Ultraprocessed foods are even riskier for women

What you probably already know: Ultraprocessed foods are a hot topic in nutrition these days. They are foods containing little to no whole food ingredients and undergo multiple stages of industrial processing — think chips, candy, carbonated drinks, hot dogs, frozen meals, and many breakfast cereals. These often contain preservatives, emulsifiers, and artificial flavors to enhance flavor, shelf life, and texture. Despite all the extra ingredients, ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) typically lack essential nutrients. Multiple studies have linked UPFs to poor health, including an increased risk of colorectal cancer among women who eat ready-to-eat meals. Now, a new study has published more damning reasons to avoid them.

Why? A report published this week in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine links UPF consumption to an increased risk of early death from any cause. Researchers looked at people between the ages of 30 and 69 and found that for each 10% increase in total calories from UPFs, their risk of early death climbed by nearly 3%. The findings are supported by a 2019 study that found more than four servings of UPFs per day were linked to a 62% increased risk of all-cause mortality in people aged 20-91, with each additional serving increasing the risk of death by 18%. While these two studies didn’t make any gender-based conclusions, another recent report found a stronger connection between UPFs and all-cause mortality in women (particularly older women and those with a higher body mass index) than men. Others have linked UPF consumption to higher rates of hypertension (high blood pressure) and type 2 diabetes in women. Connections have also been made between UPFs and anxiety, sleep disorders, and depression among both sexes.

What it means: The American diet is bloated on ultraprocessed foods, and it’s getting worse. In 2021, researchers concluded that consumption of UPFs had increased over the past two decades across nearly all U.S. demographics (Hispanic adults and college graduates were the exceptions). They found that UPFs in the form of ready-to-eat or heat meals had seen the largest rise in popularity, while some sugary foods and drinks declined, along with a drop-off in whole foods (this they attributed to fewer people eating meat and dairy). People may tend to eat more packaged “comfort foods” in times of uncertainty, such as during the pandemic when shoppers stocked up on shelf-stable ingredients and UPFs. Growing population, urbanization, and industrialization are also thought to contribute to an increase in UPF consumption.

What happens now? More research is needed to understand the full spectrum of dietary impacts, including UPF intake, on women’s health. Clinical trials examining cardiovascular risk factors have largely been confined to men; few separate the results of UPF consumption and heart health by gender. Nutritional science has historically focused on the nutrient content of foods, instead of the toll that industrially processed foods can take on human health. Consumers need to know how processed their foods are to make informed decisions that could ultimately lead to longer lifespans, but this information isn’t readily available. Some scientists have suggested using machine learning to reveal the extent of processing and rank it on a nutritional scale.

Tell me more: Under the widely accepted NOVA classification system, most mass-produced breads are labeled as ultraprocessed, but could still be a nutritious option, as long as they contain no added sugars and plenty of fiber. Dietary guidelines released by the U.S. every five years also need to shift: The advisory committee charged with reviewing scientific evidence and making recommendations is pushing for more plant-based proteins, a restructuring of the protein classification system to include beans, peas, and lentils, and a focus on flexibility in healthy eating. But one thing the advisory committee didn’t include in its latest report to Health and Human Services and the USDA: Recommendations on ultraprocessed foods. They cited limited evidence and said “few studies were designed and conducted well.”