Scientists: ultra-processed foods are one of the main drivers of 'chronic disease pandemic'

In an article in the respected medical journal The Lancet, 43 scientists and researchers have joined together to warn: UPFs are crowding out fresh food and home-cooked meals, compromising diet quality, and are linked to a range of chronic diseases.

The authors write that the main driver of global growth in ultra-processed food consumption is "the economic and political power of the UPF industry and the reshaping of food systems for profit at any cost." They place ultra-processed food producers at the centre of this system, but emphasise that they are surrounded by a wide network of interdependent players - from marketing structures to research partners - who together drive the production, promotion and consumption of UPF.

Ultra-processed foods include ice cream, sausages and sausages, crisps, mass-produced bread, some ready-to-eat breakfast foods, biscuits, many ready meals and sweet fizzy drinks. These foods are often high in saturated fat, salt, sugar and various additives, leaving less room in the diet for more nutritious and whole foods. The formulations use ingredients that are not used in home cooking - preservatives, emulsifiers, artificial colours and flavourings.

Experts remind us: UPFs are associated with an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and premature death.

A policy that tugs at the heartstrings

The authors of the paper note that a number of countries are already attempting to limit UPF consumption - through product reformulation, regulations and standards. But "the global health response is still in its early stages - roughly where tobacco control was decades ago."

Government policies, including in rich countries like the UK, do little to change the commercial and structural causes of the problem, they said. Instead, the emphasis is on "personal consumer responsibility", voluntary industry self-regulation and partnership programmes with businesses - for example, where companies reduce sugar or fat content, replacing them with sweeteners and other additives.

Scientists call this "policy inertia" due to the industry's own active role in influencing decision-making, framing the debate in a way that favours it, and creating the appearance of scientific uncertainty.

They see the main barrier to effective action as the corporate political activity of food giants, coordinated at a transnational level. Tools include direct lobbying, participation in multi-sector initiatives, the creation of front groups and the use of research partnerships. The armoury also includes attempts to "insert themselves" into the work of government agencies and legal action against inconvenient regulations.

UPF's share of the diet and a call to action

The authors emphasise: the growing share of ultra-processed foods in people's diets is not inevitable. Although research on their effects is ongoing, this should not be a reason to postpone measures to promote a diet based on whole and minimally processed foods.

According to the data cited, the proportion of UPF in the diet remains below 25 per cent in countries like Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and many Asian countries. In contrast, in the US and the UK it reaches about 50 per cent.

The authors call for more direct and decisive action on ultra-processed foods, rather than half-measures that shift responsibility to the individual consumer.

Not all UPFs are the same and new research is needed

A number of independent experts commenting on the publication in The Lancet emphasise that the existing data mainly show a link between UPFs and ill health, but do not yet prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship for all categories of such products.

Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics at the Open University (UK), notes that it seems likely that some groups of ultra-processed foods may indeed increase the risk of certain chronic diseases, but this "does not mean at all that all UPFs are equally harmful". Many questions remain to be clarified in future studies, he said, and it is important to honestly separate those risks for which the evidence base is already strong from those where there is still only preliminary data.

Professor Jules Griffin of the University of Aberdeen adds that the authors of The Lancet have demonstrated a wide range of chronic diseases associated with increased consumption of ultra-processed food, but reminds us that association does not yet equal causation, and the authors of the article themselves also recognise this.

That said, experts agree on one thing: waiting for perfect data before taking public health steps is impractical. But any decisions, they stress, should be based on the most transparent and honest analysis of what science already knows and what it does not yet know.