are all steps toward reducing reliance on factory-made convenience meals.
More importantly, addressing this issue may require systemic change. “It’s not enough to tell people to eat better,” says Zhang. “We have to make it easier, more affordable, and more accessible to do so.”
