The case against ultra-processed food keeps growing, though defining it is harder

Key takeaways

• A November 2025 Lancet series found that 92 of 104 long-term studies tied ultra-processed eating to higher risk of chronic disease or early death, according to a European Medical Journal summary².
• A 2024 BMJ review found links to 32 health outcomes, yet not one of its pooled results earned a “high” certainty rating³.
• A 2024 analysis of two U.S. studies that followed more than 114,000 nurses and other health professionals for about three decades found about 4% higher risk of death overall, with processed meats and sweetened drinks carrying the most weight⁴.
• As of mid-October 2026, the FDA’s proposed definition of ultra-processed food is a white paper still under White House review, not a binding rule¹¹¹².
• If you want to cut back, start with sugary drinks and processed meats, and worry least about whole-grain breads and cereals⁴⁸.

In a hospital unit in Bethesda, Maryland, about three dozen volunteers each spent 28 days eating only what National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers served them¹. Each was paid $5,000. One volunteer described spending a full day each week inside a metabolic chamber, a sealed room that measures how many calories the body burns¹.

NIH nutrition scientist Kevin Hall led the study, which pitted ultra-processed menus against minimally processed meals¹. One version of the ultra-processed menu was packed with calories in every bite and built from hard-to-resist flavor combinations. On it, the first 18 volunteers took in roughly 1,000 more calories a day than they did on minimally processed meals¹.

Then the team dialed those two features down. Intake fell, even though more than 80% of the calories still came from ultra-processed food¹. Speaking at a scientific meeting, Hall said the early data hint that you “can almost normalize” how much people eat¹.

Those results still needed peer review when the Associated Press reported them in March 2025¹. But they capture where the science stands. Researchers broadly agree that diets heavy in ultra-processed food track with worse health. They still argue about why, about what belongs in the category and about what government should do.

This article covers that evidence, the definition fight and U.S. policy as of October 2026. Our companion guide to whole versus processed foods explains the four processing groups and the kinds of processing worth keeping.

Most long-term studies point the same way

In November 2025, The Lancet published a three-paper series on ultra-processed foods. According to a summary in the European Medical Journal, the series reviewed 104 long-term studies, and 92 of them linked heavier ultra-processed eating to higher risk of chronic disease or early death².

A 2024 umbrella review in The BMJ, which pools earlier meta-analyses, gives a closer look³. It found direct links between more ultra-processed food and 32 health outcomes, about 71% of those it examined³. Its top “convincing” grade went to a few outcomes, including deaths from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, which our article on living naturally covers³.

The next tier, rated “highly suggestive,” gets less attention. In it, greater ultra-processed intake was tied to a 21% higher risk of dying from any cause during the studies and 55% higher odds of obesity³. Sleep problems, wheezing and depression also made this tier³. Most cancer links were weak³.

Now the catch. The review also graded certainty with GRADE, a standard system for judging how much confidence evidence deserves. Not one result rated high: 4 rated moderate, 22 low and 19 very low³.

Why so low? Nearly all of this research is observational. It watches what people eat and what happens to them, rather than assigning diets by chance. People who eat the most ultra-processed food can differ from others in many ways, and Britain’s nutrition advisers judged that studies probably haven’t fully accounted for those differences⁸.

The risk depends on which ultra-processed food you mean

A U.S. study published in 2024 followed 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals for roughly three decades⁴. Reported in The BMJ, it found that people in the top quarter of ultra-processed eating had about a 4% higher risk of death than those in the bottom quarter⁴.

That’s a much smaller number than the figures above, and the details matter more than the total. Ready-to-eat meat, poultry and seafood products, such as processed meats, showed the strongest link, with 13% higher risk⁴. Drinks sweetened with sugar or with artificial sweeteners came next at 9%, then dairy-based desserts at 7%⁴.

The researchers left whole-grain products out of their main ultra-processed count⁴. When they put them back in, the links weakened⁴. The authors warned against treating every ultra-processed product as off-limits⁴. One surprise: dark chocolate was tied to lower risk⁴.

Britain’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) saw a similar pattern in April 2025. Meat products and sweetened drinks tracked with higher risk, while results for breads, cereals, savory snacks and dairy were mixed⁸.

Something in the design makes overeating easy

Observational studies can’t prove cause. Controlled feeding trials can, at least over short periods. Hall’s 2019 inpatient trial, covered in our article on industrialization, found that people ate more on an ultra-processed diet than on a minimally processed one matched for nutrients⁵.

Since then, small trials have probed why. A 2026 commentary by Hayley O’Neill of Bond University in Australia summarized several: softer textures, less chewing and faster eating all pushed intake up⁵. Adding protein to ultra-processed meals curbed overeating only a little⁵. O’Neill argues that processing and nutrient quality should be judged together⁵.

Hall’s newer trial leans on a concept called hyper-palatability. In 2019, Tera Fazzino of the University of Kansas and colleagues gave it a number-based definition built on three combinations⁶:

• Fat and sodium: more than 25% of calories from fat, with at least 0.30% sodium by weight.
• Fat and sugar: more than 20% of calories each from fat and from simple sugars.
• Carbohydrates and sodium: more than 40% of calories from carbohydrates, with at least 0.20% sodium by weight.

Run against a U.S. Department of Agriculture food database, those cutoffs flagged 4,795 of 7,757 items, or 62%⁶. The list even caught some products sold as reduced-fat or low-fat, along with vegetable dishes made with cream, sauce or added fat⁶.

Hyper-palatable and ultra-processed overlap, but they aren’t the same thing. Vegetables in a cream sauce, a dish many people cook at home, can meet the cutoffs⁶. Processing and palatability are two different lenses on the same plate.

Scientists still argue about what counts

NOVA, the scale behind most of this research, sorts foods by the extent and purpose of their processing⁵. Its fourth group, ultra-processed foods, lumps together products as different as plant-based meat substitutes and candy⁵. Critics say that mix invites misclassification, especially when diet surveys lack full ingredient lists⁵.

A 2022 test in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition put NOVA to work. French food and nutrition specialists, 159 for one list and 177 for another, sorted 231 foods into NOVA groups⁷. Their agreement scored 0.32 with ingredient lists and 0.34 without, on a scale where 1 means perfect agreement and 0 means no better than chance⁷. The authors concluded that NOVA’s criteria can’t yet pin down which foods are ultra-processed⁷.

The British committee raised related doubts. SACN called the links between ultra-processed food and poor health consistent and concerning⁸. But it said it remains unclear how much of the link is explained by nutrition factors it has already studied, such as calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar, rather than processing itself⁸. It also noted that heavy ultra-processed eating partly reflects a less healthy diet overall⁸.

SACN kept its existing advice. It urged the British government to make companies publish their processing data and to track how much of individual additives, such as emulsifiers and non-sugar sweeteners, people consume⁸. It said it would consider the topic again in 2026⁸.

Apply the same skepticism in both directions. NOVA’s creator, Carlos Monteiro, helped write the Lancet series, which acknowledged that valid scientific criticisms of NOVA exist⁹. The series also documented the industry’s reach. About 3,800 research articles from 2008 to 2023 had ultra-processed food industry funding or interests, and Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Mondelez spent a combined $13.2 billion on advertising in 2024⁹.

Where U.S. policy stands in October 2026

In July 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture asked the public for information to help build a single federal definition¹⁰. The comment period, extended once, closed Oct. 23, 2025¹⁰. The FDA’s page cites an outside estimate that about 70% of the U.S. food supply is made up of foods commonly considered ultra-processed¹⁰.

Two months before that request, in May 2025, a report from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission named ultra-processed food a key contributor to children’s chronic illness¹³. Reporters soon found that it cited some studies that didn’t exist. The White House said the errors would be fixed and didn’t change the report’s substance¹³.

On Aug. 3, 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget received an FDA document titled “White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food”¹¹¹². It is filed as a notice, not a proposed rule, and isn’t classed as economically significant¹¹¹². When we checked in mid-October 2026, it was still listed as pending review¹¹.

A white paper binds no one. It wouldn’t by itself require labels or stop states from acting; a binding rule would need publication in the Federal Register, public comment and a final version¹². FoodNavigator, a food-industry news site, reported that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. prefers voluntary commitments from companies over a long rulemaking¹².

The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines, released in January 2026, never use the term in their main document; they say “highly processed” instead¹⁴. Their consumer site, RealFood.gov, urges people to avoid highly processed food and calls that message “not an attack on industry or a legal definition”¹⁴. Its examples include packaged snacks with added sugar and salt, products with artificial flavors or dyes, and sugary drinks¹⁴. The scientists advising on the guidelines had first judged the ultra-processed evidence too limited for a formal recommendation⁵.

States aren’t waiting. California’s AB 1264, signed October 8, 2025, passed the state Senate 40-0 and the Assembly 79-1¹⁵. It writes a definition into law and gives the state health department until June 1, 2028, to decide which ultra-processed foods are of concern and which are restricted in schools¹⁵. Schools must start phasing those foods out by July 1, 2029, vendors must stop offering them by July 1, 2032, and school meals must be free of them by July 1, 2035¹⁵.

If you already eat mostly whole food

People in natural-health circles warned about factory food long before it had a research category. On the big picture, the science is catching up with that instinct. Diets built on whole and lightly processed foods keep looking better.

But “ultra-processed” is a blunt label. The same group holds a hot dog and a whole-grain sandwich loaf, and the long-running U.S. data treat them very differently⁴. A food’s nutrients, its fiber and how much of it you eat still matter.

Some ultra-processed products also do real medical work, such as hypoallergenic infant formula¹³. Don’t drop a formula or a prescribed nutrition product without talking to a clinician.

Turning the label into a rule you can never break carries its own risk. If avoiding packaged food starts to bring fear, guilt or a shrinking list of safe foods, talk with a clinician or call the National Alliance for Eating Disorders helpline at 1-866-662-1235. If you ever feel unsafe or think about harming yourself, call or text 988.

Swap first: a guide ranked by evidence and ease

You don’t need to purge your pantry. Put your effort where the evidence is clearest and the swap is easiest, one row at a time.

Priority	Category	How clear is the harm?	Ease of swap	Try instead
1	Sugary drinks and diet sodas	Clearest for sugary drinks; diet drinks also linked in U.S. data48	Easy	Water, plain sparkling water with citrus, unsweetened tea or coffee
2	Hot dogs, deli meats, sausages and other ready-to-eat meat products	Clearest and most consistent48	Moderate	Leftover roast chicken, eggs, canned fish or beans
3	Dairy desserts and sweetened breakfast foods	Smaller links4	Moderate	Fruit with a handful of nuts, or a square of dark chocolate
4	Salty packaged snacks	Mixed results8	Easy to moderate	Nuts, seeds or roasted chickpeas
5	Packaged whole-grain breads and cereals	Weak or mixed; whole grains weaken the links48	Low priority	Keep them if you like them, and favor short ingredient lists
Keep	Infant formula and medical nutrition products	Needed for health	Don’t swap alone	Talk with a clinician first13

Three habits make the guide work:

• Change one category for two or three weeks before moving to the next.
• Replace rather than remove, so the new food fills the same slot in your day.
• Read the ingredient list when you’re unsure; a later article in this series covers food additives in depth.

How strong is the evidence?

Claim	Evidence level	What the research shows
Diets high in ultra-processed food are linked to worse health	Strong evidence	The link is consistent: 92 of 104 long-term studies in one summary found higher risk, and a BMJ review found links for 32 outcomes. Cause isn’t proven23
Cutting ultra-processed food lowers your disease risk	Promising but early	Mostly observational; certainty rated mostly low or very low38
These foods make people eat more in the short term	Promising but early	Small, short inpatient and feeding trials15
Sugary drinks and processed meats carry the clearest risks	Strong evidence	Strongest links in long-term data, and long-standing expert advice to limit both48
Every ultra-processed food is equally harmful	Evidence says no, or unsafe	Risks differ by category, and whole grains weaken the links48
Experts can sort foods into NOVA groups consistently	Evidence says no, or unsafe	In a 2022 test with more than 150 specialists, agreement was weak7
Specific additives such as emulsifiers drive the harm	Not enough evidence	SACN called for monitoring additives rather than drawing conclusions8

Questions readers ask

The bottom line

The case against diets built on ultra-processed food is broad and consistent, though mostly observational. The clearest signals point at specific foods, such as sugary drinks and processed meats, rather than at everything in a package. Scientists still disagree on where to draw the line, and federal policy remains unsettled in October 2026.

You don’t need a legal definition to act. Swap the top rows of the guide first, cook more from whole and lightly processed foods, and keep whole-grain staples without guilt.

Related reading

• Frozen peas and candy bars are both processed, and the difference matters
• Living naturally today means trading back a few things modern life took
• Industrial life brought clean water and white bread, and history shows which to keep
• The ingredient list is a ranking, and most people miss it
• Who paid for the study matters, even when the science is real

Sources

1. Aleccia J. “Inside the Government Study Trying to Understand the Health Effects of Ultraprocessed Foods.” Associated Press (via News4JAX), March 2025. news4jax.com
2. EMJ. “Ultra-Processed Foods Threaten Global Human Health, Experts Warn” (on the Lancet series, Monteiro CA, et al., 2025). European Medical Journal, November 2025. emjreviews.com
3. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. “Ultra-processed Food Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Epidemiological Meta-analyses.” BMJ, 2024. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
4. Fang Z, Rossato SL, Hang D, et al. “Association of Ultra-Processed Food Consumption With All Cause and Cause Specific Mortality: Population Based Cohort Study.” BMJ, 2024. bmj.com
5. O’Neill HM. “Ultra-Processed Foods and Cardiometabolic Risk: From Evidence to Policy.” npj Metabolic Health and Disease, 2026. nature.com
6. Fazzino TL, Rohde K, Sullivan DK. “Hyper-Palatable Foods: Development of a Quantitative Definition and Application to the US Food System Database.” Obesity, 2019 (record via University of Kansas ScholarWorks). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
7. Braesco V, Souchon I, Sauvant P, et al. “Ultra-Processed Foods: How Functional Is the NOVA System?” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2022. nature.com
8. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. “Processed Foods and Health: SACN’s Rapid Evidence Update – Summary.” GOV.UK, April 2025. gov.uk
9. Baker P, Slater S, White M, et al. “Towards Unified Global Action on Ultra-Processed Foods: Understanding Commercial Determinants, Countering Corporate Power, and Mobilising a Public Health Response.” The Lancet, 2025 (PDF via University of São Paulo School of Public Health). fsp.usp.br
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Ultra-Processed Foods.” FDA, September 2025. fda.gov
11. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food” (RIN 0910-ZD60), review record. Reginfo.gov, accessed October 2026. reginfo.gov
12. Crawford E. “FDA’s UPF Definition May Lack Legal Force, but Not Policy Impact.” FoodNavigator, August 2026. foodnavigator.com
13. Dawson PL. “MAHA Report on Children’s Health Highlights Harms of Ultraprocessed Foods – a Food Scientist Explains the Research.” The Conversation (via Youth Today), May 2025. youthtoday.org
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. “RealFood.gov” (Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 consumer site) and “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030” (January 2026). HHS and USDA, accessed October 2026. realfood.gov and cdn.realfood.gov
15. Food Business News. “California Phasing Out UPFs in School Meals.” Food Business News, October 2025. foodbusinessnews.net