I've posted a lot about ultra-processed foods (UPF) because there is a plethora of articles in the popular literature about the ostensible health risks of UPF consumption. The most recent, with close to 10 million largely adult participants which gathered findings from existing reviews that combined results from multiple individual studies, claims that UPFs are linked to 32 poor human health outcomes. If there is an unhealthy outcome missing from the list of 32, I am not sure what it is – everything from heart disease to poor sleep to mental disorders are included.

 But here are the potential rubs. First, there is not a consistent definition of what constitutes a UPF. Second, not all UPFs (however defined) are equally unhealthy. Third, and finally, the cause-effect relationship between UPF consumption and adverse health outcomes is unclear. The recent study notes that UPF consumption is “highly suggestive” of being linked to certain diseases, “suggestive” of being linked to others, and “weak” as to even others. Indeed, the study authors use the words “link" and “linked to” rather than “cause” or “caused by” when discussing the relationship between UPF consumption and adverse health outcomes. 

The popular literature suggests that the next iteration of the US dietary guidelines will address the “link” between UPF consumption and human health and add some clarity to this issue. I expect even more to be written on this topic between now and 2025 when the next set of dietary guidelines will be published.