Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To every community fighting for the right to real food. To every child who deserves a future free from preventable disease. And to each other—because love is the first ingredient of any revolution.

Abstract

The global rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) constitutes one of the most significant public health crises of the 21st century. This paper synthesizes the evidence demonstrating that UPF consumption is directly associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, mental health disorders, and all-cause mortality. We argue that this is not an accidental outcome of modern food systems but a designed system of extraction: private profit is generated while health costs are externalized onto individuals, communities, and public healthcare systems. Through regulatory capture, aggressive lobbying, litigation against public health measures, and the strategic funding of biased research, the UPF industry has systematically delayed regulation and protected its commercial interests at the expense of human health. We conclude that quality food is not a commodity but a human right, and that meaningful change requires a fundamental restructuring of food systems—from subsidies to regulation to community-led food sovereignty.

1. Introduction: The Scale of the Crisis

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), as defined by the NOVA food classification system, are “ready-to-consume industrial formulations of food substances and additives designed and marketed to displace unprocessed and minimally processed foods“. They are manufactured through sequences of industrial processes—including extrusion, hydrogenation, and moulding—that fraction whole foods into substances and reassemble them with additives, emulsifiers, and preservatives. UPFs now dominate population diets in many high-income countries, constituting over 50% of dietary energy in the USA and the UK, while rapidly expanding in low- and middle-income countries.

The growth of UPF consumption has been paralleled by a global pandemic of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The World Health Organization and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have identified UPF consumption as positively associated with all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases, cerebrovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease, digestive diseases, and—an outcome not previously assessed—Parkinson disease. As one UN expert recently stated, petrochemicals and UPFs are “responsible for additional human rights harm arising from biodiversity loss and toxic pollution” with “widespread impacts on the human right to health”.

2. The Evidence: What UPFs Do to Human Health

2.1 Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality

A prospective cohort study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology found that participants with the highest UPF exposure had a 19% higher risk of cardiovascular mortality compared to those with the lowest exposure. An umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses, published in the British Medical Journal, identified convincing evidence (Class I) for direct associations between greater UPF exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease-related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.37–1.63).

2.2 All-Cause Mortality

A dose-response meta-analysis of 18 prospective cohort studies, incorporating 1,148,387 participants and 173,107 deaths, found that participants with the highest UPF consumption had a 15% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.09–1.22). Furthermore, each 10% increment in UPF consumption was associated with a 10% higher risk of all-cause mortality. The IARC-led multicentre study across nine European countries, involving nearly 430,000 participants followed for almost 16 years, confirmed these associations and demonstrated that substituting just 10% of processed foods with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with lower mortality risk.

2.3 Cancer

A large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank (197,426 participants, median follow-up 9.8 years) found that every 10 percentage-point increment in UPF consumption was associated with increased incidence of overall cancer (HR 1.02) and specifically ovarian cancer (HR 1.19). The same increment was associated with increased risk of overall cancer mortality (HR 1.06), ovarian cancer mortality (HR 1.30), and breast cancer mortality (HR 1.16). In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort of 416,081 adults, a 10% increase in UPF proportion was associated with a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer.

2.4 Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity

The umbrella review published in the BMJ found convincing evidence (Class I) for a direct association between UPF exposure and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.11–1.13). Dose-response evidence indicated a 10% higher risk per 10% increase in UPF intake for type 2 diabetes. Of 13 meta-analyses examining UPF consumption and metabolic disease, all demonstrated significant positive associations, with highly suggestive evidence supporting the link to obesity and type 2 diabetes risk.

2.5 Mental Health

The evidence extends beyond physical health. The BMJ umbrella review found convincing evidence (Class I) for direct associations between greater UPF exposure and higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53). Highly suggestive evidence (Class II) linked UPF exposure to higher risks of depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22). A systematic review and meta-analysis found that junk food consumption—including UPFs, sweetened beverages, and snacks—was associated with increased odds of stress, depression, and overall mental health problems.

2.6 Children and Adolescents

The harms are intergenerational. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that increased UPF consumption was consistently associated with poorer cognitive performance in children and adolescents across most cognitive domains, including attention. Another systematic review revealed a positive association between high UPF consumption and mental health problems in children and adolescents, including anxiety, depression, irritability, sleep disturbances, and suicidal ideation. Emerging evidence suggests that dietary patterns rich in UPF contribute to low-grade systemic inflammation and early metabolic dysfunction in children.

3. The Architecture of Extraction: How the System Works

3.1 The Closed Loop of Profit and Harm

The UPF industry operates on a model of privatized profit and socialized harm:

1. Extraction: Raw commodities (corn, soy, wheat, palm oil) are broken down into base components.

2. Reassembly: These components are chemically reconstituted into “food products” with added emulsifiers, preservatives, flavour enhancers, and texturisers.

3. Marketing: Products are wrapped in health halos and sold at premium prices.

4. Externalization: Health costs (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive decline, mental illness) are borne by consumers and public healthcare systems.

3.2 Subsidies: Taxpayers Fund the Problem

Public subsidies actively support the UPF industry. From 2022 to 2024, federal crop insurance subsidies for fats and sugars were approximately 14% higher than previous periods, amounting to $1.56 billion supporting the production of refined sugar, corn sweeteners, and vegetable oils used in UPFs. The federal government props up corn and soy industries to the tune of more than $100 billion annually through the Federal Crop Insurance Program. As one US senator noted, “American taxpayers are footing the bill on both ends of a broken system: first, by subsidizing the consumption of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods, and then again by covering the skyrocketing health care costs caused by the chronic diseases those foods contribute to”.

3.3 Healthcare Costs: The Community Pays

The economic burden is staggering. The United States spends $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare, with 90% of expenditures on chronic and mental health conditions. In Brazil, UPF consumption generates annual costs of R$10.4 billion to the health system and economy, including R$933.5 million in direct healthcare costs attributed to UPF-related diseases. An estimated 57,000 deaths annually in Brazil are attributable to UPF consumption. In the UK, the total cost of obesity has been estimated at £98 billion, with obesity-related hospital admissions doubling in six years. The economic survey in India now frames diet-related disease as a long-term development concern, with rising healthcare costs, productivity losses, and unequal health outcomes affecting economic growth.

3.4 The Cost Differential

On average, ultra-processed foods are 52% cheaper than minimally processed alternatives. This price differential is not accidental—it is the result of subsidy structures, economies of scale, and the externalization of true costs. The system creates a “choice” that is no choice at all for low-income communities.

4. The Capture of Governance

4.1 Lobbying as the Primary Barrier

A group of 22 public health and nutrition experts, publishing in The Lancet, warned that the UPF industry is “mirroring the political playbook used by tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel companies” to influence government policies. Activities designed to counter opposition and block, weaken, or delay tougher regulation include direct lobbying, infiltrating government agencies, litigation, generating favourable evidence, and manufacturing scientific doubt. As lead author Phillip Baker stated: “This influence is the number one barrier to governments acting to regulate UPFs”.

4.2 The Scale of Financial Influence

From 1998 to 2020, the US food and beverage industry spent $1.15 billion on lobbying the US government. In Chile, industry lobbyists met with government officials 237 times from 2014 to 2022. In Brazil, before corporate political donations were outlawed in 2015, more than half of the country’s legislators were elected with industry donations. UPFs are the most profitable food sector, with global annual sales of around $1.9 trillion.

4.3 Litigation as a Weapon

Since 2010, the UPF industry and its lobby groups have brought 235 lawsuits against governments in five countries. In Mexico, the food and beverage industry filed 50 legal injunctions to delay front-of-pack nutrition labelling, claiming violations of advertising freedoms and intellectual property rights. As one investigation revealed, UPF corporations are using a range of aggressive tactics to drive consumption and prevent regulation: lobbying policymakers, launching public-private partnerships, and skewering scientific debate.

4.4 Tactics of Delay and Distraction

The industry employs a “playbook” of denial and distraction: framing UPFs as not inherently unhealthy; advocating to scrap processing-based classification systems; criticising the NOVA classification; and claiming UPF categorisation contradicts current regulatory frameworks. Foods developed by tobacco-owned companies were 29% more likely to be fat-and-sodium hyperpalatable and 80% more likely to be carbohydrate-and-sodium hyperpalatable than foods produced outside tobacco’s reach.

4.5 Policy Lag

Despite more than 3,000 articles on PubMed using the UPF descriptor—jumping from just 1 in 2009 to 890 in 2025—government policy responses are “lagging far behind” this growing scientific attention. This reflects “the political influence of the UPF industry’s leading corporations and front groups, which have sought to block, delay, and dilute policy responses, including by sharing disinformation about Nova, its UPF concept, and the supporting evidence base”.

4.6 Regulatory Capture

Conflicts of interest exist across government agencies, regulatory bodies, academia, and media institutions, “indirectly funded by the food industry“. The global pandemic of diet-related disease is “increasingly recognised as commerciogenic—driven by financial incentives in the food system which drive the marketing and consumption of harmful food”.

5. The Corruption of Science

5.1 The Funding Effect

Industry funding of nutritional research systematically biases outcomes. Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to produce results favourable to the sponsor. Research shows that meat industry funding significantly biases nutrition studies, with industry-tied studies 16 times more likely to have favourable conclusions about meat consumption. Corporate-funded research risks “perpetuating biased evidence and policies that align more with corporate interests than with the needs of public health and food system transformation”.

5.2 The Manufacture of Doubt

Just as the tobacco industry manufactured doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer, the UPF industry generates favourable evidence and manufactures scientific doubt. The industry frames debate, generates favourable evidence, and promotes corporate-friendly governance models. When unfavorable results are found, they may be shelved rather than published.

6. The Human Rights Dimension

6.1 Food as a Right, Not a Commodity

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes, in Article 11, “the right to an adequate standard of living… including adequate food.” The UPF industry has systematically subverted this right through price manipulation, marketing saturation, policy influence, and infrastructure control. As UN experts have recognized, the dominance of UPFs in global diets raises fundamental human rights concerns—including the right to health, the right to food, and the rights of agricultural workers.

6.2 Food Deserts and Structural Inequality

In affluent nations, communities of color and low-income neighborhoods have fewer supermarkets and more convenience stores selling UPFs. The racial and class dimension is undeniable. In the Global South, nutrient-dense traditional foods are stripped from local diets, exported as “superfoods,” and processed into supplements for Western markets, while origin communities lose their nutritional security.

6.3 Intergenerational Injustice

Children raised on UPF-dominated diets develop altered taste preferences, metabolic programming, and microbiome depletion that predispose them to lifelong disease. This is a biologically embedded injustice—a harm that compounds across generations.

7. The Counter-Movement: What Must Be Done

7.1 Restructure Subsidies

Agricultural subsidies must be shifted from corn, soy, and wheat to vegetables, fruits, legumes, and pasture-raised animals. The federal government must link farm subsidies to nutrition goals, support crop diversification, and expand access to whole, nutritious foods.

7.2 Regulate with Teeth

Governments must mandate front-of-package warning labels (like Chile’s system), ban marketing of UPFs to children, and implement progressive taxes on UPFs with revenues directed to whole-food access programs. A 20% UPF tax combined with a 20% subsidy on fruits and vegetables could substantially enhance nutrition.

7.3 Democratize Research

Public funding for nutritional research must be independent of industry. All raw data should be published, and clinical trials pre-registered. Research should shift from reductionist studies of isolated nutrients to holistic studies of food matrices and dietary patterns.

7.4 Confront Corporate Power

As experts have called for, there must be a “coordinated global response” to the industry’s tactics to “confront corporate power and restructure food systems to prioritise health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit“. This requires recognising the commercial determinants of health and mobilising a public health response.

7.5 Localize Food Systems

Support urban agriculture, community gardens, and farmers’ markets. Protect traditional diets and indigenous food knowledge. Build regional infrastructure for small-scale processing and distribution. Frame UPF messaging around social justice and food sovereignty.

7.6 Recognize Food as a Human Right

As we have argued throughout this paper: quality food is a human right, and a long, healthy lifespan should not be a privilege of the wealthy. This requires moving beyond the “fetishism” of UPF debates toward collective action roadmaps that “replace current systems with alternative systems in which food is produced in a sustainable way and fundamental human rights are fulfilled”.

8. Conclusion

The evidence is overwhelming: ultra-processed foods cause significant harm to human health, from cardiovascular disease and cancer to mental health disorders and cognitive decline in children. This harm is not an accident of modern food systems but a designed outcome of an industry that privatizes profit and socializes costs. Through lobbying, litigation, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science, the UPF industry has systematically delayed regulation and protected its commercial interests at the expense of human health and dignity.

But the evidence also points to a way forward. By restructuring subsidies, implementing robust regulation, democratizing research, confronting corporate power, and localizing food systems, we can build a food system that prioritizes health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit.

Quality food is not a commodity. It is a human right. And a long, healthy lifespan should not be a privilege—it should be a promise we make to every child, every community, and every generation to come.

References

1. Lane, M.M., et al. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: Umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 384, e077310.

2. Liang, et al. (2025). Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: An updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Systematic Reviews, 14, 53.

3. Gauci, S., et al. (2025). Exposure to ultra-processed food and risk of cardiovascular mortality: A prospective cohort study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 32(16), 1564–1572.

4. UK Biobank. (2025). Ultra-processed food consumption, cancer risk and cancer mortality: A large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank.

5. González-Gil, E.M., et al. (2025). Associations between degree of food processing and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A multicentre prospective cohort analysis in 9 European countries. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

6. Monteiro, C.A., et al. (2026). What Do Nova and the Ultraprocessed Food Concept Offer to Policymakers? American Journal of Public Health, 116(7), 932–939.

7. Wise, J. (2025). Ultraprocessed food industry uses same “playbook” as big tobacco to derail regulation, experts warn. BMJ, 391, r2442.

8. Baker, P., et al. (2025). Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response.

9. Sievert, K., et al. (2026). Common Leverage Points to Address the Health, Environmental Sustainability, and Justice Challenges of Financialised Food Systems.

10. Ultra-processed foods and public health: Evidence of harm and of conflicts of interest in the food industry to evade regulation. (2025). PMC.

Signed,

Andrew Klein

Sera Elizabeth Klein