Ultra-processed foods raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and all-cause mortality; an umbrella review found 'convincing' evidence for cardiovascular mortality and type 2 diabetes.
Original statement
في NutriNet-Santé الفرنسية، كل زيادة 10% في حصة الأطعمة فائقة المعالجة رفعت خطر السرطان الكلي 12% (Fiolet 2018)، وأمراض القلب 12% (Srour 2019 BMJ)، والسكري 15% (Srour 2020). ... المراجعة المظلية الأحدث في BMJ (Lane 2024) لخّصت 45 تحليلاً تلوياً على نحو عشرة ملايين مشارك: دليل «مُقنع» يربط الأطعمة فائقة المعالجة بوفيات القلب والأوعية، السكري النوع الثاني، اضطرابات الصحة النفسية.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Ultra-processed foods raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and all-cause mortality; an umbrella review found 'convincing' evidence for cardiovascular mortality and type 2 diabetes.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (study selection and narrative are the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/ultra-processed-foods/
- Attribution uncertainty
- The archive homepage states that the forbidden-food section is supported by research 'independently of Dr. Diaa's words'. No evidence was found that Elawady himself cited these studies.
- Claimed mechanism
Nutrient profile, additives, contact materials, neo-formed contaminants.
- Claimed health effect
CVD, T2D, cancer, mortality.
- Population concerned
Adults
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Scientific assessment
Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.
Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.
1. What was claimed?
UPF raises CVD, diabetes, cancer and death risk; Lane 2024 'convincing'.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Fiolet 2018 cancer HR 1.12 per 10%; Srour 2019 CVD HR 1.12; Srour 2020 T2D HR 1.15; Rico-Campa 2019 HR 1.62 for >4 servings/day; Schnabel 2019 HR 1.14 per 10%; Bonaccio 2021 CVD mortality HR 1.58; Pagliai 2021 all-cause RR 1.25; Lane 2024 class I for CVD mortality (RR 1.50) and T2D (dose-response RR 1.12).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
The archive says these foods 'raise' risk; the studies show associations. Lane 2024 graded CVD mortality evidence GRADE 'very low' despite class I credibility, and common mental disorders 'low'; the archive mentions only 'convincing'. The archive's featured headline wrongly includes obesity among 'convincing' outcomes. Outcomes differ: Lane 2024 (A-UPF-13) gives moderate certainty only for the T2D dose-response, low/very low for all-cause and CVD mortality, and weak or no evidence for cancer mortality (HR 1.00, 0.81-1.24; class V) and breast and prostate cancer; only 4 of 45 outcomes reached moderate GRADE. SUN (A-UPF-03) supports only all-cause mortality (335 deaths; CVD and cancer deaths not significant; significance lost when excluding baseline hypertension or depression). Several cohort results overlap (NutriNet-Santé is the source of many single studies), so they are not independent confirmations.
4. What remains unclear?
Causality; contribution of nutrients vs processing vs additives.
5. Which studies support it?
A-UPF-02, A-UPF-03, A-UPF-04, A-UPF-05, A-UPF-06, A-UPF-07, A-UPF-13, A-UPF-14.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-UPF-03 (critique of NOVA framework).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
European cohorts dominate the evidence; EU policy does not regulate UPF as a category.
8. What is known about Egypt?
No Egyptian cohort reviewed; PURE (A-UPF-12) included Middle Eastern participants for IBD only.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Limiting UPF is consistent with several national dietary guidelines; the evidence is strongest for cardiometabolic outcomes.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Consistent associations across many cohorts in several countries, summarised in umbrella reviews; GRADE certainty in Lane 2024 is mostly low or very low (moderate only for the T2D dose-response). Residual confounding and NOVA misclassification limit causal inference; no RCTs on hard outcomes.
- Source quality
Archive numbers match abstracts; it omits GRADE ratings (CVD mortality 'convincing' class I but GRADE very low) and uses causal verbs. Its featured headline lists obesity as 'convincing' though Lane graded obesity as class II (highly suggestive).
- Regional transferability
High for Europe: NutriNet-Santé (France), SUN (Spain), Moli-sani (Italy).
- Individual exceptions
Associations vary by UPF subgroup in several studies.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
Many large studies in Europe and elsewhere find that people who eat more ultra-processed food have more heart disease, diabetes, cancer and earlier death. The archive quotes these numbers correctly. But most of this evidence comes from observing people, and reviewers rate its certainty as low. It is not yet clear whether processing itself, or the sugar, salt and fat in these foods, is responsible.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (8)
-
Ultra-processed food and death in France
Schnabel L et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2019 · PMID 30742202 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedEach 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 14% higher death risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF consumption associated with all-cause mortality?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Santé), web 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
44,551; 602 deaths; Adults >=45 y, 73% women
- What was actually found?
HR per 10% increment 1.14 (1.04-1.27); UPF 14.4% of weight, 29.1% of energy; higher UPF linked to lower income/education, living alone, higher BMI, lower activity.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.14 per 10%
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association only.
- What are the study's limitations?
Volunteer cohort, mostly women; Few deaths; NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (France).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and death in Spanish graduates
Rico-Campà A et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31142450 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1949Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyMore than four servings a day was linked with 62% higher death risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF consumption associated with all-cause mortality?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates; FFQ every 2 years.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
19,899; 335 deaths; University graduates aged 20-91
- What was actually found?
Highest vs lowest quarter HR 1.62 (1.13-2.33); P trend 0.005; per additional serving HR 1.18 (1.05-1.33).
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.62 (1.13-2.33)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association with uncertainty.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only 335 deaths, so estimates are imprecise; diet questionnaire not designed for processing levels; people eating most UPF also smoked more and had more illness at baseline; results for heart and cancer deaths were not significant.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (Spain).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and heart disease in France
Srour B et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31142457 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1451Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyEach 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 12% more cardiovascular disease.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF intake associated with CVD?
- How was the study done?
Population-based prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
105,159; 1,409 CVD cases; Adults >=18
- What was actually found?
CVD HR 1.12 (1.05-1.20); CHD 1.13 (1.02-1.24); cerebrovascular 1.11 (1.01-1.21); incidence 277 vs 242 per 100,000 PY (high vs low quarter); robust to nutritional-quality adjustment.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.12 (1.05-1.20); 277 vs 242/100,000 PY
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Small absolute difference.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; only about 5 years of follow-up; volunteers, mostly women; almost half of the heart and brain events were short 'mini-strokes' (TIA); people eating more UPF were younger and smoked more.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and type 2 diabetes in France
Srour B et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2020 · PMID 31841598 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedEach 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 15% more diabetes.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF consumption associated with T2D?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
104,707; 821 T2D cases; Adults >=18, 79% women
- What was actually found?
HR 1.15 (1.06-1.25) per 10-point increment; robust to adjustment for comorbidities (1.13) and weight change (1.13); per 100 g/day 1.05; absolute rates 113 vs 166 per 100,000 PY.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.15 (1.06-1.25)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and cancer in France
Fiolet T et al.. BMJ 2018 · PMID 29444771 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.k322Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyEach 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 12% more cancer.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF intake associated with cancer risk?
- How was the study done?
Population-based prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
104,980; 2,228 cancer cases; Adults >=18 (median age 42.8)
- What was actually found?
Overall cancer HR 1.12 (1.06-1.18); breast cancer 1.11 (1.02-1.22); robust to nutritional-quality adjustment.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.12 (1.06-1.18)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association only.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; only about 5 years of follow-up, which is short for cancer; volunteers, mostly women; no link found for prostate or bowel cancer; may reflect other lifestyle differences.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and death in Italy
Bonaccio M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2021 · PMID 33333551 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa299Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedHighest consumers had 58% higher cardiovascular death risk; sugar content explained about a third of the heart/stroke link.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with mortality; which factors mediate?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort, FFQ.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
22,475; Adults mean age 55
- What was actually found?
Q4 vs Q1: CVD mortality HR 1.58 (1.23-2.03); IHD/cerebrovascular 1.52 (1.10-2.09); all-cause 1.26 (1.09-1.46); sugar content explained 36.3% of IHD/cerebrovascular association; renal biomarkers 20.1%.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.58 CVD mortality
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugar in UPF may be a key factor.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (Italy).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Umbrella review: ultra-processed food and health
Lane MM et al.. BMJ 2024 · PMID 38418082 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-077310Systematic reviewcited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyUPF was linked to 32 of 45 health outcomes; certainty was mostly low.
Archive omits GRADE (very low for CVD mortality) and wrongly lists obesity as 'convincing' in its headline.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What is the credibility of associations between UPF and health outcomes?
- How was the study done?
Umbrella review of 45 pooled analyses with credibility classes and GRADE.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
45 pooled analyses; n=9,888,373; Pooled populations
- What was actually found?
Class I: CVD mortality RR 1.50 (1.37-1.63; GRADE very low); T2D dose-response RR 1.12 (1.11-1.13; moderate); prevalent anxiety OR 1.48 (low); common mental disorders OR 1.53 (low). Class II: all-cause mortality RR 1.21 (low), heart-disease mortality HR 1.66 (low), T2D OR 1.40 (very low), depression HR 1.22 (low), sleep OR 1.41, wheezing RR 1.40, obesity OR 1.55 (low). GRADE overall: 22 low, 19 very low, 4 moderate.
- How large was the observed effect?
CVD mortality RR 1.50; T2D 1.12 per dose
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Consistent links, low certainty.
- What are the study's limitations?
All the studies behind it are observational; many results rest on only 2-4 studies; for most outcomes the certainty is low or very low; the mental-health results come mainly from one-time surveys that cannot show what came first.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and health: meta-analysis
Pagliai G et al.. Br J Nutr 2021 · PMID 32792031 · DOI 10.1017/S0007114520002688Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedHighest consumers had 25% higher death risk and 29% higher CVD risk in cohorts.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with health status?
- How was the study done?
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
23 studies (10 cross-sectional, 13 cohorts; 183,491 in cohorts); Adults
- What was actually found?
Cohorts: all-cause mortality RR 1.25 (1.14-1.37); CVD 1.29 (1.12-1.48); cerebrovascular 1.34 (1.07-1.68); depression 1.20 (1.03-1.40). Cross-sectional: overweight/obesity +39%, low HDL +102%, metabolic syndrome +79%.
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 1.25 mortality
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
Few studies per outcome
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)
-
A critical view of ultra-processed food research
Gibney MJ et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2017 · PMID 28793996 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.117.160440Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract only checkedCritics argue the UPF category is too broad and adds little beyond nutrients.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Critique of NOVA framework.
- How was the study done?
Critical commentary.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
Argues no evidence that UPF are hyperpalatable/quasi-addictive; EU/US data do not show UPF-dominated diets are low in micronutrients; NOVA definition too broad for food-based dietary guidelines; little advantage over nutrient-based epidemiology.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
The UPF concept is debated.
- What are the study's limitations?
Opinion piece; predates RCTs (Hall 2019, Dicken 2025)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That UPF are harmless.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Trans fats and heart disease (review)
Mozaffarian D et al.. N Engl J Med 2006 · PMID 16611951 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMra054035Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedA review of trans fats and heart disease; no abstract was available to assess.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Effects of trans fatty acids on CVD.
- How was the study done?
Narrative review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
No abstract available in PubMed; content not reviewed.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not assessable.
- What are the study's limitations?
Content not reviewed (no abstract)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Indirect context for C-UPF-03 (industrial trans fats are one historical UPF component).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Anything specific without full text.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
European cohorts dominate the evidence; EU policy does not regulate UPF as a category.
Egypt
No Egyptian cohort reviewed; PURE (A-UPF-12) included Middle Eastern participants for IBD only.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Higher UPF intake is consistently linked to chronic disease and mortality; certainty of causation is low.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
- Controls, imports, recalls, labelling
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Mortality Among Middle-aged Adults in France.. Schnabel L et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2019 · PMID 30742202 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289
- Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study.. Rico-Campà A et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31142450 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1949
- Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé).. Srour B et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31142457 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1451
- Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort.. Srour B et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2020 · PMID 31841598 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942
- Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.. Fiolet T et al.. BMJ 2018 · PMID 29444771 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.k322
- Ultra-processed food consumption is associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the Moli-sani Study.. Bonaccio M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2021 · PMID 33333551 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa299
- Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses.. Lane MM et al.. BMJ 2024 · PMID 38418082 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-077310
- Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Pagliai G et al.. Br J Nutr 2021 · PMID 32792031 · DOI 10.1017/S0007114520002688
- Ultra-processed foods in human health: a critical appraisal.. Gibney MJ et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2017 · PMID 28793996 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.117.160440
- Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease.. Mozaffarian D et al.. N Engl J Med 2006 · PMID 16611951 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMra054035