Even foods with good nutritional profiles can be harmful if highly processed.
A coalition of European cardiologists has placed a quiet but urgent warning at the center of modern medicine: the most ordinary foods in the most ordinary kitchens have become a leading driver of cardiovascular death. Publishing in the European Heart Journal, researchers from the European Society of Cardiology document that adults eating the highest amounts of ultra-processed foods face a 65 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease — a finding so consistent across populations that the scientific community can no longer treat it as peripheral. The warning is not merely about nutrients or calories, but about what industrial transformation does to food itself, and by extension, to the bodies that consume it.
- A 65% increased risk of cardiovascular death among the heaviest ultra-processed food consumers signals that a slow-moving dietary crisis has reached clinical urgency.
- The divide is stark and geographic: Northern Europeans draw over half their calories from ultra-processed foods, while Southern Europeans consume less than a quarter — and their hearts reflect the difference.
- Cardiologists are being asked to do something medicine has long avoided: treat the question of what patients eat not as lifestyle advice, but as a core diagnostic concern alongside smoking and blood pressure.
- The science is consistent but incomplete — observational studies show the harm clearly, yet controlled intervention trials proving that changing diets reverses damage have not yet been done.
- Researchers are pushing simultaneously on three fronts — clinical practice, food labeling policy, and dietary guidelines — recognizing that no single lever will be enough to shift a food system built around convenience and profit.
A coalition of European heart specialists has issued a clinical consensus statement in the European Heart Journal with a message that is both familiar and newly urgent: the packaged, engineered foods that dominate modern supermarkets are quietly driving cardiovascular disease at a scale medicine can no longer afford to overlook. Led by Professor Luigina Guasti of the University of Insubria and colleagues across Europe, the research team found that adults with the highest ultra-processed food intake face a 19 percent greater risk of developing heart disease, a 13 percent higher risk of atrial fibrillation, and — most alarmingly — a 65 percent increased risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to those who eat the least.
What gives the statement its weight is not scientific novelty but institutional reckoning. The evidence has accumulated across large, diverse populations for a decade. Yet most national dietary guidelines still speak in the language of nutrients — calories, fat, sodium — rather than addressing how food is processed. The researchers argue this framing misses the point: a food can satisfy every nutritional target and still be ultra-processed, still be harmful. The additives, the structural breakdown of ingredients, the disruption to gut microbiome and metabolism — these are harms that nutrient labels cannot capture.
The geography of consumption tells its own story. In the Netherlands, ultra-processed foods account for 61 percent of calorie intake; in the UK, 54 percent. In Italy, the figure drops to 18 percent; in Portugal, 22 percent. These differences are not accidental — they reflect food cultures that produce measurably different health outcomes, and the researchers want to understand why.
The consensus statement calls on cardiologists to begin screening patients on ultra-processed food intake as a standard part of cardiovascular risk assessment, alongside questions about smoking and exercise. It also calls for updated dietary guidelines, clearer food labeling, and stronger regulation of food processing — acknowledging that the problem is as much political as it is medical. The researchers are candid about what remains unknown: long-term intervention trials proving that reducing ultra-processed food consumption reverses cardiovascular damage have not yet been conducted. But they argue the consistency of findings, the biological plausibility of the mechanisms, and the scale of the harm together demand action now, before the perfect study arrives.
A coalition of European heart specialists has issued a stark warning: the foods most of us eat most often are quietly killing us. The culprit isn't a new pathogen or a hidden toxin. It's the ordinary stuff in the supermarket—the packaged snacks, the convenience meals, the breakfast cereals and soft drinks that have become the backbone of modern eating. A new clinical consensus statement published in the European Heart Journal, developed by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, documents what researchers have been finding for the past decade: ultra-processed foods are linked to cardiovascular disease and early death at rates that should alarm both patients and the doctors treating them.
The numbers are sobering. Adults who consume the highest amounts of ultra-processed foods face a 19 percent greater risk of developing heart disease compared to those who eat the least. The risk of atrial fibrillation—an irregular heartbeat that can lead to stroke—jumps 13 percent. But the most striking finding is this: people with the highest ultra-processed food intake have a 65 percent increased risk of dying from cardiovascular causes. These aren't marginal differences. They represent a fundamental shift in how we should think about what we put on our plates. The research team, led by Professor Luigina Guasti of the University of Insubria in Italy, along with Dr. Marialaura Bonaccio and colleagues from institutions across Europe, found that ultra-processed foods worsen obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and the buildup of unhealthy fats in the bloodstream—a cascade of conditions that feed into cardiovascular disease.
What makes this consensus statement significant is not that it breaks new ground scientifically, but that it represents an institutional acknowledgment that the evidence has become too consistent to ignore. The researchers emphasize that the associations between ultra-processed foods and heart disease hold up across large, diverse populations. Yet most national dietary guidelines still focus almost entirely on nutrients—calories, fat, sodium, sugar—rather than on how food is processed. A meal can hit all the nutritional targets and still be ultra-processed, still be harmful. The experts are calling for a fundamental reorientation of how we talk about food.
The geography of ultra-processed food consumption reveals a stark divide within Europe itself. In the Netherlands, ultra-processed foods account for 61 percent of total calorie intake. In the United Kingdom, it's 54 percent. Move south, and the picture changes dramatically: in Spain, ultra-processed foods represent 25 percent of calories; in Portugal, 22 percent; in Italy, 18 percent. These numbers suggest that dietary patterns are not inevitable, that different food cultures produce measurably different health outcomes. The researchers are asking why these differences exist and what the countries with lower ultra-processed food consumption are doing right.
Dr. Marialaura Bonaccio explains the mechanism. Ultra-processed foods tend to be engineered for shelf stability and profit, not health. They're loaded with sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. They contain additives and processing compounds that may trigger inflammation, disrupt metabolism, alter the gut microbiome, and encourage overeating. The food structure itself—the way it's been broken down and reassembled—may be part of the problem. It's not just what's in the food; it's what's been done to it.
The consensus statement makes a direct recommendation to cardiologists and other physicians: ask your patients about ultra-processed food intake. Make it part of the conversation about cardiovascular risk, alongside questions about smoking, alcohol, and exercise. Provide guidance on reducing consumption. The authors note that this doesn't require expensive interventions or significant time investment. It's a matter of awareness and communication. Yet they also acknowledge a gap in the evidence: most of the research linking ultra-processed foods to cardiovascular disease comes from observational studies, not long-term intervention trials. We know the association is real and consistent, but we don't yet have definitive proof that reducing ultra-processed food consumption will reverse the damage or prevent disease in a controlled trial setting.
The researchers are calling for more research—specifically, long-term intervention studies that test whether dietary changes actually improve cardiovascular outcomes. They want to understand which additives and processing methods are most harmful. They want to see dietary interventions centered on food processing integrated into clinical practice. But they're not waiting for perfect evidence. The consistency of the findings across populations, the biological plausibility of the mechanisms, and the scale of the problem all point in the same direction: the way we eat has become a major driver of cardiovascular disease, and it's time medicine acknowledged it.
What happens next depends partly on whether doctors listen and partly on whether food systems change. The researchers are also calling for clearer food labeling, stronger food regulations, and updated dietary guidelines that address processing, not just nutrients. These are policy questions, not just medical ones. But the clinical message is clear: if you're a cardiologist, you should be asking your patients what they're eating. And if you're eating the way most people in Northern Europe eat, you should be asking yourself the same question.
Notable Quotes
Research suggests these foods are linked to several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, and to the risk of developing and dying from heart disease. However, this evidence has not yet made its way into the advice we give to patients on healthy eating.— Professor Luigina Guasti, University of Insubria
The associations between UPF and heart disease are consistent and biologically plausible. UPFs raise cardiovascular risk mainly by promoting obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and the build-up of unhealthy fats in the blood.— Dr. Marialaura Bonaccio, IRCCS NEUROMED
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the processing matter so much if the nutrients are fine? Can't you just eat a processed food that's low in sugar and salt?
That's the question the researchers keep bumping into. The answer seems to be no—or at least, not entirely. The processing itself changes the food in ways that go beyond the nutrient label. The structure is altered, additives are introduced, and something about that combination triggers inflammation and metabolic disruption in ways a whole food doesn't.
So it's not just about the ingredients list?
Not just that. It's about what's been done to the ingredients. A piece of fruit has fiber and structure and a microbiome of its own. A processed bar with the same calories and sugar content is something else entirely—it's engineered to be absorbed quickly, to taste a certain way, to make you want more.
The numbers show a huge difference between Northern and Southern Europe. What's actually different about how people eat in Italy versus the Netherlands?
That's partly about food culture and partly about what's available and affordable. Southern Europe has stronger traditions of cooking from whole ingredients, of eating seasonally. Northern Europe has more convenience foods, more processed options. But it's also about economics and food policy—what gets subsidized, what gets marketed, what's cheap.
If the research is mostly observational, why are the doctors so confident about this?
Because the pattern is consistent across many different studies and populations. It's not one study saying this. It's a decade of research all pointing the same direction. And the biological mechanisms make sense—we understand how these foods affect inflammation and metabolism. But you're right that we need intervention trials to prove that changing what you eat actually changes your health outcomes.
What would a doctor actually do differently if they took this seriously?
They'd ask about it. They'd treat ultra-processed food consumption the way they treat smoking or alcohol—as a modifiable risk factor worth discussing. They'd give patients concrete guidance on what to eat instead. It's not complicated, but it requires making it part of the conversation.
Is there any hope that food systems will actually change?
That's the harder question. The researchers are calling for regulation and labeling changes, but those are political questions, not just medical ones. What they can control is whether they start talking to patients about it. That's where the change has to start.