A pooled analysis of 51 prospective cohort studies has put a number on something the ultra-processed food (UPF) debate has been circling for years.
For every extra 100 grams a day of UPF, the risk of a cardiovascular event was 14 percent higher, the risk of cancer 4 percent higher, the risk of dying from any cause 3 percent higher, and the risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes 2 percent higher.
The paper was published on September 22, 2026 in the open-access BMJ journal Family Medicine and Community Health, and it draws on data from 8,819,894 adults across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania.
One hundred grams is not much on a plate. It is roughly a small-to-medium bag of chips, two to three cookies, a large muffin, or an ice cream serving. That is the daily gap the study is quantifying.
Also read: Mounjaro or Ozempic: One may help you lose nearly 50% more weight
The review also compared the highest UPF consumers with the lowest. The heavy-UPF group had a 31 percent higher risk of digestive diseases, 27 percent higher risk of depression or anxiety, 24 percent higher risk of cardiovascular events, 24 percent higher risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes, 23 percent higher risk of obesity or overweight, 18 percent higher all-cause mortality, 12 percent higher cancer risk and 11 percent higher risk of high blood pressure, according to News-Medical.
The paper is a meta-analysis of observational studies, so it can show association, not causation.
What counts as ultra-processed
The study defines UPF as ready-to-eat or heat-and-serve products that have been through heavy industrial processing.
In practice that means most packaged sweet and savory snacks, sugary drinks, mass-produced breads and pastries, breakfast cereals loaded with added sugar, instant noodles, chicken nuggets, hot dogs and reconstituted meat products, and many flavored yogurts.
Also read: She started running every week: Here’s how her body reacted
They tend to be energy-dense, high in added sugar and salt, and low in fiber, protein, vitamins and minerals.
Why some experts urge caution
Not every nutrition researcher reads the new paper the same way. Adam Jacobs, executive director in biostatistics at Ergomed, told the Science Media Centre that meta-analyses cannot "compensate for biases or confounding in the individual studies," pointing out that only 19 of the 51 studies adjusted for socioeconomic measures.
He noted the paper's own GRADE certainty ratings were low or very low for most outcomes, with only obesity rated as moderate.
Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, added that dietary intake is "notoriously difficult" to measure and that the UPF category groups very different foods together. "Randomised controlled trials provide a much more nuanced picture," he said.
Also read: Ultra-processed foods could be damaging the muscles around your knees
The authors' bottom line
The team argues that because UPF-linked chronic diseases often cluster together in the same people, cutting back on UPF and replacing it with minimally processed food may be worth pursuing in day-to-day primary care.
The most practical read for a US adult is straightforward. If you already sit near the CDC's 53 percent average, swapping out a single 100-gram UPF item a day, one soda, one packet of cookies, one bag of chips, is exactly the size of the intake gap the paper is measuring.
Also read: Ketamine is now causing bladder damage in children as young as 13
This article is made and published by Ida-Marie Palm Varbæk, who may have used AI in the preparation.