The body may react to them as useless or harmful
Across nearly 10 million lives and 45 independent analyses, a pattern has emerged that is difficult to dismiss: the foods most available to most people are quietly shortening their lives. A landmark review published in The BMJ finds that ultraprocessed foods — engineered for convenience rather than nourishment — raise the risk of cardiovascular death by half, anxiety by more than half, and early mortality by a fifth. This is not a story about individual weakness or ignorance, but about a food system that has made the unhealthy choice the easiest one, and the consequences are now written in the bodies of millions.
- A review of 45 meta-analyses covering nearly 10 million people has produced some of the most damning numbers yet against ultraprocessed foods — a 50% rise in cardiovascular death risk, a 53% rise in anxiety risk, and a 20% increase in early mortality from any cause.
- The scale of exposure makes this a systemic crisis, not a personal one: ultraprocessed foods make up over 70% of the US food supply, supplying two-thirds of children's daily calories and 60% of adults'.
- Some findings remain contested — the link to cancer is weaker than expected, and mental health studies face a causation problem, since depression may drive people toward comfort foods rather than the reverse.
- Researchers and public health advocates are pushing for structural solutions — front-of-package warning labels, advertising restrictions targeting children, and policies that make whole foods cheaper and more accessible.
- In the absence of systemic change, individuals are advised to cook at home, read labels carefully, and prioritize adding nutritious foods rather than simply trying to subtract the harmful ones.
A sweeping review of 45 meta-analyses, drawing on data from nearly 10 million people, has delivered the most comprehensive accounting yet of what ultraprocessed foods are doing to human health. The findings, published in The BMJ in February 2024, are stark: each additional daily serving of ultraprocessed food raises the risk of dying from heart disease by 50%, increases anxiety risk by 53%, and makes early death from any cause 20% more likely. Obesity risk climbs 55%, sleep disorders rise 41%, and type 2 diabetes risk increases 40%.
The review was led by Wolfgang Marx of Deakin University in Australia, whose team found consistent harm across more than 70% of the health outcomes they examined. Crucially, none of the underlying studies were funded by food manufacturers, and all were published within the past three years. The term "ultraprocessed" itself dates to 2009, coined by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro, whose NOVA classification system distinguishes these industrial formulations — built from modified starches, added sugars, artificial flavors, and protein isolates — from minimally processed whole foods. The human body, Monteiro argues, has no evolutionary framework for handling them.
The problem is not abstract. More than 70% of the US food supply falls into this category. Children derive two-thirds of their daily calories from these products; adults, about 60%. Avoidance has become structurally difficult — these foods are cheaper, faster, and more aggressively marketed than their alternatives.
Not every finding was equally strong. The cancer link was weaker than many expected, given that obesity — which ultraprocessed foods promote — is a known risk factor for 13 cancer types. Mental health findings also carry a methodological caveat: it remains unclear whether these foods cause depression and anxiety, or whether people already struggling with those conditions turn to comfort foods. Still, the cardiovascular and metabolic evidence is well-supported by understood mechanisms — excess sugar, sodium, and the near-total absence of fiber.
Experts broadly agree on the remedy: cook real food at home, read labels, and choose less processed alternatives where possible. But they also acknowledge that individual choices are being made inside a system designed to make the unhealthy option the path of least resistance. Longer-term, researchers are calling for warning labels, advertising restrictions targeting children, and policies that close the price gap between processed and whole foods.
A sweeping analysis of nearly 10 million people across 45 separate meta-analyses has found something most of us already suspect but now have hard numbers to prove: the foods engineered to be convenient and cheap are making us sick in measurable ways. Eating more ultraprocessed foods—defined as roughly one additional serving per day—raises the risk of dying from heart disease by half. It increases the likelihood of anxiety by more than half. It makes early death from any cause 20% more probable. The research, published in The BMJ in late February 2024, represents the most comprehensive review to date of how these foods affect human health.
Wolfgang Marx, a senior research fellow at Deakin University in Australia, led the effort. His team found consistent evidence linking higher ultraprocessed food intake to more than 70% of the 45 different health outcomes they examined. The strongest associations emerged around cardiovascular death and mental health disorders, but the damage spreads wider. Obesity risk climbed 55%. Sleep disorders increased by 41%. Type 2 diabetes risk rose 40%. Depression risk went up 20%. These weren't small correlations buried in statistical noise—they were patterns that appeared again and again across independent studies, all published within the past three years, and none funded by food manufacturers.
What exactly counts as ultraprocessed? The term itself is relatively new, coined in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, a nutrition researcher at the University of São Paulo. His classification system, called NOVA, divides food into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed items like fruits and vegetables; culinary ingredients like salt and oil; processed foods combining the first two categories; and ultraprocessed foods—formulations built from cheap, chemically modified ingredients such as altered starches, added sugars, industrial oils, and protein isolates, with little whole food present. These products are engineered to be irresistible through artificial flavors, colors, thickeners, and additives that research suggests disrupt gut bacteria and trigger systemic inflammation. The human body, Monteiro argues, has no evolutionary reason to adapt to them.
The scale of the problem in the United States is staggering. More than 70% of the entire food supply consists of ultraprocessed items. Children consume two-thirds of their daily calories from these foods. Adults get about 60% of their calories from them. Avoiding them entirely has become nearly impossible—they're everywhere, cheaper than fresh alternatives, and designed to require minimal effort. A fast-food burger, a flavored yogurt, a ready-to-heat meal, a soft drink: these are the building blocks of modern eating for millions of people.
Not all findings were equally strong. The research found only suggestive or no evidence linking ultraprocessed foods to cancer, which surprised some experts given that obesity—which these foods promote—is a known risk factor for 13 cancer types. Fang Fang Zhang, a nutrition epidemiologist at Tufts University, has her own research showing men who ate the most ultraprocessed foods had a 29% higher colorectal cancer risk, yet the broader meta-analysis didn't find strong cancer links. Researchers attribute this partly to the fact that ultraprocessed food research remains relatively young; more studies are needed to establish clearer connections.
Zhang also raised a methodological concern about the mental health findings. Studies on depression and anxiety tend to include only people already diagnosed with these conditions, creating a chicken-and-egg problem: do ultraprocessed foods cause depression, or do people experiencing depression reach for these foods as a form of self-comfort? The distinction matters for understanding causation versus correlation. Still, the cardiovascular and metabolic findings are harder to dispute. The mechanisms are well understood—these foods are calorie-dense, loaded with added sugar and sodium, and stripped of fiber, all of which damage heart health and metabolic function.
Experts agree on the solution in principle: buy real food and cook it at home. But they also acknowledge this is far easier said than done in a world built around convenience and speed. Some propose systemic interventions: front-of-package warning labels like those used for cigarettes, restrictions on advertising ultraprocessed foods to children, prohibition of their sale in schools and hospitals, and policies that make minimally processed foods more affordable and accessible. In the meantime, researchers offer practical steps: read labels and choose less processed alternatives, focus on adding nutritious foods rather than just subtracting bad ones, swap sugary drinks for water, and eat at local restaurants instead of chains. These are individual choices, but they're being made within a food system designed to make the unhealthy option the easiest one.
Citas Notables
We found consistent evidence linking higher intakes of ultra-processed foods with over 70% of the 45 different health outcomes we assessed— Wolfgang Marx, senior research fellow at Deakin University
No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products. The body may react to them as useless or harmful, so its systems may become impaired or damaged— Carlos Monteiro, nutrition researcher at University of São Paulo
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So this study looked at 10 million people across 45 different analyses. That's a lot of data. What made researchers decide to do such a massive review now?
The concern has been building for years, but ultraprocessed foods have become so dominant in developed countries that the health effects are becoming impossible to ignore. They wanted a comprehensive picture of what the evidence actually shows.
The 50% increase in cardiovascular death risk—that's the headline number. But what does a 50% increase actually mean for a person eating these foods?
It means if your baseline risk of dying from heart disease is, say, 10%, eating more ultraprocessed foods raises it to 15%. The absolute numbers vary by person, but the relative risk is substantial. And that's just one outcome. The anxiety risk is even higher.
The anxiety finding seems different from the heart disease one. Why is there skepticism about it?
Because most anxiety studies only look at people already diagnosed with anxiety. We can't tell if the food caused the anxiety or if anxious people are more likely to eat these foods for comfort. It's a real limitation in how the research is structured.
Over 70% of the US food supply is ultraprocessed. That's not a personal choice problem anymore—that's a system problem.
Exactly. You can't avoid these foods through willpower alone. They're cheaper, they're everywhere, they're designed to be convenient. Individual advice to cook at home ignores the reality that most people don't have the time, money, or access to do that consistently.
What would actually change the system?
The researchers point to things like warning labels, restricting ads to kids, banning sales near schools, and making real food more affordable. But those require government action, and food companies have a lot of influence. It's the same conversation we had with tobacco—individual responsibility only goes so far when the product is engineered to be addictive and the system is built around selling it.
Is there any good news in this research?
The good news is we know what the problem is now, and we know what works: whole foods, home cooking, water instead of sugary drinks. The challenge is making that realistic for the 330 million people living in a country where ultraprocessed foods dominate.