Ultra Processed Food and Health: What the Research Says
A research-based review of what science currently tells us about ultra-processed food consumption and health outcomes. Covering landmark trials, population studies, proposed mechanisms, and important limitations.
Important: This Is Not Medical Advice
This guide is strictly educational. It summarizes published scientific research on ultra-processed food and health outcomes. It does not constitute medical advice, nutritional counseling, or a diagnosis of any kind.
Every claim in this guide references published, peer-reviewed research from institutions including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the University of Sao Paulo, and journals including The BMJ, JAMA, and Cell Metabolism. Where evidence is uncertain or contested, we say so explicitly.
Please consult your physician, registered dietitian, or other qualified healthcare provider before making any changes to your diet based on information in this or any other educational resource. Individual health needs vary, and only a healthcare professional who knows your medical history can provide appropriate guidance.
The Research Landscape
The scientific study of ultra-processed food and health has accelerated dramatically in recent years. Since the concept of ultra-processing was formalized through the NOVA classification system in 2009, researchers around the world have produced a rapidly growing body of evidence examining the relationship between UPF consumption and a wide range of health outcomes.
As of 2025, more than 200 peer-reviewed studies have been published on this topic since 2019 alone. The pace of research has roughly doubled year over year, reflecting growing scientific interest and public health concern. These studies span observational cohorts, meta-analyses, mechanistic investigations, and one landmark randomized controlled trial.
Peer-reviewed studies since 2019
Adverse health outcomes identified in BMJ review
Randomized controlled trial completed
Major research institutions driving this field include the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil (where the NOVA system originated), the Sorbonne Paris Nord University (home of the NutriNet-Sante cohort), Imperial College London, and the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain. The research draws on large-scale population datasets including the UK Biobank (500,000+ participants), the Nurses' Health Study (120,000+ participants), and the French NutriNet-Sante study (170,000+ participants).
Important context: The vast majority of this research is observational -- meaning it identifies statistical associations between UPF consumption and health outcomes but cannot, by itself, prove that ultra-processed foods directly cause those outcomes. Understanding this distinction is essential for interpreting the research accurately.
The NIH Feeding Trial (2019)
In May 2019, researcher Kevin Hall and his team at the National Institutes of Health published the first -- and to date, only -- randomized controlled trial (RCT) specifically designed to test whether ultra-processed food itself drives overeating, independent of nutrient content. This study, published in the journal Cell Metabolism, is widely regarded as the most important single piece of evidence in the UPF health debate.
Study: “Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain”
Authors: Kevin D. Hall et al.
Journal: Cell Metabolism, Volume 30, Issue 1
Year: 2019
Key finding: Participants on the ultra-processed diet consumed approximately 500 more calories per day and gained an average of 0.9 kg (2 lbs) over two weeks, while those on the unprocessed diet lost a comparable amount.
Study Methodology
The study enrolled 20 healthy adults who were admitted to the NIH Clinical Center for four weeks of closely monitored inpatient feeding. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive either an ultra-processed diet or an unprocessed diet for two weeks, then switched to the other diet for two more weeks (a crossover design). Crucially, both diets were matched for total calories offered, sugar, fat, fiber, sodium, and macronutrient composition. Participants could eat as much or as little as they wanted.
The only variable being tested was the degree of processing -- not the nutritional content. This is what makes the study significant: it controlled for the very factors (sugar, fat, calories) that critics often point to as the real drivers of poor health outcomes associated with UPF consumption.
What They Found
Ultra-Processed Diet Phase
- Consumed ~508 extra calories per day
- Gained an average of 0.9 kg (2 lbs) in two weeks
- Ate faster, consuming more calories per minute
- Higher intake of carbohydrates and fat (not protein)
Unprocessed Diet Phase
- Consumed baseline calories without overeating
- Lost an average of 0.9 kg (2 lbs) in two weeks
- Ate more slowly and reported similar satisfaction
- Higher protein intake relative to total calories
Why This Study Matters
As a randomized controlled trial -- the gold standard of scientific evidence -- this study provides stronger causal evidence than observational studies. It demonstrated that something about ultra-processing itself, beyond the nutritional profile, appears to drive excess calorie consumption. The participants were not told which diet they were on, they rated both diets as equally pleasant, and yet they consistently ate more when given ultra-processed meals.
Limitations to note: The study involved only 20 participants over a short period (two weeks per diet). While the crossover design increases statistical power, the small sample size and brief duration mean the results should be interpreted with appropriate caution. The study demonstrates an effect on short-term calorie intake and weight change -- it does not directly address long-term disease outcomes like cardiovascular disease or cancer. More and larger RCTs are needed to confirm and extend these findings.
Large Population Studies
While the NIH trial provides causal evidence for overeating, the broader picture of UPF and long-term health outcomes comes from large observational studies following thousands to hundreds of thousands of people over years or decades. These studies cannot prove causation, but when multiple independent studies find consistent associations across different populations and methodologies, the evidence becomes increasingly persuasive.
BMJ Umbrella Review (2024)
Authors: Melissa M. Lane et al.
Journal: The BMJ, 2024;384:e077310
Key finding: Analyzed evidence from 45 pooled meta-analyses spanning nearly 10 million participants. Found that higher UPF exposure was associated with 32 adverse health outcomes, with “convincing” evidence for cardiovascular disease mortality and type 2 diabetes, and “highly suggestive” evidence for anxiety, depression, and all-cause mortality.
Key Findings Across Studies
Cardiovascular Disease
Multiple studies, including analyses from the UK Biobank and the NutriNet-Sante cohort, have found that higher UPF consumption is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. The 2024 BMJ umbrella review rated the evidence for cardiovascular disease-related mortality as “convincing” -- the highest evidence grade. A 2022 study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that each 10% increase in UPF calorie intake was associated with a 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
Type 2 Diabetes
The association between UPF consumption and type 2 diabetes is among the most consistent in the literature. A meta-analysis published in 2023 pooling data from multiple cohort studies found a significant dose-response relationship: each additional daily serving of UPF was associated with a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes. The BMJ umbrella review rated this evidence as “convincing.” Proposed mechanisms include the effects of added sugars, refined carbohydrates, and certain additives on insulin resistance and glucose metabolism.
Cancer Associations
Research from the Harvard Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study found that higher UPF consumption was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer, particularly in men. A 2023 analysis from the UK Biobank reported associations with overall cancer risk. However, the BMJ umbrella review rated most cancer associations as “suggestive” rather than “convincing,” reflecting the need for more and stronger evidence. Cancer is a complex, multifactorial disease, and isolating the contribution of food processing from other dietary and lifestyle factors remains challenging.
Obesity and Weight Gain
Consistent with the NIH feeding trial results, observational studies have found strong associations between UPF consumption and weight gain. A 2020 study following over 100,000 French adults found that a 10% increase in the proportion of UPF in the diet was associated with a significant increase in BMI and risk of becoming overweight or obese over a five-year period. Children and adolescents, who consume even higher proportions of UPF than adults, show particularly strong associations.
All-Cause Mortality
Several large cohort studies have found that higher UPF consumption is associated with increased all-cause mortality. A 2019 study following over 44,000 French adults for seven years found that a 10% increase in UPF consumption was associated with a 14% higher risk of all-cause mortality. The BMJ umbrella review rated this evidence as “highly suggestive.” While striking, these figures are associations from observational data and should be interpreted accordingly.
Critical reminder: All of the population studies described above are observational. They demonstrate statistical associations between UPF consumption and health outcomes, but they cannot prove that UPFs directly cause these outcomes. Other factors -- including overall diet quality, socioeconomic status, physical activity, smoking, and alcohol use -- may explain part of the observed associations. See the limitations section below for more detail.
Mechanisms: Why UPFs May Affect Health
If ultra-processed foods do affect health beyond their nutrient content, what are the potential mechanisms? Researchers have proposed several pathways, each supported by varying degrees of evidence. Most of these mechanisms are still under active investigation and should be considered hypotheses rather than established facts.
1. Speed of Eating and Satiety Disruption
The NIH feeding trial found that participants ate ultra-processed meals faster -- consuming more calories per minute -- compared to unprocessed meals. Ultra-processed foods tend to be softer, require less chewing, and are more calorically dense per bite. This may override the body's natural satiety signals, which take approximately 20 minutes to register fullness. When food can be consumed rapidly, people may overshoot their caloric needs before those signals activate.
Evidence level: Supported by the NIH RCT and consistent with established satiety research.
2. Gut Microbiome Disruption
Emerging research suggests that certain food additives commonly found in ultra-processed foods -- particularly emulsifiers like polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose -- may alter the composition and function of gut bacteria. A 2021 study published in Nature found that commonly used emulsifiers disrupted the gut microbiome in animal models, promoting inflammation and metabolic changes. Human studies are limited but beginning to show similar patterns. The gut microbiome influences immune function, metabolism, and even mental health through the gut-brain axis.
Evidence level: Strong in animal models; emerging but limited in human studies. See our ingredients to avoid guide for more on specific additives.
3. Chronic Inflammation
Several studies have found that high UPF consumption is associated with elevated markers of systemic inflammation, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Chronic low-grade inflammation is implicated in cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers. The proposed pathway is that certain UPF ingredients -- including advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) formed during high-heat industrial processing, certain emulsifiers, and artificial colorings -- may trigger inflammatory responses in the body.
Evidence level: Consistent associations in observational studies; mechanistic pathways plausible but not fully established in humans.
4. Additives and Emulsifiers
Beyond their effects on the gut microbiome, specific additives found in UPFs have been individually studied for potential health effects. Artificial sweeteners have been linked to altered glucose tolerance in some studies. Certain preservatives (sodium nitrite in processed meats) can form nitrosamines during cooking, which are classified as probable carcinogens. Artificial colors have been associated with behavioral effects in children in some research. The challenge is that these ingredients are rarely consumed in isolation -- the cumulative effect of multiple additives consumed across many products throughout the day is poorly understood.
Evidence level: Variable by specific additive; some well-established (nitrite-nitrosamine pathway), others preliminary.
5. Nutrient Displacement
One of the simplest and most widely accepted mechanisms is displacement: calories consumed from ultra-processed foods replace calories that would otherwise come from whole or minimally processed foods. UPFs tend to be lower in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients compared to the whole foods they displace. A person who gets 60% of their calories from UPFs has correspondingly less room in their diet for fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and other nutrient-dense foods. This mechanism does not require any direct harm from UPFs -- the damage comes from what is not being eaten.
Evidence level: Well-supported by dietary survey data and nutritional analysis.
6. Hyper-Palatability and Overconsumption
Ultra-processed foods are engineered for maximum taste appeal, often optimizing combinations of sugar, salt, fat, and flavor enhancers that do not occur naturally in whole foods. Research on “hyper-palatability” suggests these formulations may activate brain reward pathways in ways that promote overconsumption, similar to (though less potent than) addictive substances. A 2023 study identified that foods meeting specific hyper-palatable criteria (such as high fat + high sodium, or high fat + high sugar) were disproportionately concentrated among ultra-processed products.
Evidence level: Supported by neuroscience and behavioral research; the NIH trial results are consistent with this mechanism.
The big picture: These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive -- they likely interact and compound. A person consuming a high-UPF diet may simultaneously eat too fast (satiety disruption), consume too many calories (hyper-palatability), miss key nutrients (displacement), experience gut microbiome changes (additives), and have elevated inflammation markers. Untangling the relative contribution of each mechanism is one of the central challenges in current research.
Not All Ultra-Processed Foods Are Equal
One of the most important -- and frequently overlooked -- nuances in the UPF health debate is that ultra-processed foods are not a monolithic category. Under the NOVA classification, a fortified whole-grain bread with added emulsifiers and a sugar-laden soda with artificial colors both fall into Group 4. But their nutritional profiles, ingredient compositions, and likely health effects are vastly different.
Emerging research is beginning to distinguish between UPF subcategories, and the results suggest that the health risks are not evenly distributed.
Higher-Concern UPF Subcategories
- Sugar-sweetened beverages: Consistently show the strongest associations with negative health outcomes across studies
- Reconstituted meat products: Hot dogs, sausages, and deli meats containing nitrites and multiple additives
- Packaged sweets and snacks: Candy, chips, and cookies with high sugar/fat combinations and multiple artificial additives
- Ready-to-heat meals: Frozen dinners and instant noodles with very long ingredient lists
Lower-Concern UPF Subcategories
- Fortified breads and cereals: May provide meaningful nutrients despite containing some additives. See bread analysis
- Plant-based milks: Often fortified with calcium, vitamin D, and B12, though they contain stabilizers and emulsifiers
- Packaged whole-grain products: Some commercial whole-grain items retain meaningful fiber and nutrients despite processing
- Fermented products with additives: Some yogurts and kefirs that contain stabilizers but also provide probiotics and protein
A 2023 study published in The Lancet Regional Health found that not all NOVA Group 4 foods were equally associated with adverse health outcomes. Sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats showed the strongest negative associations, while ultra-processed breads and cereals showed weaker or null associations. This suggests that a blanket approach to UPFs may be less useful than focusing on the specific subcategories most strongly linked to health risks.
Practical implication: Rather than trying to eliminate all ultra-processed foods -- which is impractical for many people -- the research suggests that prioritizing reductions in the highest-concern subcategories (sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and snack foods with long additive lists) may yield the most meaningful health improvements. Use our product search to check the processing scores of specific products.
Mental Health Connections
One of the more surprising -- and actively developing -- areas of UPF research concerns mental health. A growing number of studies have found associations between ultra-processed food consumption and psychological outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and cognitive function. This research is newer and less established than the cardiovascular or diabetes evidence, but the consistency of findings across different populations has drawn significant scientific attention.
BMJ Umbrella Review Findings on Mental Health (2024)
Journal: The BMJ, 2024
Key finding: The umbrella review rated the evidence linking UPF consumption to common mental disorders (depression and anxiety) as “highly suggestive” -- the second-highest evidence grade, indicating consistent associations across multiple well-conducted studies.
Depression and Anxiety
A 2022 meta-analysis pooling data from 17 observational studies found that individuals with the highest UPF intake had a 44% higher risk of depression compared to those with the lowest intake. The proposed mechanisms include the effects of a nutrient-poor diet on brain function (particularly deficiencies in omega-3 fatty acids, B vitamins, and minerals), the impact of gut microbiome disruption on the gut-brain axis, and the inflammatory effects of certain food additives. However, reverse causation remains a significant concern -- people who are depressed may turn to convenient, palatable ultra-processed foods as a coping mechanism, rather than UPFs causing the depression.
Cognitive Function
Preliminary research has found associations between high UPF consumption and faster cognitive decline in older adults. A 2022 study following over 10,000 Brazilian adults found that those consuming more than 20% of calories from UPFs showed significantly faster rates of cognitive decline over 6-10 years compared to those with lower intake. A UK Biobank analysis found similar patterns. These findings are intriguing but early-stage and require replication in more populations.
Children and Adolescents
Research on UPF consumption in children is particularly concerning given that children and adolescents in the United States get approximately 67% of their calories from ultra-processed foods. Some studies have found associations between high UPF intake in children and behavioral outcomes including hyperactivity and attention difficulties, though the evidence is less consistent than for adult mental health outcomes. The specific role of artificial colors in behavioral effects has been debated for decades, with the EU requiring warning labels on foods containing certain synthetic dyes.
Important caveat: Mental health research in this area faces particularly strong methodological challenges. Depression and anxiety are influenced by a vast array of factors including genetics, social conditions, stress, sleep, exercise, and overall diet quality. Isolating the specific contribution of ultra-processed food is extremely difficult. The associations reported are real and consistent, but they should not be interpreted as proof that UPFs cause mental health disorders. If you are experiencing mental health difficulties, please seek help from a qualified mental health professional.
Limitations and Criticisms of the Research
No honest presentation of this research is complete without a thorough discussion of its limitations. The UPF-health field is still relatively young, and there are legitimate scientific criticisms that should inform how we interpret the evidence.
1. Observational Study Limitations
The overwhelming majority of evidence linking UPFs to adverse health outcomes comes from observational studies. By definition, these studies cannot prove that UPFs cause the observed outcomes -- they can only demonstrate that higher UPF consumption is statistically associated with those outcomes. People who eat more UPFs may also differ in other ways that affect their health. This is the single most important limitation in the field and is the primary reason why researchers consistently call for more randomized controlled trials.
2. Confounding Variables
Higher UPF consumption is correlated with lower socioeconomic status, lower education levels, less physical activity, higher rates of smoking, and other lifestyle factors that independently affect health. While researchers attempt to statistically control for these confounders, it is impossible to fully account for all variables in observational research. The extent to which residual confounding explains the observed associations is a matter of active scientific debate.
3. NOVA Classification Debates
The NOVA system itself has been criticized for being overly broad and sometimes arbitrary. Critics argue that grouping a fortified whole-grain bread with a can of soda in the same category creates misleading associations. Some food scientists contend that the health effects attributed to “ultra-processing” are actually driven by specific nutrients (sugar, sodium, saturated fat) that happen to be abundant in UPFs, rather than by processing per se. The NIH trial attempted to address this by matching nutrient content, but it remains an open question.
4. Healthy User Bias
People who actively avoid ultra-processed foods may be more health-conscious in general -- exercising more, sleeping better, managing stress, and making other positive health choices. This “healthy user bias” can inflate the apparent benefit of low-UPF diets. While statistical adjustments attempt to account for this, the effect is difficult to fully eliminate from observational data.
5. Dietary Assessment Challenges
Most studies rely on food frequency questionnaires or 24-hour dietary recalls, which depend on participants accurately remembering and reporting what they ate. Self-reported dietary data is notoriously imprecise. Misclassification of foods under the NOVA system adds another layer of potential error. These measurement challenges affect the precision of the observed associations.
6. Need for More Randomized Controlled Trials
The fact that only one RCT has been conducted is a significant gap. While the Hall et al. 2019 study was well-designed and compelling, it was small (n=20) and short (two weeks). Longer-term RCTs with larger sample sizes measuring clinical endpoints (rather than just calorie intake and weight) are essential for establishing causal relationships. Several such trials are reportedly in planning or early stages, but results will take years to emerge.
Where the Scientific Community Stands
Despite these limitations, the weight of evidence has shifted meaningfully. Most nutrition researchers acknowledge that the consistency of associations across diverse populations, multiple health outcomes, and varying methodologies is difficult to dismiss as coincidence or confounding alone. The debate has largely moved from “is there an association?” to “what mechanisms explain it?” and “how strong is the causal relationship?”
At the same time, responsible scientists emphasize that the field is not settled. The gap between “highly suggestive association” and “proven causal relationship” is significant, and filling it will require years of additional research. In the meantime, the precautionary principle -- informing people about the current evidence while acknowledging uncertainty -- seems like the most responsible approach.
What This Means For You
Given the current state of the research -- substantial, consistent, but not yet conclusive for most outcomes -- what practical takeaways can you draw? The goal here is not to tell you what to eat, but to help you make more informed choices with the best available evidence.
The Evidence Favors Whole Foods
Across all studies reviewed, diets higher in whole and minimally processed foods and lower in ultra-processed foods are consistently associated with better health outcomes. This finding is not new or unique to UPF research -- it aligns with decades of nutrition science. Choosing whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and minimally processed proteins when possible is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
Not All UPFs Require the Same Scrutiny
Based on the available research, sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and snack foods with extensive additive lists show the strongest negative associations. Fortified breads, plant milks, and whole-grain products classified as UPFs show weaker associations. Focusing your attention on the highest-concern categories is likely more practical and effective than attempting to eliminate every ultra-processed item.
Ingredient Lists Are Your Best Tool
Understanding what is in the food you buy is the most actionable step you can take. Reading ingredient lists, recognizing common industrial additives, and comparing products within the same category gives you practical control over your food choices. Our database of 1.98 million scored products can help streamline this process.
Gradual Changes Compound
The research does not suggest that you need to achieve a perfect diet overnight -- or ever. Small, sustainable shifts toward less processed options, made consistently over time, can meaningfully change the overall composition of your diet. Swapping one highly processed product per week for a less processed alternative is a realistic starting point. See our guide to reducing UPFs for practical strategies.
Consult Professionals for Personal Guidance
Population-level research describes trends across large groups. Your individual health needs depend on your medical history, genetics, existing conditions, medications, activity level, and many other factors. A registered dietitian or your primary care physician can help you interpret the research in the context of your specific situation and develop a dietary approach that works for you.
Final reminder: This guide summarizes published research. It is not a substitute for professional medical or nutritional advice. The research landscape is evolving, and recommendations may change as new evidence emerges. Please consult qualified healthcare professionals for guidance specific to your health situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do ultra-processed foods cause cancer?
Several large observational studies have found associations between higher ultra-processed food consumption and increased risk of certain cancers, particularly colorectal cancer. A 2023 analysis from the Harvard cohort studies found a link between UPF intake and colorectal cancer in men. A 2024 BMJ umbrella review classified the evidence for cancer associations as "suggestive" rather than "convincing." However, observational studies cannot prove causation -- they can only identify statistical associations. Confounding factors such as overall diet quality, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle habits make it difficult to isolate the effect of ultra-processing itself. More randomized controlled trials are needed. If you have concerns about cancer risk, consult your healthcare provider for guidance tailored to your individual circumstances.
Is the research on UPF health effects conclusive?
The research is substantial and growing but not yet conclusive for most outcomes. As of 2025, over 200 studies have examined UPF consumption and health outcomes. The strongest evidence comes from consistent associations across multiple large population studies linking high UPF intake to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and all-cause mortality. However, only one randomized controlled trial (the 2019 NIH study by Kevin Hall) has been conducted, and it focused on calorie intake and weight change over two weeks rather than long-term disease outcomes. The scientific community broadly agrees that the evidence is "highly suggestive" for several outcomes but that more interventional research is needed to establish definitive causal relationships.
What about fortified ultra-processed foods?
This is one of the most important nuances in the UPF debate. Some ultra-processed foods -- such as fortified breakfast cereals, enriched breads, and fortified plant milks -- provide meaningful amounts of vitamins and minerals that might otherwise be lacking in certain diets. Research has not consistently separated the health effects of nutrient-dense UPFs from nutrient-poor ones. Some studies suggest that the health risks vary significantly by UPF subcategory, with sugar-sweetened beverages and reconstituted meat products showing stronger negative associations than fortified breads and cereals. The practical takeaway is that not all UPFs are nutritionally equivalent, and fortified products may play a useful role in some diets. Discuss your specific nutritional needs with a registered dietitian or healthcare provider.
How much ultra-processed food is safe to eat?
No scientific body has established a specific safe threshold for ultra-processed food consumption. Research consistently shows dose-response relationships -- meaning that higher consumption tends to be associated with higher risk for various health outcomes -- but there is no identified "safe" cutoff. The average American adult gets approximately 57-60% of calories from UPFs. Some researchers have suggested that reducing this to below 40-50% would represent a meaningful dietary improvement, but this is a general guideline rather than a clinical recommendation. Individual factors such as overall diet quality, activity level, genetic predispositions, and existing health conditions all affect what is appropriate for each person. Consult a healthcare professional for personalized dietary guidance.
Are artificial sweeteners harmful?
The research on artificial sweeteners is mixed and evolving. In 2023, the WHO recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight management, citing a lack of long-term benefit and potential risks. The WHO's cancer research agency (IARC) classified aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), while the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives maintained that aspartame is safe at current intake levels. Some studies have linked artificial sweeteners to changes in gut microbiome composition, altered glucose metabolism, and increased sweet cravings. Other studies have found no significant health effects at normal consumption levels. The evidence does not support claims that artificial sweeteners are definitively harmful, nor does it fully clear them. If you consume products with artificial sweeteners regularly, discuss the current evidence with your healthcare provider.
Continue Learning
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods? →
Understand what ultra-processed foods are, how to identify them, and why they matter
How to Reduce Ultra-Processed Food →
Practical strategies for reducing UPFs in your diet with category-by-category swaps
NOVA Food Classification →
Learn the NOVA system used by researchers worldwide to classify food processing levels
Disclaimer: All tools and data visualizations are provided for educational and informational purposes only. They are not intended as health, medical, or dietary advice. Product formulations change frequently — always check the actual label for current ingredients and nutrition facts before making purchasing decisions. Consult healthcare professionals for personalized dietary guidance.