Scientists finally reveal true death toll from ultraprocessed foods... and it's worse than anyone feared

Ultraprocessed foods are killing more Americans than fentanyl, a shock study suggests.
Using death records and nutritional data, researchers estimated that 125,000 premature deaths in the US could be blamed on consuming these types of foods in 2017-2018.
For comparison, 73,000 died from fentanyl overdoses in 2022, the latest data shows.
Ultraprocessed food is thought to increase the risk of conditions like diabetes and heart disease due to high levels of saturated fat and sugar, as well as artificial additives.
The study looked into diets in eight countries, including the US and UK.
They then estimated how many of those deaths could be linked to ultraprocessed foods like meats, candy, ice cream and even some salads and breads through nutritional surveys.
The study found one in seven of the nearly 1million premature deaths in the US could be blamed on ultraprocessed foods from 2017 to 2018.
According to the study, ultraprocessed foods also make up more than half of the calories the average American consumes every day - more than any other country in the world.
The above table shows the percentage of calories ultraprocessed foods account for in all countries studied and the number of premature deaths associated with them
And for every 10 percent of extra ultraprocessed food consumed, the risk of early death increases by three percent.
Ultraprocessed foods have long been under scrutiny for containing high levels of saturated fat, salt, sugar and additives like emulsifiers and artificial colors not typically found in home cooking.
As a result, the researchers associated them with 32 chronic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, obesity and some forms of cancer.
Dr Eduardo Nilson, lead study author from the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil, said: 'UPFs affect health beyond the individual impact of high content of critical nutrients (sodium, trans fats and sugar) because of the changes in the foods during industrial processing and the use of artificial ingredients, including colorants, artificial flavors and sweeteners, emulsifiers, and many other additives and processing aids.'
He noted because of this, 'assessing deaths from all-causes associated with UPF consumption allows an overall estimate of the effect of industrial food processing on health.'
Independent researchers, however, cautioned the findings do not prove ultraprocessed foods directly lead to an early death and called for additional studies.
The study, published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, calculated the number of premature deaths in the US, UK, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Australia and Canada.
From 2017 to 2018, the US experienced 906,795 premature deaths, which is defined as death before a country's average life expectancy. In the US, this is 77 years old.
That was nearly twice the amount of the next closest country, Brazil, which had 556,696.
The team then collected nutritional data from national surveys to calculate how pervasive ultraprocessed foods are in each country's diet.
In the US, ultraprocessed foods were responsible for 54 percent of the average person's consumed calories.
The researchers found 124,107 premature deaths in the US could be blamed on ultraprocessed foods. This is about 14 percent or one in seven.
Meanwhile 17,781 deaths could be linked to these foods in the UK, also totaling about 14 percent.
Colombia, Brazil and Chile, however, attributed ultraprocessed foods to four to six percent of their premature deaths.
The researchers suggested this could be because these foods are less common in these countries. For example, ultraprocessed foods only make up 15 percent of the average calories consumed in Colombia.
In Brazil and Chile, these foods account for 17 and 23 percent of the average resident's diet, respectively.
Studies have linked ultra processed foods to cancer, diabetes, mental health conditions and obesity
The researchers wrote: 'Premature deaths attributable to consumptions of ultraprocessed foods increase significantly according to their share in individuals' total energy intake.
'A high amount of UPF intake can significantly affect health.'
A study published last year in BMJ, for example, found people who consumed the highest amount of ultraprocessed foods had a four percent higher risk of death overall and a nine percent greater risk of dying from a chronic disease other than cancer or heart disease.
Those researchers suggested the increased risk could be due to high amounts of sugar, saturated fat and sodium.
The team behind the new study urged lawmakers worldwide to introduce measures to eliminate ultraprocessed foods from the food supply, such as tighter regulations of food marketing and restrictions on selling them in schools.
There were several limitations to the study, mainly including the findigns showing associations rather than direct causes.
Independent experts also raised concerns about the findings.
Professor Nita Forouhi, professor of health and nutrition at the University of Cambridge, said: 'There are limitations to this paper, including the points the authors themselves raised.
'Nonetheless, evidence on the 'health harms of UPF' are accumulating and this paper does add to that body of evidence, and UPFs are unlikely to be healthful.'
Forouhi emphasized correlation does not mean ultraprocessed foods directly cause death, though observational studies 'are often the best we are going to get realistically.'
'We should not ignore such findings, especially as the current research has reported consistently similar associations in several countries which increases the degree of confidence,' she added.
Professor Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at Open University in England, said: 'The researchers may appear to be making a simple comparison, but in fact it's a lot more complicated than you might think.
Like Forouhi, McConway noted the data is observational and does not prove causation. 'Researchers record what people eat, and then follow them up for a long time and record if and when they died,' he said.
'This all means that it's impossible, for any one study like that, to be sure whether differences in mortality between people who consume different UPF amounts are actually caused by differences in their UPF consumption.
'There are bound to be many other differences between groups who consume different UPF amounts, in terms of other details of their diet, their lifestyle, their economic position, their sex and age, and so on. These differences might be, in part or in whole, the reason for the differences in the risk of early death.'
He added: 'I'm certainly not saying that there is no association between UPF consumption and ill health – just that it's still far from clear whether consumption of just any UPF at all is bad for health, or of what aspect of UPFs might be involved.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NBC News

4 hours ago

• NBC News

Outside groups organize to form unbiased, independent vaccine panel

In the wake of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to shake up a key federal vaccine advisory committee, outside medical organizations and independent experts are looking for alternate sources of unbiased information and even considering forming a group of their own. A leading contender is a new group led by Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert and the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm is launching the Vaccine Integrity Project at CIDRAP as a potential alternative to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 'We've always just taken for granted that routine child immunizations and other vaccines would be readily available and that they would be supported by the public health system,' Osterholm said. 'Now that's in question.' Earlier this month, Kennedy fired all 17 members from ACIP, appointing in their place eight new members, many of whom have expressed vaccine-skeptical views or questioned pandemic restrictions. Kennedy himself has a long history of anti-vaccination activism. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the new ACIP members a ' radical departure' from the committee's mission of protecting kids. ACIP holds a significant amount of influence over vaccinations in the U.S.; the panel is responsible for setting the childhood vaccination schedule and determining what vaccines are given free of charge under the Vaccines for Children Program. Its recommendations guide what vaccinations are required for attending public school and what shots insurance covers. 'The real risk is that families and patients may not have access to vaccines' if the panel makes changes to their recommendations, said Dr. Molly O'Shea, a pediatrician in Michigan. 'The ramifications are deep,' said Dr. Michelle Taylor, a pediatrician and the director of the Shelby County Health Department in Memphis, Tennessee. 'Any school system that is requiring immunizations for school entry is looking for those ACIP recommendations, either directly from the CDC, from the Department of Education, if they are filtered there, or from their local or state health departments.' CIDRAP is now consulting with multiple medical organizations and public health groups — including the AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Pharmacists Association, the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, as well as insurance providers — to discuss vaccine recommendations. Insurance companies rely on ACIP's guidance on which vaccines to cover. But if enough reputable public health groups come up with recommendations different from ACIP's, Osterholm said those groups could sway insurance companies on which shots to cover. Although vaccination rates have been slipping in recent years, the vast majority of American families do vaccinate their kids. The CDC reported that 92.7% of kindergartners in the 2023-24 school year had received their routine childhood vaccines. Parents depend on guidance from pediatricians on which shots to give and when. Those pediatricians rely on CDC guidance. 'Pediatricians have one goal, and that's to keep every child healthy and safe in every community. That is what we wake up every morning thinking about. That is what we go to sleep thinking about at night,' said Dr. Susan Kressly, the president of the AAP. 'If pediatricians are not standing up for what children and families deserve and need, then who?' Some major medical organizations are voicing their concerns about Kennedy's anti-vaccine actions. The American Medical Association has asked Congress to investigate Kennedy's handling of ACIP. States are also taking action. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services defied the HHS declaration that the federal government would no longer recommend Covid shots for healthy children and pregnant women. 'The recent changes in CDC guidance were not made based on new data, evidence, or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes,' the state's department of health wrote in a press release. The Illinois Department of Public Health criticized Kennedy's gutting of ACIP, saying on X that the secretary had a 'misunderstanding of how vaccine trials work.' ACIP's approach ACIP was formed in 1972 as an independent panel of experts to educate the federal government on vaccines. The committee —composed of experts including pediatricians, geriatricians, infectious disease doctors, immunologists and vaccinologists — has three regular meetings a year to pore over the evidence for new or updated vaccines. All meetings are open to the public and are streamed online. The panel may also be convened outside of those regular meetings. During the Covid pandemic, for example, the committee reviewed rare reports of a heart problem called myocarditis in some young men who'd had the Covid shot. The committee also recommended against the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine after it was linked to rare but potentially deadly blood clots. Recommendations from ACIP are usually adopted by the director of the CDC. But there isn't any CDC director at the moment. President Donald Trump's pick for the job, Susan Monarez, has a scheduled confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25 — the same day Kennedy's new ACIP members will meet for the first time. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy is the ultimate authority and has the ability to override ACIP recommendations. He flexed this rarely used muscle in May by announcing — without any input from ACIP — that the Covid vaccine would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. ACIP members have historically gone through an extensive vetting process to ensure their expertise. If members have conflicts of interest, they recuse themselves from votes. An HHS spokesman said its eight new ACIP members were thoroughly vetted, but not did not offer specifics. Two members, Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Dr. Robert Malone, were previously paid experts in trials involving Merck vaccines. Another, Vicky Pebsworth, served as an expert witness in a federal lawsuit brought by activists who sought to outlaw childhood vaccination mandates. The case was dismissed in 2021. Vaccine skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. 'True scientists ask critical questions in a way that doesn't presume the answer,' the AAP's O'Shea said. 'What has made America great, however, is our medical and scientific innovation. To undermine that is gravely concerning to me.'

Spectator

a day ago

• Spectator

Why is China rushing to grow its nuclear arsenal?

China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than any other country on the planet, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It estimates that Beijing now has more than 600 nuclear warheads and is adding about 100 per year to its stockpile. That means that by 2035, it will have more than 1,500 warheads, still only a third of the arsenal of each of Russia and the US, but nevertheless an enormous increase and a marked shift away from its proclaimed policy of 'minimum deterrence'. To facilitate this expanding arsenal, China is building fields of new missile silos in its western desert regions. The Federation of American Scientists, which identified the silos via satellite imagery, has described them as 'the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.' China is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime The Pentagon believes China is planning to quadruple its nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030, and its fears have been further heightened by People's Liberation Army (PLA) tests of nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons designed to evade America's nuclear defences. One test involved the launch of a rocket into space, which circled the globe before releasing into orbit a highly manoeuvrable hypersonic glider. The nuclear-capable glider – which has been likened to a weaponised space shuttle – had the ability to surf along the earth's atmosphere before powering down to its target at up to five times the speed of sound (hence the hypersonic). Hypersonic weapons are far more difficult to detect and destroy than traditional ballistic missiles. This week, China's foreign ministry spokesperson insisted: 'China has always adhered to the nuclear strategy of self-defence, always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security, and has not participated in the arms race.' This claim is almost as hackneyed as that of China's 'peaceful rise', but understanding China's evolving military doctrine is especially challenging because Beijing 'is refusing to take part in nuclear arms control talks. China last year suspended talks over arms control and nuclear proliferation with the US ostensibly because of American arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing has always been a reluctant participant. It is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime, yet there are none of the protocols and little of the depth of mutual knowledge about capabilities and intentions that existed and provided a level of stability during the last Cold War with the Soviet Union. Western strategists believe that one aim of the rapid nuclear build-up is to deter America from coming to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, and which it has repeatedly threatened to invade. The thinly disguised message to Washington is that America is deluding itself if it thinks a conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the immediate area and not endanger the American homeland. Trying to make sense of China's military doctrine is made all the more challenging by an ongoing purge at the top of the PLA and a heightened level of intrigue surrounding both the army and the Chinese Communist party (CCP). Earlier this year, General He Weidong, the number-two officer in the PLA and a member of the CCP's 24-strong politburo, was removed from his post. This followed the disappearance of Miao Hua, a navy admiral and one of six members (along with He) of the party's powerful central military commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinping. Miao was also head of the PLA's political works department – charged with ensuring CCP control over the military. The PLA is a party organisation, and in the military pecking order, Miao was regarded as more powerful even than defence minister Dong Jun. Rumours have also swirled that Dong himself has been under investigation. He appears to have survived, at least for now, but if deposed, he would be the third successive defence minister to face corruption charges. China's rocket force, the most secretive and sensitive branch of China's military responsible for overseeing in part all those shiny new nukes, has also been the target of an extensive purge. Those targeted included the two heads of the force. Among others purged have been a navy commander responsible for the South China Sea and several others responsible for procuring equipment – long a notoriously corrupt part of the military. When Xi came to power in 2012, he pledged to clean up the PLA, which ran a business empire so big that preparing for war often appeared to be a secondary concern. In spite (or possibly because of) Xi's efforts, the graft only seems to have got worse – though it should be noted that 'corruption' is frequently used as a catch-all and a pretext for the removal of those considered insufficiently loyal to the leader. Because many of those now being targeted include Xi's hand-picked officials, it will inevitably be seen as an indictment of his abilities and judgement. This week's figures from SIPRI certainly confirm the worrying extent of China's nuclear ambitions. For the country's top brass charged with wielding these fearsome weapons, however, navigating the corridors of power at the pinnacle of Xi Jinping's capricious CCP is proving considerably more dangerous than the battlefield.

NBC News

2 days ago

• NBC News

Supreme Court decision 'sanctions discrimination,' parent of trans teen says

Transgender youth, their parents and a doctor who provides transition care to adolescents say the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on such care for minors could have devastating, widespread effects for trans Americans. The court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday that Tennessee's prohibition on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors does not discriminate based on sex, and, as a result, does not violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment. It means that Tennessee's law will stand, and similar measures in 26 other states will also be more likely to survive legal challenges. Lawsuits have permanently blocked bans from taking effect in two states — Arkansas and Montana. Otherwise, restrictions have taken effect in all the remaining states except for West Virginia. As a result, the court's decision could affect an estimated 112,400 trans youth who live in states that have laws banning access to transition-related care, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law. Trans young people like Violeta Acuna, 19, are afraid of the ruling's impact on trans youth and their mental health. Acuna, who lives in Pomona, California, started hormone replacement therapy when she was 17 after experiencing anxiety and depression due to gender dysphoria, which is the distress caused by a misalignment between one's birth sex and gender identity. Within two months of starting the treatment, she said her mental health improved. 'If I had not had that opportunity, I probably wouldn't be here speaking,' Acuna said. She said the Supreme Court's decision is dangerous for trans youth, even though proponents of restrictions on gender-affirming care often argue that it is 'mutilating' children. That is 'completely false,' she said, adding, 'It only puts them more at risk of the dangers that come from it not being accessible.' She added that the move could be harmful and have deadly mental health effects for trans minors who have already started receiving care and are abruptly forced to stop receiving it due to a state ban. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement Wednesday that 'the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism' in the Supreme Court win. 'A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,' Skrmetti said in a statement. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.' As Skrmetti pointed out, restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors have faced widespread backlash from the medical, scientific and legal communities. All major medical associations in the U.S., such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, support access to transition-related care for minors and oppose restrictions on it. Some European countries have restricted access to such care, but only one, the United Kingdom, has indefinitely banned new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat minors for gender dysphoria. Dr. Morissa Ladinsky, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Stanford University's medical school, said the Supreme Court's decision 'is not based in science and not based in evidence, but based in a political stance to harm kids.' She pointed to Utah, which enacted a ban on transition care for minors in 2023 that required Utah's Department of Health and Human Services and other health experts in the state to conduct a review of all existing evidence on the safety of such care. The reviewers concluded in a 1,000-page report published in May that policies to prevent access to gender-affirming hormone therapy for treatment of gender dysphoria in pediatric patients 'cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.' Ladinsky said transition-related care, like all medical care, is evidence-based and guideline-driven, and is continually studied and improved. 'That's science, and that is how medical decision-making happens and should happen — by those who are trained to understand the science, not by those who are not,' she said. Ladinsky previously practiced as a pediatrician in Birmingham, Alabama, for 10 years, where she treated hundreds of trans adolescents until the state passed a ban on transition care for minors that took effect in January 2024. She said she had a patient whose family pawned a valuable personal item to get the money to drive their son to a state where their son's care could be continued. 'The lengths that people are going through are unfathomable,' she said. 'Having been on those front lines now in Alabama, I will tell you that these laws, these bills, these executive orders have not made transgender young people no longer transgender.' In his statement Wednesday, Skrmetti said the court's decision 'recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling — protecting our kids.' However, many parents with trans kids feel that it does the opposite and robs them of that right. Keisha Bell, whose trans daughter just finished her second year of college, called the decision 'sanctioned discrimination.' 'No parent takes any of this discussion lightly,' Bell said, adding that parents 'understand the full ramifications of some side effects of medications if they decide to take that path, but they also understand the weight of the decision when children are not supported.' Skylar Bret, the mom of a trans girl in Seattle, said during a news conference hosted by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wa., Wednesday, that her daughter has 'amazing doctors,' and 'it scares me that there might be people other than myself and her doctors making decisions about whether she's able to get the care that she needs.' Acuna, the trans teen living in California who is also a drag artist and an organizer with Advocates for Youth, a sexual health nonprofit, said her message to trans young people is that things are 'going to get harder.' 'They won't stop,' Acuna said, 'But that doesn't mean that we have to allow ourselves to give in.'