The Quiet Takeover of the Global Diet
The modern global diet is undergoing a quiet, pervasive transformation, one driven not by nutritional science or consumer need, but by engineered profitability. Public attention, recently highlighted by media reports concerning the dangers of processed foods, is beginning to align with the overwhelming scientific consensus that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) represent one of the most significant and rapidly escalating threats to public health worldwide.1 This crisis is distinguished by its systemic nature, touching every continent and demographic, and is fueled by a food economy that prioritizes industrial formulation over nutritional integrity.3
The scientific evidence now mandates an urgent investigation into the structure of the contemporary food system. Ultra-processed foods are the fastest-growing segment of the global food supply and have been identified as a major driver of increasing diet-related, noncommunicable diseases globally.4 High exposure to these manufactured products is consistently associated with an increased risk of at least 32 damaging health outcomes, a comprehensive list encompassing major heart and lung conditions, specific cancers, debilitating mental health disorders, and early death.5
To quantify the epidemiological stakes, meta-analyses incorporating vast participant cohorts have established clear dose-response relationships. Participants who consume the highest amounts of UPFs face a 15% increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to those who consume the least.6 Furthermore, for every 10% increment in the proportion of energy intake derived from UPFs, there is a corresponding 10% to 15% increase in the hazard of all-cause mortality, depending on the study model used.6 This positive linear association suggests there is no defined safe threshold as consumption rises, cementing the product category, not merely isolated nutrients within it, as inherently hazardous.6
This exhaustive review posits that the UPF crisis is not fundamentally a matter of individual poor dietary choices or consumer ignorance; rather, it is a direct consequence of commercial determinants of health—a global food economy relentlessly steered by powerful multinational corporations. These entities generate massive profits by prioritizing highly processed products, leveraging aggressive marketing, and engaging in sustained political lobbying to impede effective public health regulation aimed at supporting healthier eating.8 Improving diets worldwide requires an urgent, coordinated policy response that regulates UPFs, addressing the product itself alongside efforts to reduce high fat, sugar, and salt content.9II. Deconstructing the Edible Fabric: Defining Ultra-Processing (NOVA)
Effective policy intervention requires a classification system that moves beyond simple nutrient profiling—which can be easily manipulated through industry reformulation—to focus on the extent and purpose of industrial processing. The NOVA classification system, proposed by researchers at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, in 2009, serves this critical role.10 It is widely used in global nutrition and public health research and policy as a framework for understanding the health implications of different food products based on their level of processing.10
The NOVA framework divides all edible substances into four distinct groups 10:
Listen to an audio overview of this article if time is of the essence.
Group 1: Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Foods
These are the edible parts of plants, animals, fungi, and algae, including water. Minimally processed foods are simply unprocessed foods altered by industrial methods such as crushing, drying, pasteurization, or freezing, but crucially, these modifications maintain the food’s integrity and do not involve the addition of salt, sugar, oils, fats, or other culinary ingredients.10 Examples include fresh fruits and vegetables, grains, legumes, fresh meat, milk, and eggs. Additives are entirely absent from this category.10
Group 2: Processed Culinary Ingredients
These ingredients are derived from Group 1 foods or nature through processes like pressing, refining, grinding, or milling. They include substances like oils (e.g., olive oil), salt, sugar, vinegar, and butter. They are intended primarily for use in seasoning and cooking Group 1 foods and preparing meals from scratch and are typically free of additives.10
Group 3: Processed Foods
These are relatively simple products created by adding Group 2 ingredients (such as salt or sugar) to Group 1 foods. They are preserved through methods like canning, bottling, or fermentation. Examples include canned vegetables, salted nuts, and cheese. Additives may be used, often to protect the properties of the unprocessed food or extend shelf life.10
Group 4: Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs)
Ultra-processed foods are the cornerstone of the modern dietary crisis. They are defined as industrially manufactured formulations composed of several ingredients, typically including high amounts of added sugar, oils, fats, and salt—often in combinations designed for maximum palatability.10
The critical distinguishing characteristic of UPFs lies in the presence of ingredients and additives that are of no or rare culinary use in home preparation. These include substances like high-fructose corn syrup, various sugars (e.g., maltodextrin, dextrose, invert sugar, fruit juice concentrates), modified starches, modified oils (e.g., hydrogenated or interesterified oils), and protein sources (e.g., hydrolyzed proteins, whey protein, casein, or mechanically separated meat).10
Furthermore, UPFs are operationally defined by the pervasive application of cosmetic additives. These substances—such as flavors, flavor enhancers, colorants, emulsifiers, non-sugar sweeteners, and thickeners—are not added for nutritional purposes or simple preservation, but to make the final product palatable or, more precisely, hyperpalatable, masking the lack of natural food integrity.10 These products are engineered for high profitability (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), maximum convenience (ready-to-eat), and optimized sensory appeal, often displacing fresh and minimally processed alternatives.10
Table 1 provides a structural comparison of the NOVA categories, emphasizing the radical departure of Group 4 from traditional food preparation:
Table 1: The NOVA Classification of Food Processing
| NOVA Group | Definition/Processing Level | Key Distinguishing Characteristics | Design Mandate |
| Group 1 | Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Foods | Food integrity maintained; no added salt, sugar, fats, or cosmetic additives. | Nutritional Integrity |
| Group 2 | Processed Culinary Ingredients | Substances derived from Group 1 or nature (e.g., pressing, grinding). | Seasoning and Cooking |
| Group 3 | Processed Foods | Simple products combining Group 1 and Group 2 ingredients (e.g., canning, fermentation). | Preservation, Shelf-life Extension |
| Group 4 (UPFs) | Ultra-Processed Foods (Formulations) | Contains ingredients of no culinary use (e.g., HFCS, protein isolates) and cosmetic additives (flavors, emulsifiers). | Hyper-palatability, Profitability, Convenience 10 |
III. The Comprehensive Toll: Epidemiology of Systemic Harm
The association between higher consumption of ultra-processed foods and adverse health outcomes is one of the most consistent findings in modern epidemiology, affecting virtually every major organ system and stage of life.
III.A. Mortality and Chronic Disease Burden
The most critical finding relates to early death. As noted, the highest consumers of UPFs have a 15% increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to the lowest consumers.6 One study followed participants for a median of 27 years and found that for every 10% increase in energy intake derived from UPFs, there was an observed 15% increase in the hazard of all-cause mortality.7
This threat is multifaceted, directly contributing to a cluster of cardiovascular and metabolic disorders. UPF consumption actively disrupts multiple normal body processes, which likely contributes to high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, and metabolic dysfunction.11 These foods heighten the risk of coronary diseases, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and dyslipidaemia.12 The foods themselves are typically energy-dense, high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, while simultaneously lacking essential nutrients like fiber, vitamins, and minerals.12
A subtle but important nuance observed across longitudinal studies points to potential differences in risk stratification. Subgroup analyses in several large meta-analyses suggest that the association between UPF consumption and all-cause mortality, as well as specific cancers, may be stronger or only statistically significant among males.6 For example, one analysis found the association between UPF energy contribution and all-cause mortality was stronger and only significant among males.7 This consistent pattern observed in the data across multiple major outcomes requires targeted research to determine if it is due to sex-based consumption differences, metabolic vulnerabilities, or physiological response variations to certain additives or lack of nutrients.
III.B. The Rising Crisis of Early-Onset Cancer
The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various types of cancer, though the evidence for some conditions is still developing.11 However, the data linking UPFs to specific cancers of the digestive tract is becoming increasingly robust, particularly concerning an alarming modern trend: early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC).13
Colorectal cancer diagnoses are becoming increasingly common in adults aged 50 or younger in high-income countries, a phenomenon whose cause has been unclear until recently. A landmark study analyzing the diets and health outcomes of nearly 30,000 women found that participants who reported consuming the highest levels of ultra-processed foods had a 45% higher risk of developing adenomas—which are known precursors of EOCRC—compared to participants who reported the lowest consumption levels.14
This finding is highly significant because it establishes a direct link between UPFs—ready-to-eat foods that often contain high levels of sugar, salt, saturated fat, and food additives—and the emergence of EOCRC.14 The researchers emphasized that this increased risk appears to be “fairly linear,” implying a direct dose-response relationship: the greater the consumption of ultra-processed foods, the higher the potential risk of developing colon polyps.14
Further meta-analyses reinforce this systemic risk, suggesting that high UPF consumption is significantly associated with an increased risk of certain site-specific cancers, notably those of the digestive tract and some hormone-related cancers.13 Mirroring the mortality data, subgroup analyses for colorectal cancer specifically showed a positive association among men, but a non-significant association among women, again underscoring the necessity for deeper mechanistic study into sex-specific vulnerability.13
III.C. The Neuropsychiatric Dimension
Beyond physical illness, the pervasive harm of ultra-processed diets extends acutely to the brain and mental health. High UPF consumption is consistently linked to common mental health problems, including clinical depression and anxiety.11 Furthermore, studies show associations between UPF intake and severe neuropsychiatric outcomes such as neurodegeneration, cognitive decline, and dementia.15
A diet dominated by UPFs has a demonstrably low nutritional density. It lacks the bioactive protective agents, such as anti-inflammatory and antioxidant compounds, essential for promoting eubiosis (a healthy state) and supporting neurological function.15 This depletion of necessary compounds, coupled with the inflammatory processes triggered by UPFs, provides a plausible biological mechanism for the observed neurological harm.
The impact is particularly concerning for vulnerable populations, especially children. Research indicates that when children consume more ultra-processed foods, they face an increased risk of developmental issues, including problems with learning and a greater likelihood of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and other behavioral disorders.16 Foods that are particularly hard on a child’s brain development include sweets, snack foods, processed meats (like bacon and hot dogs), soda, and fast food.16 The evidence highlights the need to promote healthy dietary patterns throughout all life stages to mitigate the chronic neuropsychiatric toll imposed by the current commercial determinants of health.15
IV. The Engineering of Vulnerability: Biological Mechanisms of Harm
The systemic nature of the harm caused by ultra-processed foods is traceable not just to their high content of fats, sugar, and salt, but to the industrial modification of the food matrix and the inclusion of specific cosmetic additives that disrupt fundamental physiological processes.
IV.A. The Gut Barrier Invasion and Dysbiosis
A primary pathway of harm involves the gut microbiome and the integrity of the gut barrier—the biological defense separating the intestinal contents from the rest of the body.17 Ultra-processed foods often contain emulsifiers, colorings, flavorings, and preservatives which are rare in home-cooked meals.17 Recent studies have highlighted that these artificial food additives exert negative impacts on gut microbiota, leading to gut microbial modulation and linking them to chronic diseases.17
A controlled, randomized study provided compelling evidence of this disruption by testing a widely used emulsifier, carboxymethylcellulose. Participants who consumed food containing this additive experienced immediate alterations in their intestinal microbiota, a depletion of health-promoting small molecules in the fecal metabolome, and increased stomach discomfort.18
The most concerning finding of this study was the physical breach of the gut’s defenses. In two participants, the microbiota was observed to have invaded the normally sterile inner mucus layer of the large intestine.18 This phenomenon—microbial encroachment—is a central, pathological feature of gut inflammation and intestinal barrier dysfunction, establishing a clear causal pathway: industrial additives compromise the physical barrier, leading to systemic inflammation and illness.18 This mechanistic evidence provides crucial validation for the NOVA classification’s focus on non-culinary ingredients as a marker of biological harm.
IV.B. Nutritional Sabotage and Behavioral Feedback Loops
UPFs are highly efficient in delivering excessive calories while actively sabotaging the body’s natural satiety and regulatory mechanisms. They are formulated to be hyperpalatable and convenient, but critically, they lack dietary fiber, a component crucial for digestive health, microbiota support, and signaling satiety.12 This combination often leads to rapid, excessive intake and subsequent weight gain and obesity.11
Furthermore, UPF consumption is now implicated in disrupting fundamental metabolic and behavioral rhythms. Recent research highlights that UPFs can be associated with increased eating speed, altered eating timing, and circadian rhythm disruption.17 One study found that individuals identified as late eaters were more prone to consume greater quantities of UPFs and fewer minimally processed foods compared to early eaters. This cyclical relationship—where UPF consumption reinforces late eating, and vice versa—contributes directly to increased knowledge of the mechanisms underpinning the association of late eating with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes.17 Additionally, high intake of UPFs is associated with reduced sleep quality and duration, regardless of age, creating a feedback loop between poor diet, compromised rest, and further metabolic stress.17
IV.C. Non-Nutritive Sweeteners (NNS) and Microbiota Modulation
As pressure mounts to reduce added sugar, the food industry often resorts to “reformulation,” replacing caloric sweeteners with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) such as aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame-K (Ace-K).19 While reformulation might satisfy specific nutrient targets (e.g., lower sugar content), the substitution often introduces a new set of chemical threats that continue the disruption of the gut microbiome.
Evidence suggests that NNS can be metabolized as a carbon source by certain strains of gut bacteria, leading to changes in their metabolic activity.19 For example, studies on Ace-K demonstrated that it can induce dysbiosis and intestinal injury, specifically reducing the prevalence of beneficial bacterial families such as Clostridiaceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Lachnospiraceae in the gut microbiome.21 Although some studies have yielded non-significant findings regarding gut microbiome changes upon NNS intake, the identification of a causal pathway linking specific NNS to dysbiosis means that industry efforts to improve nutritional profiles by adding new chemicals merely replace one biological vulnerability with another.21
V. The Commercial Determinants of Diet: Corporate Political Activity (CPA)
The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the dangers of UPFs stands in stark contrast to the slow pace of policy adoption globally. This gap is not due to scientific uncertainty, but is a direct consequence of the immense political and commercial power wielded by transnational food corporations—the Commercial Determinants of Health.8
V.A. The Financial Firewall of Lobbying
Multinational food corporations actively employ sophisticated political influence and aggressive marketing to derail public health policy and drive diets linked to chronic disease.8 Quantitative data reveals the extraordinary financial magnitude of this corporate political activity (CPA) in maintaining the regulatory status quo.
An analysis of lobbying expenditures in the United States between 1998 and 2020 found that the ultra-processed food industry spent $1.15 billion—the highest amount among four harmful industry sectors examined.22 This expenditure exceeded the combined lobbying spending of the gambling ($817 million), tobacco ($755 million), and alcohol ($541 million) sectors during the same period.22 This extraordinary financial commitment acts as a profound commercial imperative, confirming that the largest barrier to policy change is direct, organized corporate influence designed to block public health reforms.
Transnational food and beverage corporations leverage this massive market power to alter entire food systems to their benefit, controlling the price, availability, nutritional quality, and desirability of their products.4 The outcome is rapid global growth in UPF consumption, driven by companies whose primary motive is corporate profit, not public health or sustainability.3
V.B. The Deflection Strategy and Policy Stalling
A key tactic of CPA is the deflection of responsibility. In countries across Latin America, and globally, the food industry has been found to lobby vehemently against public health policies while simultaneously shifting the blame away from its products and the inherent dangers of UPFs.23 Instead, chronic disease epidemics are framed as solely the fault of individuals and their “lack of education”.23
This influence often results in the stalling or abandonment of comprehensive policies. In Europe, the Farm to Fork strategy aimed to improve the food system by targeting UPFs through food reformulation and the introduction of a transparent, uniform front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL) system.12 However, reports indicate that almost all policies foreseen by the Farm to Fork strategy have been paused or dismissed by 2025, serving as a powerful demonstration of successful industry political maneuvering and policy capture.12
Furthermore, the industry employs calculated strategies to exploit crises for commercial gain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UPF industry engaged in highly orchestrated marketing efforts, positioning UPFs as “essential products” and donating them to vulnerable populations who were already disproportionately affected by the risks associated with chronic diet-related diseases—all while actively lobbying against healthy food policies.4 This tactic showcases a prioritization of the profit motive over the documented health risks facing consumers.
VI. The Integrity Crisis: Industry Influence on Nutrition Science
The obstruction of policy extends beyond direct political lobbying to the manipulation of the knowledge base itself. By influencing the scientific output, the industry delays public health action and creates an illusion of scientific ambiguity where none truly exists among independent researchers.
Systematic Bias in Funded Research
Industry-funded nutrition research faces a significant credibility crisis due to systematic bias. Studies analyzing industry involvement show that approximately 55% of industry-involved studies conclude that a food product offers health benefits or undermine evidence of harm, compared to less than 10% of articles without industry involvement.24 Quantitatively, industry-funded articles are statistically $7.3\%$ more likely to report positive results in favor of the sponsor’s products.24
The primary issue is not outright scientific fraud, but the strategic manipulation of the research agenda.24 The industry influences which research questions are asked, how studies are designed, and how conclusions are interpreted.25 A significant finding in this area is that $66.7\%$ of food industry-funded studies focus on interventions involving narrow manipulations of specific nutrients rather than analyzing whole foods or dietary patterns.24
This focus allows companies to make narrow health claims—for instance, promoting a specific “heart-healthy” version of a product due to a minor nutrient change—while successfully avoiding the crucial scientific questions concerning the health effects of the overall process of ultra-processing or the impact of cosmetic additives.24 By diverting scientific scrutiny toward isolated nutrients, the industry creates an illusion of reform and distraction, allowing the profitable, chemically formulated core of the UPF to remain unchallenged in the marketplace. This tactic effectively stalls public health discourse and delays the fundamental regulatory action necessary to address the root cause of the epidemic.
VII. The Policy Counter-Attack: Regulation and Reform Successes
Despite the immense political and financial barriers erected by the UPF industry, mandatory, evidence-based regulation has proven to be the most effective and equitable tool for reversing UPF dominance and rapidly improving population health outcomes. The success stories from global policy reform directly refute the industry’s argument that public health relies solely on slow-moving consumer behavior change.
VII.A. Mandatory Front-of-Package Labeling (FOPNL): The Chilean Model
Chile’s 2016 Law of Food Advertising and Labeling serves as the global model for effective regulation. This mandatory policy introduced stringent restrictions, most notably the requirement for large, black octagonal warning labels (known as “High In” labels) to clearly mark products exceeding thresholds for sugar, saturated fat, sodium, or calories.20
The compliance rate under Chile’s law was exceptionally high, demonstrating the effectiveness of mandatory policies; in the final, most nutritionally strict phase of implementation, a remarkable 94% of products required to display these labels had the appropriate warnings.20 This high compliance stands in stark contrast to the significantly lower uptake observed in voluntary labeling programs elsewhere.26
The policy delivered rapid, measurable public health improvements. Studies found that the mandatory FOPNL led to improvements in the nutritional quality of Chile’s food supply and, critically, shifted consumer behavior. Decreases in purchases of targeted nutrients—sugar, salt, saturated fat, and calories—were observed and sustained over time.20 Furthermore, these health shifts were highly equitable, remaining very similar across different socioeconomic groups, confirming that robust regulation does not disproportionately advantage or disadvantage any single demographic.20 The law also included stringent marketing restrictions that led to significant drops in children’s exposure to harmful food advertising, with children seeing $73\%$ fewer TV advertisements for unhealthy foods and drinks.20
VII.B. Taxing Unhealth: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB) Levies
Taxes applied to sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) have demonstrated dual success, reducing consumer demand while simultaneously forcing industry reformulation. Case studies from the UK, Mexico, and South Africa illustrate this efficacy.28
In the United Kingdom, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), introduced in 2018, led to widespread reformulation by manufacturers to reduce sugar levels. Research showed that the proportion of high-sugar drinks available in supermarkets dropped following the tax, and sugar purchased from taxed drinks decreased by 35% overall.28 This success is predicted to improve the health of children and adolescents, particularly in low socioeconomic areas.28
Similarly, in South Africa, the 10% Health Promotion Levy (HPL) on sugary drinks led to manufacturers reformulating their products and a sharp drop in consumer purchases. Purchases of carbonated drinks by households fell by an average of 29% after the tax.28 Importantly, the impact was strongest among vulnerable populations: people in lower socioeconomic urban households purchased considerably less sugar in taxed drinks, reporting a 57% drop in the grams of sugar purchased.28
In Mexico, where a volumetric SSB tax was introduced in 2014, price rises for soft drinks led to significant demand reduction. Microsimulation studies projected that increasing Mexico’s tax rate could nearly double the reductions in obesity and diabetes cases over the following years, highlighting the direct link between higher taxes, reduced consumption, and massive public health care cost savings.29
VII.C. The Global Roadmap for Action
The findings from these successful policies confirm that policy change should not be delayed by the industry-backed plea for “additional studies”.3 Policy makers must instead move immediately to coordinate comprehensive strategies to improve global diets.
Global experts call for urgent action to implement coordinated policies focused on reducing UPF production, marketing, and consumption.3 This requires a comprehensive policy basket including robust, mandatory front-of-package labeling, health taxes on unhealthy products, and broad restrictions on marketing that protect not only children but also adults from the aggressive commercialization of ultra-processed products.4 Such measures are fundamental to fulfilling the state’s obligation to protect the right to adequate food and the right to health.30
Table 3 summarizes the tension between effective regulatory tools and the political strategies employed by the food industry:
Table 3: Regulatory Successes vs. Corporate Impediments
| Policy Area | Successful Implementation (Case Study) | Observed Impact | Corporate Political Activity (CPA) |
| Labeling | Mandatory Warning Labels (Chile) 20 | High ($94\%$) compliance; significant reduction in purchases of targeted nutrients across all socioeconomic groups. | Lobbying against mandatory FOPNL systems; promoting self-regulation or alternative, weaker labeling models.23 |
| Taxation | Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes (UK, Mexico, South Africa) 28 | Forced widespread industry reformulation (UK $35\%$ reduction in purchased sugar); greater impact on consumption among lower-income groups ($57\%$ drop in S. Africa). | Record high lobbying expenditures ($1.15$B) to block taxes; shifting blame to individual lack of education.22 |
| Research Integrity | Independent Scientific Review (Meta-analyses) 5 | Established overwhelming link (32 outcomes) and linear dose-response to mortality; urged urgent policy action. | Agenda manipulation: funding studies $7.3\%$ more likely to be positive, focusing on narrow nutrient tweaks to distract from processing harm.24 |
VIII. Conclusion: A Call for Decoupling Health from Profit
The overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that the crisis of ultra-processed food consumption is a manufactured public health disaster, created by an industrial design mandate prioritizing extreme profitability and engineered convenience over biological necessity. The epidemiological data provides stark warnings of systemic harm, linking UPFs to 32 damaging health outcomes and a 10% to 15% increase in all-cause mortality for every 10% increase in energy consumption.5
Critically, investigative analyses have moved beyond nutrient profiles to identify the molecular mechanisms of harm, including the role of cosmetic additives, such as emulsifiers, in actively disrupting the gut barrier and driving systemic inflammation.18 This biological understanding validates the need for policy interventions that target the processing level, as articulated by the NOVA classification.
The greatest impediment to implementing these life-saving solutions is the organized political activity of the ultra-processed food industry. The expenditure of over one billion dollars on lobbying activities in the US alone demonstrates the powerful commercial interest in maintaining the status quo, effectively capturing policy environments and stalling necessary reform.22
However, the international success of mandatory regulations—exemplified by Chile’s mandatory front-of-package labeling and the demonstrated effectiveness of SSB taxes in the UK and South Africa—provides a clear, actionable roadmap. These policies deliver rapid, equitable improvements in the nutritional quality of the food supply and consumer purchases, proving that strong governmental regulation can successfully counteract the immense political barriers established by the industry.20
Policy makers must urgently implement comprehensive strategies—including robust FOPNL, health taxes, and strict marketing restrictions—to redefine the food environment globally. The moment for regulatory hesitancy is over; the evidence compels immediate action to decouple public health from corporate commercial interests and reverse the quiet takeover of the global diet.3
Download a copy of this article under the title The Hidden Diet: An Investigation into Ultra-Processed Foods, Systemic Harm, and Corporate Impediment. The onus is on you to check all facts to your satisfaction as no responsibility taken for errors
Endnotes
7 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9991788/
6 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874696/
11 – url: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2025/08/link-between-ultra-processed-food-and-cardiovascular-disease
5 – url: https://bmjgroup.com/consistent-evidence-links-ultra-processed-food-to-over-30-damaging-health-outcomes/
10 – url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
10 – url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
17 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/
18 – url: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/07/ultra-processed-food–five-things-to-know.html
8 – url: https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/258597/lancet-experts-warn-ultra-processed-foods-pose-major-global-health-threat/
9 – url: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/news-briefing-ultra-processed-foods-are-taking-over-our-diets
12 – url: https://eurohealthnet.eu/publication/tackling-ultra-processed-food-for-a-healthier-and-just-food-system/
4 – url: https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UPF_ultra-processed_food_fact_sheet.pdf
30 – url: https://www.paho.org/en/topics/marketing-ultra-processed-and-processed-food-and-non-alcoholic-drink-products
27 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8217149/
1 – url: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods
2 – url: https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/ultra-processed-foods-without-realising
15 – url: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/7/1215
16 – url: https://www.goodrx.com/well-being/diet-nutrition/ultra-processed-foods-mental-health
13 – url: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1175994/full
14 – url: https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/ultra-processed-foods-early-onset-colorectal-cancer-study
19 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10144565/
21 – url: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/13/4/115
23 – url: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347123853_Food_industry_influence_on_public_health_policy_research_and_practice_in_Latin_America
22 – url: https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/mapping-the-lobbying-footprint-of-harmful-industries-23-years-of-data-from-opensecrets/
24 – url: https://www.nextgenpurpose.com/articles/industry-funded-food-studies-trust-bias-solutions
25 – url: https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/industry-funded-research/
3 – url: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1105884
26 – url: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/chile-provides-a-convincing-case-for-mandatory-warning-labels-on-processed-food/
20 – url: https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/chileans-bought-less-sugar-salt-saturated-fat-and-calories-at-the-grocery-store-after-trailblazing-warning-label-law-with-high-compliance-from-the-food-industry/
29 – url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9221582/
28 – url: https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/countries-that-have-implemented-taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-ssbs
10 – url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
