Specific additives and ingredients, such as flavourings, colouring agents and sweeteners, that appear on the ingredient lists of ultra-processed products. They are used here to ask which components of the category might carry a risk, rather than blaming the whole category at once.
Drawn from the paper's introduction.
The authors note that intake of ultra-processed food is positively associated with arterial hypertension, but that the association with specific markers of ultra-processing had not been assessed before.
Their stated reason for decomposing the category is that the mechanisms linking ultra-processed food to hypertension remain unclear, and that specific ingredients are where a mechanism could be found.
Drawn from the paper's introduction.
The team took 101,560 UK Biobank participants who did not have hypertension at baseline and had completed at least one 24 hour dietary recall. Each recalled food item was matched to up to ten commercial products, whose ingredient lists yielded 37 specific markers of ultra-processing grouped into nine categories. Cox models with penalised cubic splines then related intake of foods containing each category, as a percentage of total food intake, to incident hypertension.
Over a median 10.5 years there were 7,633 new cases. Four categories were positively associated: flavour, colouring agent, sweetener and varieties of sugar. Colouring agents carried the strongest association, roughly half again the risk at the top of the range compared with the nadir. Among specific markers, acesulfame, aspartame, erythritol, saccharin, sucralose, xylitol, bulking agent, dextrose, fructose, hydrolysed protein and whey protein were each positively associated.
Five categories showed no significant association at all: flavour enhancer, processing aid, modified oil, protein source and added fibre. Firming, foaming and glazing agents were negatively associated. The authors describe the analysis as exploratory and name the four flagged categories as candidates for mechanistic study and for reformulation, rather than as established causes.
| undefined | undefined |
| undefined | undefined |
| undefined | undefined |
| undefined | undefined |
| undefined | undefined |
| undefined | undefined |
Open question The authors do not claim to know why.
The authors state plainly that the mechanisms linking ultra-processed food to hypertension remain unclear. They do not offer an explanation for why flavours, colouring agents, sweeteners and sugars should carry the association where other categories do not.
What they do instead is name those four categories as prime candidates for mechanistic studies and for reduction strategies, which is a proposal for the next study rather than an account of this one.
Drawn from the paper's introduction and conclusion.
It is now more likely that the ultra-processed category is doing coarse work, and that only some of its components track with hypertension. That refines a blanket association into a shorter list, without yet showing that the shorter list is causal.
UK Biobank volunteers without hypertension at baseline who completed at least one 24 hour dietary recall, with additive exposure inferred from matched commercial products.
Mechanistic studies of the four flagged categories, which the authors name as the needed next step, and exposure measurement that does not rely on matching foods to products.
Newsletter
Each issue by email, when the newsletter launches. Leaving your address puts you on the list, nothing is sent yet.