Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-02 standard review
Ultra-processed food and death in France
Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Mortality Among Middle-aged Adults in France.
Overview
Schnabel L et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2019 · PMID 30742202 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289
Each 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 14% higher death risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
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.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Schnabel L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Touvier M, Srour B, Hercberg S, Buscail C, Julia C
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2019
- Identifier
- PMID 30742202 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289 · PMC6450295
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
COI statement empty
2. Research question
Is UPF consumption associated with all-cause mortality?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Santé), web 24-h records.
- Population
Adults >=45 y, 73% women
- Country
France
- Period
2009-2017; median 7.1 y
- Sample size
44,551; 602 deaths
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
>=1 set of 3 records in first 2 years
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
% UPF by weight
- Comparator
Per 10% increment
- Endpoints
All-cause mortality
- Statistical methods
Cox (age as time scale)
5. Actual results
- Results
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.
- Absolute risks
602 deaths (1.4%)
- Authors' conclusion
UPF consumption appears associated with higher mortality; further studies needed.
6. Strengths
- Detailed 24-h records
7. Weaknesses
- Volunteer cohort, mostly women
- Few deaths
- NOVA misclassification possible
- Residual confounding
- Self-reported diet
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Socio-economic confounding.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Modest HR.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-UPF-03.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High (France).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supportive cohort.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Causality.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).
- A. What was actually studied?
UPF and mortality.
- B. What did the authors find?
HR 1.14 per 10%.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Needs confirmation.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports 'all-cause mortality'.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Consistent.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable