ReviewBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2026
Not all ultra-processed foods are created equal: a review.
Review in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Ultra-Processed Foods are Eaten: The Missing Dimension in Exposure Measurement for Obesity Research.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Ultra-Processed Food Policies and Global Nutrition Equity: The Case for a Feasibility-Grounded, Differentiated Governance Supplement to Nova.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- Interpreting ultraprocessed food trial evidence: evidentiary limits, reporting practices, and policy relevance.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- The Gut-brain-adipose Axis in Ultra-processed Food and Obesity: A Mechanistic Synthesis and Its Implications for Food Classification.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Are All Ultra-Processed Foods Created Equal? Descriptive Analysis of Nutritional Composition, Nutritional Quality, Energy Density and Hyperpalatability in Relation to Non-Communicable Disease Risk.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Before we tell people to avoid ultra-processed foods, can they identify them? The case for cognitive validity criteria in food classification.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- When ultra-processing obscures sustainable dietary transitions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Nova system was proposed as a means of categorising food products according to the degree and methods of processing. The term 'ultra-processed' was used to indicate foods with the most extensive processing. When applied to research cohorts, foods in this category have shown widely heterogeneous associations with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions, with some foods associated with increased risk and others associated with significantly reduced risk, raising important considerations for public policy. The purpose of this review is to summarise the findings of studies analysing the associations of ultra-processed foods with the risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Out of 309 records found on PubMed, 14 publications that differentiated between ultra-processed food groups were included in the review. Positive associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse health outcomes have been found for processed meats, sweetened beverages (both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened), and fats, spreads and sauces. Other ultra-processed foods have been associated with lower risk of these conditions, mainly breads, biscuits and breakfast cereals, and whole grains. Randomised clinical trials show that replacing animal products with plant-based foods, even when processed, leads to health benefits. These studies suggest that the Nova system may be improved by differentiating between animal and plant foods.
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.