These findings can be applied to the United States. The foods consumed were ranked using the NOVA food classification system, which we can also utilize for foods in the United States. The only difference would be what is classified in the United States, as “additives” considered by the U.S. to fit the ultra-processed categorization. This may cause a slight difference in study results. Though, because this information is not new, the overall key points can be translated and, in fact, should likely be reproduced within the United States.

In my experience as a registered dietitian, I do not think these findings are surprising. I do think that consumers need to be able to make the connection to the reasons supporting why this is a significant. For example, this study focuses on “ultra-processed foods.” These are consumed in the form of snacks, desserts, or ready-to-eat or -heat meals. It is important that the take-away point be noted as not just a generalized all-cause mortality risk is increased, but how and precisely what from. The components of these ultra-processed foods per the article are saturated and trans fats, salt, and added sugar from the diet. We are aware that these could present major advantages if we reduce consumption, such as preventing cardiovascular deaths, which here in the United State is a lead cause of mortality in the category of chronic disease. It is important for the consumer to recognize the correlation between which ingredients contribute to the cardiovascular disease (i.e., trans fat, salt, added sugars, etc.) and which of the ultra-processed foods these can be found in. The ultra-processed food concern extends beyond the ingredients and, further speaking, to the food packaging. This is a key take-away point from this study.

In the study, ultra-processed foods accounted for 14.4% of the total weight of food and drink consumed and 29.1% of total energy intake.  Food packaging is also suspected to have endocrine disrupting properties. During storage and transportation of food products, chemicals from food-contact articles can migrate into food, some of which might negatively affect health, such as bisphenolA (better recognized as BPA). We experience this when we compare the benefits of organic versus non-organic foods such as canned tomato products in the United States and how the linings of the cans and food components interact with one another. This is an area that needs to be further researched.

Per the article, conversely, ultra-processed foods have generally little fiber content, and higher ultra-processed foods consumption was associated with lower fiber intake, whereas dietary fiber was previously linked with a substantially decreased mortality risk. We know that for the typical American, we are not consuming enough fiber daily. This study points out the correlation between this inverse relationship. This is an area for all consumers to improve on. This study provides an action initiative which, for the consumer, is a wonderful thing. It clearly dictates to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods not only to decrease our risk for all-cause mortality (whether it be cardiovascular disease or other) but also to begin to substitute these foods for higher quality alternatives. When doing so, we can increase fiber, nutrient intake, and an array of other essential nutrients required from food that we previously were not receiving. A recommendation I counsel to any of my patients is that if you do not know where to start, try to eat nothing out of a box.