Are Ultra-Processed Foods A Hidden Risk? Here's What You Need To Know
Woman pouring sugar in bowl near breakfast
getty
In today's fast-paced world, ultra-processed foods have become dietary staples, offering convenience, affordability and a tantalizing taste. But as scientists delve deeper into their effects, an unsettling reality is emerging: UPFs may not just be unhealthy — they could be biologically addictive, contributing to a rise in obesity, metabolic disorders, and even cognitive decline.
Recent research, including a New York Times report highlighting the addictive properties of processed foods, suggests that many of these products are engineered to hijack our brain's reward system, making them nearly impossible to resist.
Here are the latest findings on how these foods affect our bodies — and the changes we can make to protect our health.
UPFs are industrially manufactured foods that undergo multiple levels of processing, stripping away natural nutrients while incorporating additives designed to enhance taste, texture and shelf life.
While increasing evidence shows that foods are not the simple sum of their nutrients, it is also known that they often contain artificial ingredients, preservatives, emulsifiers and refined sugars absent in whole, minimally processed foods. Some of the most prominent culprits include:
The problem? These products dominate grocery aisles and restaurant menus, often marketed as "healthy" or "natural" despite their significant health risks.
A key reason why UPFs are so challenging to resist is their hyper-palatability — a term researchers use to describe foods formulated to maximize pleasure. By perfectly blending fat, sugar and salt, they create a feedback loop that triggers dopamine surges in the brain, much like addictive substances.
Dr. Uma Naidoo, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and expert in nutritional psychiatry, explains: "Advanced technologies in food production allow our food supply to meet the demands of our growing population. But at what cost? Ultra-processed foods can be detrimental to our physical and mental health. Yet they now account for more than half of the calories in the standard American diet."
A 2024 analysis by Drexler University and the University of Pennsylvania revealed that chronically high levels of UPF intake with UPF dependence have been "associated with disrupted dopaminergic signaling (increased hedonic drive for UPFs), dysregulated hunger/satiety hormones (increased hunger, reduced satiety), and alterations to the gut microbiome related to obesity risk."
This explains why, beyond their overall impact on health, many people find themselves unable to stop eating chips, cookies or fast food, even when full.
Ultra-processed foods don't just contribute to weight gain; they actively disrupt metabolic health. A 2022 study in The BMJ found that people who consume the highest amounts of UPFs have a 40% increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome, a condition that heightens the risk for Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Why does this happen?
Our gut microbiome — the diverse community of bacteria in our digestive system — plays a crucial role in immunity, digestion and mental health. Yet, UPFs can wreak havoc on this delicate balance.
A 2024 study in Cell Metabolism found that emulsifiers, commonly used in processed foods, contribute to leaky gut syndrome. They allow harmful substances to enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammation. Additionally, artificial sweeteners and preservatives alter the gut's microbial composition, potentially increasing the risk of autoimmune diseases and mood disorders.
Emerging research suggests a troubling connection between UPFs and cognitive decline. A recent investigation from Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health related high UPF consumption to a 25% increased risk of dementia. Scientists attribute this to chronic inflammation, blood sugar instability and a lack of brain-supporting nutrients in whole foods.
Moreover, multiple studies have associated UPF-heavy diets with increased rates of depression and anxiety. Dr. Chris Palmer, a psychiatrist and author of Brain Energy, highlights the connection between diet and mental well-being. In short, Dr. Palmer's theory suggests that mental disorders are metabolic disorders of the brain.
Given how ingrained UPFs are in modern diets, eliminating them may be unrealistic. However, shifting toward whole, nutrient-dense foods can help mitigate their harmful effects.
Here's how to take control of your diet:
As research continues to uncover the profound impact of ultra-processed foods, the conversation around food regulation, marketing and consumer awareness is heating up. Some countries, like Brazil and France, have already implemented public health campaigns warning against UPFs while leading health organizations advocate for policy changes to limit their prevalence in schools and workplaces.
Where knowledge and discipline drive success, naturally, the power lies with the individual. By understanding how UPFs affect our health and making conscious choices to reduce our reliance on them, we can reclaim control over our well-being.
The same principles apply to your health. If you suspect ultra-processed foods are affecting your energy, focus, or mood, take these actions today:
The science is precise: ultra-processed foods aren't just empty calories. They're engineered for addiction and long-term harm. You're investing in your longevity, mental clarity, and overall success by taking small, strategic steps to minimize them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
RFK Jr.'s unclean ‘sweep' of CDC vaccine panel
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of biomedical science and public health, preventing enormous suffering and premature death. Decades of strategic vaccination campaigns virtually eliminated diseases previously common in the United States, including diphtheria, tetanus, polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Advertisement Public health leaders have long warned that Kennedy, with the imprimatur of President Trump himself, intends to reverse decades of progress and instead spread disinformation that will lead to injury and death. As measles and other preventable diseases spread in other states, Massachusetts can mitigate the damage by strengthening state vaccine policy. Advertisement Oami Amarasingham Deputy director Carlene Pavlos Executive director Massachusetts Public Health Alliance Boston This is a public health emergency in the making I read about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s latest outrage last week ('RFK Jr. fires vaccine panel advising CDC'). I guess it wasn't enough that he terminated the government's contract with Moderna to produce a vaccine to protect the public from the real and looming threat of the bird flu virus, which experts fear Congress must move to impeach Kennedy and remove him from his position. As the Globe's I realize the Trump administration is a five-alarm fire of malicious actions designed to destroy our most important governmental and social institutions, so it is head-spinningly difficult to respond to each new threat in a timely and effective manner. But this is truly a national, indeed international, emergency in the making. Jim Fathy Newton So much for the assurances of the nomination process Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr's. firing of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is the latest example of the futility of the congressional nomination process. When he was Advertisement Now, more than ever, we know that confirmation hearings mean nothing in providing insight into how a nominee will manage. They are only good for showing us how they have misrepresented themselves. We're only about five months into this new administration, and it's done little more than sow mistrust in government agencies, making the American people less safe, secure, and healthy. Carl Markey North Chelmsford
Indianapolis Star
10 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
My 5-year-old survived cancer twice. Medical innovation shouldn't be political.
Few issues in American politics have consistently united both parties like the fight against cancer. While funding levels and strategies may differ, Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that cancer doesn't discriminate – and neither should our commitment to defeat it. Under the Biden administration, the Cancer Moonshot was relaunched to accelerate progress toward a cure. More recently, President Donald Trump announced his 'Stargate' initiative, which aims to harness artificial intelligence in detecting and treating cancer, including through personalized mRNA vaccines. In the United States, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease for children after infancy. Across the political spectrum, there remains a shared hope: that no one should have to endure the pain of losing a loved one or fight this deadly disease. Yet today, that consensus is showing signs of strain. State legislatures across the country are advancing bills to ban or severely restrict the use of – and further research into – breakthrough technologies like mRNA, a technology that is driving promising advancements in cancer. What should be a story of American scientific innovation is being twisted into a political talking point. And it's putting lives at risk. Letters: Trump's anti-DEI mandate will make it hard to recruit new scientists If the politicians pushing these bans spent even a few minutes inside a pediatric oncology unit, maybe they'd understand. They'd see floors filled with sick children on small bicycles, pulling IV poles behind them. Children in hospital beds, brave beyond measure. And parents clinging to hope. I've seen it firsthand. I'm a mother whose 5-year-old daughter has survived cancer – twice. My daughter Charlie is one of a small percentage of pediatric cancer patients whose tumors don't show up on standard blood tests. Her cancer went undetected for more than a year. By the time doctors found it, it had already spread to her liver. She was just 3 years old and had Stage 4 cancer. Once Charlie's cancer was detected, we rushed into treatment: high-dose chemotherapy, stem cell transplants and multiple surgeries. After months of treatment, we got the news every parent prays for: Charlie was cancer-free. But just a few months later, scans revealed a relapse. Two small nodules were found on her lung. Her baby brother was only two months old when we learned her cancer had returned. Relapse treatment was grueling. Charlie lost weight and muscle mass. She needed a feeding tube to stay nourished, hydrated and medicated. But through it all, she never lost her smile. Her strength became ours. And while we juggled caring for a newborn and two other children, we held onto hope, because science gave us a reason to. Thanks to expert care at Seattle Children's and research-backed protocols, she's once again cancer-free. She started preschool this year. She's coloring, laughing and chasing her siblings again. Every option we had was made possible by decades of public investment in research. Families who came before us joined clinical trials. Lawmakers chose to fund pediatric science and cancer research. That is the same kind of work mRNA research builds on today. Researchers are developing an mRNA-based diagnostic test that could catch cancers like hers earlier, when they're more treatable. The test uses mRNA from her original tumor to detect any circulating cancer cells through a simple blood draw. Catching a relapse early could be lifesaving. We first learned about this test in 2023, and knowing it's almost within reach brings us, and families like ours, so much hope. Beyond mRNA-based diagnostic tests, mRNA has also shown early promise as a therapy for cancer patients, enabling personalized treatment that could more effectively target one's tumor. That kind of innovation is exactly what's under threat right now. The role of mRNA technology in oncology has been studied for decades, and yet some lawmakers want to roll this progress back, arguing it is untested and unsafe. This technology, along with many innovations that come from federally supported medical research, is a critical source of hope for families around the world. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis When you're watching your child battle cancer, every advancement matters. I know firsthand how critical it is to catch cancer early and have access to every possible treatment option. When politicians politicize science – when they ban or restrict it based on misinformation and politics – they aren't protecting families like mine. They're limiting our options. They're slowing down the breakthroughs that could save lives. We can't afford to let misinformation and polarized politics dictate the future of lifesaving research. Thanks to innovation in medical research, Charlie is thriving today, but far too many kids are still fighting. Let's ensure science continues to move forward for all of our children.
Buzz Feed
11 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
How Much Salt Is Too Much Salt When It Comes To Your Health?
Low-sodium soy sauce, soup and snacks dominate supermarket shelves, so it seems pretty obvious that a lot of Americans are aware that they need to lower their sodium intake. But to what extent is it really a problem? Most people have no idea how much salt they're eating every day, or how much is recommended (particularly for those with certain health conditions). And did you know that some people are actually encouraged to eat more salt? We spoke with doctors to answer all of our saltiest questions. First of all, we do need to eat a certain amount of sodium. According to Dr. Columbus Batiste, the regional chief of cardiology with Kaiser Permanente in Southern California, 'We need the right amount of salt to provide our bodies with important electrolytes that can regulate things like muscle contractions, fluid balance and nerve transmission.' Dr. Rohan Khera, an assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, told HuffPost that salt is 'needed for every single body cell, especially the more active heart and muscle tissues.' Moreover, salt plays a role in 'sweating, normal cell function, metabolism, maintenance of body fluids, and keeping muscles and nerves working properly,' said Dr. John Higgins, a cardiologist with UTHealth Houston. Healthy adults only need 500 milligrams of salt per day (about a quarter-teaspoon of salt) to maintain healthy body function, according to cardiologist Dr. Nieca Goldberg, the medical director of Atria New York and a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Limiting salt intake to such a paltry amount isn't realistic for many people, and that's OK for most healthy adults, as long as they don't overdo it. The American Heart Association recommends that healthy adults consume no more than 2,300 milligrams of salt per day and ideally no more than 1,500 milligrams, or about three-quarters of a teaspoon of salt per day. However, most Americans eat far more than the recommended amount of salt, according to Goldberg. 'The average American eats about 3,500 milligrams of sodium a day,' she said. 'Seventy percent of that salt that consumed is from processed foods.' Although the recommended maximum of salt may seem low for such an important nutrient, there is a good reason for these guidelines. Khera explained that 'our body is built to preserve sodium, so we only have to supplement a little in our diet to ensure we are in good balance' — and too much salt is risky for some people. What are the risks of eating too much salt? Too much salt can be dangerous. This is true whether you add salt to your food or purchase processed foods made with salt. According to Higgins, 'A high-salt diet can contribute to high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, stomach cancer, kidney disease, renal stones and obesity.' Since too much salt can increase blood pressure, this has the ability to cause a heart attack or stroke, he added. Other risks of high salt intake include blood vessel damage and negative impacts on hormonal and inflammatory pathways, immune response, the gut microbiome and body fat metabolism, Batiste said. He added that the effects of consuming too much salt can lead to premature death. Are we all at equal risk? Not everyone needs to worry. Too much salt 'may not be bad for everyone. It depends on the person's health status,' Goldberg explained. 'If you are healthy and have low blood pressure, salt may not be harmful,' she said. If you aren't sure whether you need to watch your salt intake, Goldberg recommended discussing your diet with your doctor. High amounts of salt are dangerous for many people, however. For those with high blood pressure 'in the pre-hypertensive range or higher,' or with 'heart failure or kidney disease,' Goldberg cautioned that 'high salt intake may worsen your condition.' Higgins said that patients with moderate to severe heart failure should limit their salt intake to under 2,000 milligrams, or about one teaspoon, a day. Those who have had a heart attack or stroke should consume under 1,000 milligrams, or about a half-teaspoon, per day. Here are the best ways to lower salt intake. Higgins recommended switching out table salt for an alternative like Morton Salt Substitute, which does not contain any sodium. Goldberg also recommended looking for lower-salt versions of foods that you already eat and becoming skilled at reading labels. For those with high blood pressure, Higgins recommended eating fruits and vegetables high in potassium, which can lower blood pressure naturally. These include potatoes, tomatoes, spinach, raisins, lima beans, lentils, bananas, oranges, watermelon and cantaloupe. Some people may actually need to eat more salt. MirageC / Getty Images Although most people consume too much salt, some conditions require more salt. However, before increasing your salt intake, Khera emphasized that 'these are specialized conditions that require specific expertise,' and that no one should increase their salt intake before having 'explicit discussions with their doctor.' The following conditions may require adding salt to one's diet: Orthostatic hypotension. Khera explained that if people have low blood pressure when standing up, or orthostatic hypotension, they may need more salt. When a patient is diagnosed with this condition — one variation of which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome — doctors 'sometimes recommend salt to retain more fluid in the body and have fewer dizzy or loss-of-consciousness spells,' Khera said. High-performance athletes. Khera explained that high-performance athletes may lose a lot of salt via sweat, especially if they are training or competing in hot climates. However, he noted that 'this is rarely needed,' and that when it is, 'modest increases are sufficient.' Cystic fibrosis. Individuals with cystic fibrosis lose salt through their sweat more than those without the condition, Khera said. That means they 'often require an increase in intake in salt,' although the amount of additional salt each person needs varies and is determined by their doctor. Addison's disease. According to Batiste, 'People with Addison's disease, a condition affecting the adrenal glands, may experience low levels of sodium.' Health care providers may recommend increased salt intake to maintain electrolyte balance. Electrolyte abnormalities. Some electrolyte abnormalities, such as low blood sodium or hyponatremia, are treated with increased sodium intake. However, these conditions are sometimes treated with reduced fluid intake.
