Observational studyPLoS medicine2025
Food additive mixtures and type 2 diabetes incidence: Results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.
Observational study in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03335644 (The NutriNet-Santé Study. A Web-based Prospective Cohort Study of the Relationship Between Nutrition and Health and of Dietary Patterns and Nutritional Status Predictors), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The NutriNet-Santé Study. A Web-based Prospective Cohort Study of the Relationship Between Nutrition and Health and of Dietary Patterns and Nutritional Status Predictors
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- From Food Systems to Gut Microbiota: Dietary Substrates, Microbial Exposure and One Health.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Article
- Processed Diets and Food Additives Shape the Gut Microbiota and Chronic Disease Risk Across the Life Course-A Three-Layer Ecosystem Disruption Model (TLED) Model.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Future of Food Processing-A Food Science and Technology Perspective. Proceedings of a Roundtable Event.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- Why is there no regulation despite evidence that ultra-processed foods are hazardous to long-term health?Future healthcare journal · 2026Review
- Health effects of ultra-processed food: uncovering causal mechanisms.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026Article
- Associations between preservative food additives and type 2 diabetes incidence in the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed food exposure and health outcomes: Current evidence, controversies, and future perspectives.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- Food additive mixtures in French children and adults: the nationally representative Esteban study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ultra-Processed Foods and Metabolic Dysfunction: A Narrative Review of Dietary Processing, Behavioral Drivers and Chronic Disease Risk.Metabolites · 2025Review
- Prevalence of ultra-processed foods and beverages in newly launched products across the Americas: a comparison between the United States and Latin American countries from 2018 to 2023.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMixtures of food additives are daily consumed worldwide by billions of people. So far, safety assessments have been performed substance by substance due to lack of data on the effect of multiexposure to combinations of additives. Our objective was to identify most common food additive mixtures, and investigate their associations with type 2 diabetes incidence in a large prospective cohort. METHODS AND
findingsParticipants (n = 108,643, mean follow-up = 7.7 years (standard deviation (SD) = 4.6), age = 42.5 years (SD = 14.6), 79.2% women) were adults from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009-2023). Dietary intakes were assessed using repeated 24h-dietary records, including industrial food brands. Exposure to food additives was evaluated through multiple food composition databases and laboratory assays. Mixtures were identified through nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF), and associations with type 2 diabetes incidence were assessed using Cox models adjusted for potential socio-demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle and dietary confounders. A total of 1,131 participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Two out of the five identified food additive mixtures were associated with higher type 2 diabetes incidence: the first mixture included modified starches, pectin, guar gum, carrageenan, polyphosphates, potassium sorbates, curcumin, and xanthan gum (hazard ratio (HR)per an increment of 1SD of the NMF mixture score = 1.08 [1.02, 1.15], p = 0.006), and the other mixture included citric acid, sodium citrates, phosphoric acid, sulphite ammonia caramel, acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, arabic gum, malic acid, carnauba wax, paprika extract, anthocyanins, guar gum, and pectin (HR = 1.13 [1.08,1.18], p < 0.001). No association was detected for the three remaining mixtures: HR = 0.98 [0.91, 1.06], p = 0.67; HR = 1.02 [0.94, 1.10], p = 0.68; and HR = 0.99 [0.92, 1.07], p = 0.78. Several synergistic and antagonist interactions between food additives were detected in exploratory analyses. Residual confounding as well as exposure or outcome misclassifications cannot be entirely ruled out and causality cannot be established based on this single observational study.
conclusionsThis study revealed positive associations between exposure to two widely consumed food additive mixtures and higher type 2 diabetes incidence. Further experimental research is needed to depict underlying mechanisms, including potential synergistic/antagonist effects. These findings suggest that a combination of food additives may be of interest to consider in safety assessments, and they support public health recommendations to limit nonessential additives.
trial registrationThe NutriNet-Santé cohort is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03335644). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03335644.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.