Are Ultra-Processed Foods Really That Bad? New Research Challenges What We've Been Told
By Dr. Fred Peters, Ph.D., ACSM-EP | October 2026
For years, ultra-processed foods have been portrayed as one of the greatest threats to our health. From social media influencers to mainstream news headlines, the message has become remarkably consistent: If a food is ultra-processed, you should probably avoid it.
But what if that advice is too simplistic?
A major new study published in PLOS Medicine is challenging conventional thinking about ultra-processed foods and colorectal cancer. After examining data from more than 460,000 Americans, researchers found something that may surprise many consumers: Higher overall consumption of ultra-processed foods was not associated with an increased incidence of colorectal cancer.
Even more interesting, certain ultra-processed foods were associated with lower cancer incidence, while others were associated with higher incidence.
The findings raise an important question: Have we become so focused on how our food is processed that we've overlooked what actually makes it nutritious?
What the Research Found
Researchers from the National Cancer Institute and collaborating institutions analyzed dietary information from 461,682 adults participating in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.
Participants were between 50 and 71 years old when they enrolled in 1995–1996. Researchers followed cancer incidence through 2018, with a median follow-up of approximately 19 years.
During that period, 10,075 participants developed colorectal adenocarcinoma.
After accounting for several demographic, behavioral, and health-related factors, researchers found no statistically significant association between total ultra-processed food consumption and colorectal cancer incidence.
Specifically, participants in the highest category of ultra-processed food consumption did not have significantly higher colorectal cancer incidence than those in the lowest category (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.91–1.03).
However, the more revealing findings emerged when researchers examined specific food groups.
Whole grains and fiber: Higher intakes from ultra-processed sources were associated with lower colorectal cancer incidence.
Dairy products and calcium: Higher intakes from ultra-processed sources were also associated with lower incidence.
Processed meats: Greater consumption was associated with higher colorectal cancer incidence.
In other words, foods classified under the same broad processing category demonstrated substantially different relationships with cancer incidence.
This distinction is important.
The Problem With Labeling Everything "Ultra-Processed"
The term ultra-processed food generally refers to products classified under the NOVA food classification system. These foods often contain ingredients or additives not commonly used in home cooking and are manufactured through industrial processes.
Examples can include packaged snack cakes, sugary beverages, processed meats, certain breakfast cereals, commercially produced breads, and flavored yogurts.
But consider the nutritional differences between these products.
A packaged whole-grain bread containing dietary fiber, vitamins, and minerals is nutritionally very different from a packaged pastry containing substantial amounts of added sugar and relatively little fiber.
Likewise, a high-protein yogurt may provide calcium and other beneficial nutrients, while a processed meat product may contribute to dietary exposures associated with increased colorectal cancer risk.
Yet depending on their formulations, all of these foods may fall within the same broad ultra-processed category.
That is the limitation of evaluating foods primarily according to their degree of processing rather than their overall nutritional characteristics.
Processing is not irrelevant. Certain processing methods and formulations may influence nutrient availability, energy density, food structure, and eating behavior.
However, the mere presence of processing does not automatically establish that a food is nutritionally inferior.
Does This Mean Ultra-Processed Foods Are Healthy?
Absolutely not. However, this is where interpreting scientific research requires some caution.
The study was observational, meaning researchers identified associations between dietary patterns and cancer incidence. They did not randomly assign participants to different diets or establish that particular foods directly caused or prevented cancer.
Additionally, dietary intake was assessed at the beginning of the study. Participants' eating habits may have changed considerably over the subsequent decades.
The study also focused on colorectal cancer in a predominantly older American population. Its findings should not automatically be generalized to younger populations, other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or metabolic health.
Importantly, the absence of a statistically significant association does not prove that ultra-processed foods are universally safe.
Other research has linked higher consumption of ultra-processed foods with adverse health outcomes. Those findings deserve consideration, although differences in study design, dietary composition, confounding variables, and food classification can complicate interpretation.
The appropriate conclusion is not that processing never matters.
Rather, processing alone may be an inadequate measure of a food's potential health effects.
Why Nutritional Quality Still Matters Most
As an exercise physiologist, I've spent much of my career helping people understand how nutrition, physical activity, and lifestyle influence long-term health.
One recurring challenge is the tendency to reduce complex scientific concepts to overly simplistic rules.
Carbohydrates are bad. Fat is bad. Seed oils are bad. Processed foods are bad.
These messages may be easy to communicate, but nutritional science is rarely that straightforward.
Consider two individuals.
One regularly consumes packaged whole-grain bread, high-fiber cereal, Greek yogurt, vegetables, fruit, legumes, and lean protein.
The other avoids anything labeled ultra-processed but consumes a diet low in fiber, high in saturated fat, and lacking in nutritional variety.
Simply knowing which individual consumes more ultra-processed foods tells us relatively little about the overall quality of their dietary patterns.
We need to consider factors such as fiber intake, protein quality, fatty acid composition, micronutrient density, total energy intake, and the broader dietary pattern.
This is especially relevant for colorectal cancer prevention, where evidence already supports consuming fiber-rich foods and whole grains while limiting processed meats.
The new study reinforces those established relationships rather than overturning them.
What About Replacing Ultra-Processed Foods?
One additional finding deserves attention.
Researchers estimated that replacing 10% of ultra-processed food intake, measured by weight, with minimally processed foods was associated with approximately 2% lower colorectal cancer incidence.
Although this association was statistically significant, its magnitude was relatively modest. It was also based on statistical modeling rather than an intervention in which participants actually replaced specific foods.
This suggests that food substitutions may matter, but their effects likely depend on what is being removed and what replaces it.
Replacing processed meat with legumes, for example, is nutritionally different from replacing fortified whole-grain bread with a refined, low-fiber alternative.
The objective should not simply be to reduce the number of processed products in our diets.
It should be to improve the overall nutritional quality of what we eat.
My Practical Recommendations
Based on the broader body of nutritional evidence, rather than this single study alone, I recommend a relatively straightforward approach:
Prioritize dietary quality. Build your diet around vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and appropriate sources of protein.
Pay attention to fiber. Adequate dietary fiber supports gastrointestinal health and is an important component of dietary patterns associated with lower colorectal cancer risk.
Limit processed meats. Their association with colorectal cancer is supported by a substantial body of evidence.
Evaluate packaged foods individually. Examine nutritional content, including fiber, protein, added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, rather than rejecting a product simply because it has been processed.
Avoid nutritional absolutism. An individual ingredient, processing method, or food classification rarely tells the entire story.
For most people, a consistent, nutrient-dense dietary pattern is considerably more important than achieving an arbitrary standard of eating only minimally processed foods.
The Bottom Line
This study does not give us permission to disregard nutritional quality or consume unlimited amounts of highly processed foods.
What it does demonstrate is that the relationship between food processing and human health is more nuanced than popular nutrition messaging often suggests.
A whole-grain cereal and a processed meat product may share the same broad classification, but that does not mean they carry identical nutritional or health implications.
We should be cautious about turning classification systems into universal judgments about what is healthy and unhealthy.
The goal of nutrition science should not be to create longer lists of foods to fear. It should be to identify dietary patterns that consistently improve health and reduce disease risk.
And sometimes, that requires challenging assumptions we've come to accept as fact.
References
Abar, L., O'Connell, C. P., Hong, H. G., et al. (2026). Associations of food processing and dietary risk factors with colorectal cancer incidence in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study: A cohort study. PLOS Medicine, 23(10), e1005251.
PLOS. (2026, October 21). Massive study of 460,000 people challenges ultra-processed food cancer fears. ScienceDaily.
