Recently, there has been a significant increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods worldwide. However, the association between the consumption of ultra-processed food, obesity, and the prevalence of colon cancer remains controversial.

To find out the association between the consumption of ultra-processed food, obesity, and the prevalence of colon cancer.

A comprehensive systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for grey literature was done for articles published before 8th March 2023. The search was done to retrieve potential peer-reviewed articles that explored the association between the consumption of ultra-processed food, obesity, and the prevalence of colon cancer.

Of the 246 potential articles assessed, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that high consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with an increased risk of obesity [odds ratio (OR): 1.65; 95%CI: 1.07-2.45; P < 0.05]. Consequently, there is a positive association between obesity and an increased risk of colon cancer (OR 1.48; 95%CI: 0.77-2.87; P > 0.05).

Consuming ultra-processed foods increases the risk of obesity and colon cancer.

Aging is associated with gut dysbiosis, low-grade inflammation, and increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Prediabetes, which increases T2D and cardiovascular disease risk, is present in 45-50% of mid-life adults. The gut microbiota may link ultra-processed food (UPF) with inflammation and T2D risk.

Following a 2-week standardized lead-in diet (59% UPF), adults aged 40-65 years will be randomly assigned to a 6-week diet emphasizing either UPF (81% total energy) or non-UPF (0% total energy). Measurements of insulin sensitivity, 24-h and postprandial glycemic control, gut microbiota composition/function, fecal short chain fatty acids, intestinal inflammation, inflammatory cytokines, and vascular function will be made before and following the 6-week intervention period. Prior to recruitment, menus were developed in order to match UPF and non-UPF conditions based upon relevant dietary factors. Menus were evaluated for palatability and costs, and the commercial additive content of study diets was quantified to explore potential links with outcomes.

Overall diet palatability ratings were similar (UPF = 7.6 ± 1.0; Non-UPF = 6.8 ± 1.5; Like Moderately = 7, Like Very Much = 8). Cost analysis (food + labor) of the 2000 kcal menu (7-d average) revealed lower costs for UPF compared to non-UPF diets ($20.97/d and $40.23/d, respectively). Additive exposure assessment of the 2000 kcal UPF diet indicated that soy lecithin (16×/week), citric acid (13×/week), sorbic acid (13×/week), and sodium citrate (12×/week) were the most frequently consumed additives.

Whether UPF consumption impairs glucose homeostasis in mid-life adults is unknown. Findings will address this research gap and contribute information on how UPF consumption may influence T2D development.

Our objective was to convene interdisciplinary experts from government, academia, and industry to develop a Research Roadmap to identify research priorities about processed food intake and risk for obesity and cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) among United States populations. We convened attendees at various career stages with diverse viewpoints in the field. We held a "Food Processing Primer" to build foundational knowledge of how and why foods are processed, followed by presentations about how processed foods may affect energy intake, obesity, and CMD risk. Breakout groups discussed potential mechanistic and confounding explanations for associations between processed foods and obesity and CMD risk. Facilitators created research questions (RQs) based on key themes from discussions. Different breakout groups convened to discuss what is known and unknown for each RQ and to develop sub-RQs to address gaps. Workshop attendees focused on ultra-processed foods (UPFs; Nova Group 4) because the preponderance of evidence is based on this classification system. Yet, heterogeneity and subjectivity in UPF classification was a challenge for RQ development. The 6 RQs were: 1) What objective methods or measures could further categorize UPFs, considering food processing, formulation, and the interaction of the two? 2) How can exposure assessment of UPF intake be improved? 3) Does UPF intake influence risk for obesity or CMDs, independent of diet quality? 4) What, if any, attributes of UPFs influence ingestive behavior and contribute to excess energy intake? 5) What, if any, attributes of UPFs contribute to clinically meaningful metabolic responses? 6) What, if any, external environmental factors lead people to consume high amounts of UPFs? Uncertainty and complexity around UPF intake warrant further complementary and interdisciplinary causal, mechanistic, and methodological research related to obesity and CMD risk to understand the utility of applying classification by degree of processing to foods in the United States.

Introduction: an increase in the consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods may predispose to metabolic abnormalities. Objective: to verify the association of food consumption with metabolic phenotype in workers from a quaternary hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Methods: workers of both sexes aged > 18 years were eligible. A food frequency questionnaire and the NOVA classification were used in the food consumption analysis. Metabolic phenotype considered the presence of at least one metabolic alteration (blood glucose, serum lipids, and blood pressure) combined with BMI (eutrophic or excess weight) as follows: 1) metabolically healthy eutrophic (MHE); 2) metabolically unhealthy eutrophic (MUE); 3) metabolically healthy excess weight (MHEW); 4) metabolically unhealthy excess weight (MUEW). Results: from the included 160 participants (mean age, 45.2 ± 1.1 years; 59.4 %, women), 21.9 % self-reported arterial hypertension and 4.4 % diabetes. Most presented excess weight (74.6 %), with approximately 40 % being obese. The MUEW phenotype had higher body fat percentage and central adiposity represented by higher WC and VFA in comparison to the other phenotypes. The lean body mass was similar between the groups. The median of ultra-processed foods was 32.4 % for eutrophic, 32.7 % for overweight, and 34.3 % for obese subjects. No significant associations were observed between ultra-processed food consumption and metabolically unhealthy eutrophic (OR: 1.01; 95 % CI: 0.96-1.06), metabolically healthy excess weight (OR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.98-1.08), and metabolically unhealthy excess weight (OR: 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.96-1.05) in comparison to metabolically healthy eutrophic. Conclusion: consumption of ultra-processed food was high. In this cross-sectional analysis, no association of metabolic phenotypes with consumption of food groups according to degree of food processing were observed.

Numerous association studies and findings from a controlled feeding trial have led to the suggestion that "processed" foods are bad for health. Processing technologies and food formulation are essential for food preservation and provide access to safe, nutritious, affordable, appealing and sustainable foods for millions globally. However, food processing at any level can also cause negative health consequences that result from thermal destruction of vitamins; formation of toxins such as acrylamide; or excessive intakes of salt, sugar, and fat. Research on ultraprocessed foods centers on food composition and formulation. In addition, many modern food formulations can have poor nutritional quality and higher energy density. We outline the role of processing in the provision of a safe and secure food supply and explore the characteristics of processed foods that promote greater energy intake. Despite the potential for negative health effects, food processing and formulation represent an opportunity to apply the latest developments in technology and ingredient innovation to improve the food supply by creating foods that decrease the risk of overeating. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Nutrition, Volume 42 is August 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

The World Health Organization recommends feeding snacks between meals to young children. This study explored nutritional quality of snacks consumed between meals and consumption metrics (% total energy intakes (%TEI) and amount of kcal from snacks) to understand correlations with dietary outcomes (total energy intakes and dietary adequacy) and body-mass-index-for-age z-scores (BMIZ). Data used were 24-h dietary recalls and anthropometric measurements among a representative sample (n = 679) of one-year-olds in Nepal. Nepali meal patterns for young children were identified through formative research and all foods/beverages consumed outside of meals were categorized as snacks. A nutrient profiling model was used to categorize snacks as healthy or unhealthy, based on positive and negative nutrient content. Snacks consumed between meals provided half of all energy consumed, and were associated with increased energy and nutrient intakes. The positive effect of snacks between meals on dietary adequacy was greater when these snacks were healthy, while increasing %TEI from unhealthy snacks consumed between meals was negatively associated with dietary adequacy. Consumption of snacks between meals was not associated with mean BMIZ among the children. These findings indicate that the provision of and nutritional quality of snacks are important considerations to communicate to caregivers. Discouragement of unhealthy, nutrient-poor snacks is critical for complementary feeding dietary guidelines in contexts experiencing nutrition transition.