For how we live.
For decades a manufacturer could add a new ingredient and privately decide it was generally recognized as safe without telling the FDA. A proposed rule would end that loophole.
A UK Biobank analysis broke ultra-processed food into 37 specific ingredients rather than treating it as one block. Flavours, colourings, sweeteners and sugars carried the signal; processing aids and added fibre did not.
In 2,077 children, higher processed-food intake at age 3 tracked with worse behavioral and emotional scores at age 5. It's an association from a birth cohort, not a trial, and can't establish that the food caused it.
In 105,260 people followed for 7.6 years, higher intakes of sorbates, sulfites, nitrates and acetates tracked with modestly higher cancer incidence. This is an observational study of self-reported diets.
The 2025–2030 edition was released January 7. It is the first to name highly processed foods, and the first whose saturated-fat arithmetic does not obviously close.
On the unprocessed diet, participants built plates 57% heavier and 110 calories lighter. The authors argue that fruit and vegetables were crowding out calories on purpose.
Three papers published on 18 November argue the harm is not one ingredient but the replacement of whole-food diets. The evidence they assemble is strongest for diet quality and weakest where causation is hardest.
Over 17.4 years, high ultra-processed food intake was linked to a 24% higher colorectal cancer risk overall — and a 58% higher risk for right-sided colon cancer specifically.
A pooled analysis of 72,776 Korean adults found an 11% higher type 2 diabetes risk in the top intake quartile. An updated meta-analysis of 17 cohorts put the dose-response at 10% per 10% of intake.
Fifty-five English adults ate two eight-week diets that both followed the UK Eatwell Guide. Both produced weight loss. The minimally processed version produced about one percentage point more.