A three-paper series in The Lancet by 43 international experts warns that ultra-processed foods are rapidly transforming diets around the world and are consistently linked to poorer health outcomes. The authors call for urgent, coordinated policy measures to curb corporate influence, reduce production and marketing of these products, and make healthier foods more accessible, arguing that waiting for more trials risks further entrenching ultra-processed foods in global food systems.
Experts from around the world have issued a stark warning in a new three-paper Series published in The Lancet, arguing that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are reshaping global diets and undermining public health. The Series, written by 43 international researchers, concludes that UPFs are displacing fresh and minimally processed foods worldwide and are associated with increased risks of multiple chronic diseases.
According to materials summarising the Series, including reports from The Lancet and affiliated academic groups, the work draws on the Nova classification system developed by Professor Carlos Monteiro and colleagues. Nova defines UPFs as industrially formulated products made from inexpensive ingredients such as hydrogenated oils, protein isolates, and glucose–fructose syrup, along with cosmetic additives like dyes, flavourings and emulsifiers. These products are designed and marketed to replace freshly prepared meals, maximise convenience, and generate corporate profit by transforming cheap commodity crops into branded items.
The Series incorporates a systematic review of 104 long-term (cohort and other longitudinal) studies on UPF intake and health. In 92 of these studies, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with greater risks of at least one adverse health outcome, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, depression and premature death. The authors note that these observational data cannot yet prove causation but say the consistency and strength of the associations, together with experimental and mechanistic evidence, support the need for policy action.
Reviewing evidence from large cohort studies, national dietary surveys and trials, the researchers report that diets high in UPFs tend to promote overeating and weight gain and are typically high in added sugars and unhealthy fats but low in fibre and other protective nutrients. They also highlight concerns about greater exposure to cosmetic additives and processing-related chemicals in people whose diets are dominated by these products.
Professor Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo, who helped establish the Nova classification, said in a statement quoted in several news reports: "The growing consumption of ultra-processed foods is reshaping diets worldwide, displacing fresh and minimally processed foods and meals. This change in what people eat is fuelled by powerful global corporations who generate huge profits by prioritising ultra-processed products, supported by extensive marketing and political lobbying to stop effective public health policies to support healthy eating." The Series frames the rise of UPFs as a consequence of a food system geared toward corporate profit rather than nutrition or sustainability.
The authors argue that the global boom in UPFs is being driven by transnational food and beverage companies that use their financial and political power to expand production and resist regulation. Coverage of the Series by international outlets notes that global sales of UPFs are now in the trillions of dollars annually, and that industry groups have pushed back against calls for stricter policies, warning that such measures could limit access to affordable foods.
In policy-focused papers, the Series calls for coordinated government action that goes beyond encouraging individual behaviour change. Suggested measures include incorporating UPFs explicitly into national dietary guidelines and front-of-pack labelling systems; tightening rules on marketing, particularly to children; and restricting the availability of ultra-processed foods in settings such as schools and hospitals. The authors also urge governments to invest in and subsidise fresh and minimally processed foods to improve affordability and access, especially for low-income populations.
Co-author Dr Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney, quoted in BBC coverage of the Series, likened the necessary response to past efforts to regulate tobacco: "We need a strong global public health response – like the coordinated efforts to challenge the tobacco industry." The Series states that, while some countries have introduced regulations touching on ultra-processed foods, the overall global policy response remains at an early stage, similar to where tobacco control stood several decades ago.
While the authors acknowledge ongoing debates over how best to define and classify UPFs and emphasise the need for more clinical trials to clarify mechanisms and causality, they argue that the existing body of evidence is sufficient to justify immediate action. They contend that delaying policy changes until every scientific question is resolved would allow ultra-processed products to become even more entrenched in diets worldwide, further worsening diet quality and widening health inequalities.
At the same time, some scientists not involved in the Series have cautioned that the current evidence base is largely observational and that it can be difficult to fully disentangle the health effects of ultra-processed foods from broader social and lifestyle factors. The Lancet authors respond that such uncertainties are common in public health and that precautionary policies, combined with continued research, are warranted given the scale of the potential harms.
