Cutting Back on Ultra-Processed Food Could Lower Diabetes Risk

TOPLINE:
Higher intake of ultra-processed food (UPF) is associated with a 17% increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), whereas replacing UPF with minimally processed food (MPF) or processed food (PF) is linked to a lower T2D risk.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of 311,892 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study.
The study included participants from eight European countries, with an average follow-up of 10.9 years, during which 14,236 T2D cases were identified.
Dietary intake was assessed at baseline using dietary questionnaires and classified according to the Nova classification into unprocessed/MPF, processed culinary ingredients (PCI), PF, and UPF.
T2D cases were verified through multiple methods, including self-report, primary- and secondary-care register linkage, medications registers, hospital admissions, and mortality data.
Cox regression and statistical substitution analysis were used to estimate associations between MPF + PCI, PF, and UPF intake and incident T2D.
TAKEAWAY:
Each 10% increment of total daily food intake from UPF was associated with a 17% higher risk for incident T2D (95% CI, 1.14-1.19).
T2D risk decreased with each 10% increase in MPF + PCI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) or PF (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95) intake.
Replacing UPF with MPF or PF was linked to a lower risk for incident T2D.
Heterogeneity was observed across UPF sub-groups, with some sub-groups like breads, biscuits, and breakfast cereals associated with a lower risk for T2D.
IN PRACTICE:
The study “questions the use of an overall UPF metric for public guidance, and supports recommendations to focus efforts on reducing consumption of specific UPF,” the authors wrote. 
SOURCE:
The study was led by Samuel J. Dicken, University College London (UCL) in London, UK. It was published online on September 16, 2024, in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.
LIMITATIONS:
Despite comprehensive efforts to standardise clinical incidences of T2D, different centres had varying information available for identifying and verifying cases, potentially introducing some heterogeneity. Information on diet and covariates was collected at baseline only, which may not account for changes over time. Dietary information was collected before the development of the Nova classification, leading to assumptions when insufficient information about processing was available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by a grant from World Cancer Research Fund, as part of the World Cancer Research Fund International grant programme. Samuel J. Dicken disclosed receiving royalties from Amazon for a self-published book that mentions ultra-processed food and payments from Red Pen Reviews. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 
 
Send comments and news tips to [email protected].