Lancet experts urge action on ultra-processed foods

Let’s start with the headline finding. A series of papers in The Lancet, written by 43 international scientists, says ultra‑processed foods are now a global public health problem and governments should act. Their evidence review pooled 104 long‑term studies; 92 of them linked higher UPF intake with increased risk of at least one chronic illness, from type 2 diabetes to depression, and a higher risk of dying early. The authors argue that the signal is strong enough for policy even while research continues.

When we talk about ultra‑processed, we mean industrial food and drink formulations built from ingredients and additives you wouldn’t usually keep at home-think emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, colours and flavourings-often in long ingredient lists. This idea comes from the NOVA system created by researchers in Brazil, which groups foods by how they’re made rather than just their nutrients.

What falls into this category? Everyday examples include sausages, crisps, pastries, biscuits, instant soups, fizzy drinks, some ice creams and many mass‑produced breads. These products are convenient and cheap, which helps explain their spread into weekly shops around the world. In countries like the UK and US, more than half of typical energy intake now comes from UPFs, with younger and lower‑income groups most exposed.

So what harms are we talking about? Across those 104 studies, higher UPF intake was consistently associated with greater risks of 12 health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease, depression and earlier death. That doesn’t mean every UPF is equally risky or that processing is the only reason, but it does show a pattern that keeps appearing across different populations.

The researchers behind NOVA, led by Professor Carlos Monteiro, say these products have reshaped what we eat, pushing aside fresh and minimally processed meals. They also argue that large corporations use powerful marketing and lobbying to slow down effective health policy-one reason the authors call for stronger rules now, not later. You’ll see proposals such as health warnings, advertising limits (especially to children), and clearer front‑of‑pack labels that flag signs of heavy processing.

Several papers and commentators go further, comparing today’s policy moment to the early years of tobacco control: start with simple, population‑level measures and build the evidence base in parallel. This includes restricting UPFs in schools and hospitals and considering taxes to fund better access to nutritious food. Whether you agree or not, it’s useful to see how public health thinking is joining up marketing rules, food standards and affordability.

Now for the careful bit we teach in class: correlation is not causation. Observational studies can show links, but other factors-income, smoking, sleep, stress, overall diet-may be in play. Statisticians like Prof Kevin McConway make this point often and well. It doesn’t mean we ignore the associations; it means we ask for better trials and are transparent about what the evidence can and can’t prove yet.

There’s also a live debate about NOVA itself. Because NOVA focuses on processing, not nutrients, some foods that offer benefits-wholegrain breads, certain breakfast cereals, low‑fat yoghurts, baby formula, even fish fingers-can still be classed as UPF. UK advisers say NOVA is the only system that currently meets basic screening criteria here, but they also flag practical issues and inconsistencies with existing dietary advice.

The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition describes the association between higher UPF consumption and poor health as “concerning”, while noting it’s unclear whether the harm is due to processing itself or because many UPFs are energy‑dense and high in saturated fat, salt and free sugars. In short: the pattern is worrying; the mechanism needs more work.

Industry voices push back. The Food and Drink Federation says UPFs can be part of a balanced diet-pointing to items like frozen peas and wholemeal bread-and highlights reformulation. New Kantar data reported by the FDF shows member products on UK shelves now contain roughly a third less salt and sugar and about a quarter fewer calories than in 2015. That’s progress worth scrutinising and verifying, but it’s also part of the picture students should see.

What should you do this week? We suggest a simple, fair test: aim for more whole or minimally processed foods where you can, and use labels to cut back on free sugars, saturated fat and salt. Frozen veg, tinned beans and plain yoghurt absolutely count as smart choices. This aligns with NHS Eatwell guidance-base meals on wholegrains, pile on fruit and vegetables, and keep high‑sugar, high‑salt foods for occasional moments.

And here’s your media‑literacy takeaway. When a headline says UPFs “cause” harm, check whether the study was observational or a randomised trial. When a company highlights a “reduced sugar” claim, look for what was added instead and whether portion sizes shrank. The science on processing is moving, but you don’t need to wait to make helpful swaps and to ask better questions in class, at home and-crucially-in policy debates.