Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort | Lifestyle Behaviors | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Flowchart for the Selection of the Study Population, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, 2009 to 2019
Flowchart for the Selection of the Study Population, NutriNet-Santé Cohort, 2009 to 2019

A total of 129 036 participants enrolled before January 2017 provided at least 2 valid 24-hour dietary records during their first 2 years of follow-up were eligible for the present study. After exclusion of energy underreporters, participants having prevalent or incident type 1 diabetes, those having prevalent type 2 diabetes, and those with a null follow-up, 104 707 participants were included in the final study population.

Table 1.  Proportion (in Weight) of Ultraprocessed Food in the Diet of 104 707 Participants, NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)
Proportion (in Weight) of Ultraprocessed Food in the Diet of 104 707 Participants, NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)
Table 2.  Associations Between the Proportion (in Weight) of Ultraprocessed Food in the Diet and Nutritional Factors (Nutrients and Food Group Intakes) of 104 707 Participations in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)
Associations Between the Proportion (in Weight) of Ultraprocessed Food in the Diet and Nutritional Factors (Nutrients and Food Group Intakes) of 104 707 Participations in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)
Table 3.  Associations Between the Proportion (in Weight) of UPF in the Diet and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes From Cause-Specific Multiadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Models in 104 707 Patients in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)a
Associations Between the Proportion (in Weight) of UPF in the Diet and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes From Cause-Specific Multiadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Models in 104 707 Patients in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort (2009-2019)a
1.
International Diabetes Federation. International Diabetes Federation - Facts & figures - Atlas 8th Edition 2017. https://www.idf.org/aboutdiabetes/what-is-diabetes/facts-figures.html. Accessed May 15, 2019.
2.
Dicker  D, Nguyen  G, Abate  D,  et al; GBD 2017 Mortality Collaborators.  Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality and life expectancy, 1950-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.  Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1684-1735. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31891-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Forouhi  NG, Misra  A, Mohan  V, Taylor  R, Yancy  W.  Dietary and nutritional approaches for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes.  BMJ. 2018;361:k2234. doi:10.1136/bmj.k2234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Schwingshackl  L, Hoffmann  G, Lampousi  A-M,  et al.  Food groups and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):363-375. doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0246-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Levy  RB,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.  Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(5):936-941. doi:10.1017/S1368980018003762PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Monteiro  CA, Moubarac  JC, Cannon  G, Ng  SW, Popkin  B.  Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system.  Obes Rev. 2013;14(suppl 2):21-28. doi:10.1111/obr.12107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Moodie  R, Stuckler  D, Monteiro  C,  et al; Lancet NCD Action Group.  Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries.  Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670-679. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Moubarac  JC, Batal  M, Martins  AP,  et al.  Processed and ultra-processed food products: consumption trends in Canada from 1938 to 2011.  Can J Diet Pract Res. 2014;75(1):15-21. doi:10.3148/75.1.2014.15PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Martins  AP, Levy  RB, Claro  RM, Moubarac  JC, Monteiro  CA.  Increased contribution of ultra-processed food products in the Brazilian diet (1987-2009 ). RevSaude Publica. 2013;47:656-665. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047004968
10.
Juul  F, Hemmingsson  E.  Trends in consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Sweden between 1960 and 2010.  Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(17):3096-3107. doi:10.1017/S1368980015000506PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
PAHO. Ultra-Processed Food and Drink Products in Latin America: Trends, Impact on Obesity, Policy Implications.; 2015. http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/7699/9789275118641_eng.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y&ua=1. Accessed May 15, 2019.
12.
Luiten  CM, Steenhuis  IH, Eyles  H, Ni Mhurchu  C, Waterlander  WE.  Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets—CORRIGENDUM.  Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(3):539. doi:10.1017/S1368980015002840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Adams  J, White  M.  Characterisation of UK diets according to degree of food processing and associations with socio-demographics and obesity: cross-sectional analysis of UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-12).  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:160. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0317-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Cediel  G, Reyes  M, da Costa Louzada  ML,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the Chilean diet (2010).  Public Health Nutr. 2017;21(1):1-9. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001161PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Costa Louzada  ML, Martins  AP, Canella  DS,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods and the nutritional dietary profile in Brazil.  Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:38. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006132PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Martínez Steele  E, Baraldi  LG, Louzada  ML, Moubarac  JC, Mozaffarian  D, Monteiro  CA.  Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009892. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Moubarac  JC, Batal  M, Louzada  ML, Martinez Steele  E, Monteiro  CA.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada.  Appetite. 2017;108:512-520. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Moubarac  JC, Martins  AP, Claro  RM, Levy  RB, Cannon  G, Monteiro  CA; Evidence from Canada.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health.  Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2240-2248. doi:10.1017/S1368980012005009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Poti  JM, Mendez  MA, Ng  SW, Popkin  BM.  Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households?  Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1251-1262. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.100925PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Slimani  N, Deharveng  G, Southgate  DA,  et al.  Contribution of highly industrially processed foods to the nutrient intakes and patterns of middle-aged populations in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study.  Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(suppl 4):S206-S225. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2009.82PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Marrón-Ponce  JA, Sánchez-Pimienta  TG, Louzada  MLDC, Batis  C.  Energy contribution of NOVA food groups and sociodemographic determinants of ultra-processed food consumption in the Mexican population.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):87-93. doi:10.1017/S1368980017002129PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Baraldi  LG, Martinez Steele  E, Canella  DS, Monteiro  CA.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and associated sociodemographic factors in the USA between 2007 and 2012: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study.  BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e020574. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020574PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Rauber  F, da Costa Louzada  ML, Steele  EM, Millett  C, Monteiro  CA, Levy  RB.  Ultra-processed food consumption and chronic non-communicable diseases-related dietary nutrient profile in the UK (2008-2014).  Nutrients. 2018;10(5):587. doi:10.3390/nu10050587PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Vandevijvere  S, De Ridder  K, Fiolet  T, Bel  S, Tafforeau  J.  Consumption of ultra-processed food products and diet quality among children, adolescents and adults in Belgium.  Eur J Nutr. 2018;(December). doi:10.1007/s00394-018-1870-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Louzada  ML, Martins  AP, Canella  DS,  et al.  Impact of ultra-processed foods on micronutrient content in the Brazilian diet.  Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:45. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006211PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Bhattacharyya  S, O-Sullivan  I, Katyal  S, Unterman  T, Tobacman  JK.  Exposure to the common food additive carrageenan leads to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and inhibition of insulin signalling in HepG2 cells and C57BL/6J mice.  Diabetologia. 2012;55(1):194-203. doi:10.1007/s00125-011-2333-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Roca-Saavedra  P, Mendez-Vilabrille  V, Miranda  JM,  et al.  Food additives, contaminants and other minor components: effects on human gut microbiota-a review.  J Physiol Biochem. 2018;74(1):69-83. doi:10.1007/s13105-017-0564-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Azad  MB, Abou-Setta  AM, Chauhan  BF,  et al.  Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies.  CMAJ. 2017;189(28):E929-E939. doi:10.1503/cmaj.161390PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Hwang  S, Lim  JE, Choi  Y, Jee  SH.  Bisphenol A exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: a meta-analysis.  BMC Endocr Disord. 2018;18(1):81. doi:10.1186/s12902-018-0310-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Levy  RB,  et al.  NOVA: the star shines bright.  World Nutr. 2016;7(1-3):28-38.Google Scholar
31.
Fiolet  T, Srour  B, Sellem  L,  et al.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.  BMJ. 2018;360:k322. doi:10.1136/bmj.k322PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Schnabel  L, Kesse-Guyot  E, Allès  B,  et al.  Association between ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of mortality among middle-aged adults in France.  JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(4):490-498. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Adjibade  M, Julia  C, Allès  B,  et al.  Prospective association between ultra-processed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort.  BMC Med. 2019;17(1):78. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1312-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Schnabel  L, Buscail  C, Sabate  J-M,  et al.  Association between ultra-processed food consumption and functional gastrointestinal disorders: results from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(8):1217-1228. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0137-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Srour  B, Fezeu  LK, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé).  BMJ. 2019;365:l1451. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Kim  H, Hu  EA, Rebholz  CM.  Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994).  Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(10):1777-1785. doi:10.1017/S1368980018003890PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Gómez-Donoso  C, Sánchez-Villegas  A, Martínez-González  MA,  et al.  Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of depression in a Mediterranean cohort: the SUN Project.  Eur J Nutr. 2019;(May). doi:10.1007/s00394-019-01970-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Sandoval-Insausti  H, Blanco-Rojo  R, Graciani  A,  et al.  Ultra-processed food consumption and incident frailty: a prospective cohort study of older adults [published online May 27, 2019].  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;glz140. doi:10.1093/gerona/glz140PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Rauber  F, Campagnolo  PD, Hoffman  DJ, Vitolo  MR.  Consumption of ultra-processed food products and its effects on children’s lipid profiles: a longitudinal study.  Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;25(1):116-122. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2014.08.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Mendonça  RD, Pimenta  AM, Gea  A,  et al.  Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(5):1433-1440. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.135004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Mendonça  RD, Lopes  AC, Pimenta  AM, Gea  A, Martinez-Gonzalez  MA, Bes-Rastrollo  M.  Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a mediterranean cohort: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra Project.  Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(4):358-366. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpw137PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Hercberg  S, Castetbon  K, Czernichow  S,  et al.  The Nutrinet-Santé Study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status.  BMC Public Health. 2010;10:242. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Vergnaud  AC, Touvier  M, Méjean  C,  et al.  Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study.  Int J Public Health. 2011;56(4):407-417. doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Lassale  C, Péneau  S, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Santé study.  J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2575PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Touvier  M, Méjean  C, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):287-296. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Craig  CL, Marshall  AL, Sjöström  M,  et al.  International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381-1395. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FBPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Touvier  M, Kesse-Guyot  E, Méjean  C,  et al.  Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies.  Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055-1064. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Correlations between fruit, vegetables, fish, vitamins, and fatty acids estimated by web-based nonconsecutive dietary records and respective biomarkers of nutritional status.  J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(3):427-438.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Validation of a Web-based, self-administered, non-consecutive-day dietary record tool against urinary biomarkers.  Br J Nutr. 2015;113(6):953-962. doi:10.1017/S0007114515000057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Julia  C, Martinez  L, Allès  B,  et al.  Contribution of ultra-processed foods in the diet of adults from the French NutriNet-Santé study.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):27-37. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001367PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Moubarac  JC, Levy  RB, Louzada  MLC, Jaime  PC.  The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):5-17. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Moubarac  JC, Parra  DC, Cannon  G, Monteiro  CA.  Food classification systems based on food processing: significance and implications for policies and actions: a systematic literature review and assessment.  Curr Obes Rep. 2014;3(2):256-272. doi:10.1007/s13679-014-0092-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
van Buuren  S.  Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification.  Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16(3):219-242. doi:10.1177/0962280206074463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Fine  JP, Gray  RJ.  A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496-509. doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Julia  C, Méjean  C, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validation of the FSA nutrient profiling system dietary index in French adults-findings from SUVIMAX study.  Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(5):1901-1910. doi:10.1007/s00394-015-1006-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Julia  C, Etilé  F, Hercberg  S.  Front-of-pack Nutri-Score labelling in France: an evidence-based policy.  Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(4):e164. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30009-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Deschasaux  M, Huybrechts  I, Murphy  N,  et al.  Nutritional quality of food as represented by the FSAm-NPS nutrient profiling system underlying the Nutri-Score label and cancer risk in Europe: results from the EPIC prospective cohort study.  PLoS Med. 2018;15(9):e1002651. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002651PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
Rubin  DB.  Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York. 2004.
59.
Rubin  DB.  Inference and missing data.  Biometrika. 1976;63(3):581-592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581Google ScholarCrossref
60.
PROC MIANALYZE. The MIANALYZE Procedure: SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 User’s Guide, Second Edition. https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#mianalyze_toc.htm. Accessed December 19, 2018.
61.
Fardet  A.  Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods.  Food Funct. 2016;7(5):2338-2346. doi:10.1039/C6FO00107FPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Allison  DB.  Liquid calories, energy compensation and weight: what we know and what we still need to learn.  Br J Nutr. 2014;111(3):384-386. doi:10.1017/S0007114513003309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Hall  KD, Ayuketah  A, Brychta  R,  et al.  Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake.  Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67-77.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Bhattacharyya  S, Feferman  L, Tobacman  JK.  Carrageenan inhibits insulin signaling through GRB10-mediated decrease in Tyr(P)-IRS1 and through inflammation-inducediIncrease in Ser(P)307-IRS1.  J Biol Chem. 2015;290(17):10764-10774. doi:10.1074/jbc.M114.630053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Gourd  E.  Ultra-processed foods might increase cancer risk.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e186. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30184-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
European CHemical Agency (ECHA). Member State Committee support document for identification of 4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol (bisphenol a) as a substance of very high concern because of its toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) properties. Adopted on 2 December 2016. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/b10d6a00-8e47-9b14-4f61-c779a8dc8450. Accessed February 18, 2019.
67.
Rancière  F, Lyons  JG, Loh  VHY,  et al.  Bisphenol A and the risk of cardiometabolic disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence.  Environ Health. 2015;14:46. doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0036-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Gayrard  V, Lacroix  MZ, Grandin  FC,  et al.  Oral systemic bioavailability of bisphenol A and bisphenol S in pigs.  Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127(7):77005. doi:10.1289/EHP4599PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Buckley  JP, Kim  H, Wong  E, Rebholz  CM.  Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to phthalates and bisphenols in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013-2014.  Environ Int. 2019;131:105057. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105057PubMedGoogle Scholar
70.
Serrano  SE, Braun  J, Trasande  L, Dills  R, Sathyanarayana  S.  Phthalates and diet: a review of the food monitoring and epidemiology data.  Environ Health. 2014;13(1):43. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-43PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Lin  C-Y, Lin  Y-C, Kuo  H-K,  et al.  Association among acrylamide, blood insulin, and insulin resistance in adults.  Diabetes Care. 2009;32(12):2206-2211. doi:10.2337/dc09-0309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Feroe  AG, Attanasio  R, Scinicariello  F.  Acrolein metabolites, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Environ Res. 2016;148:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Stallings-Smith  S, Mease  A, Johnson  TM, Arikawa  AY.  Exploring the association between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and diabetes among adults in the United States.  Environ Res. 2018;166:588-594. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.041PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Fromberg  A, Mariotti  MS, Pedreschi  F, Fagt  S, Granby  K.  Furan and alkylated furans in heat processed food, including home cooked products.  Czech J Food Sci. 2014;32(5):443-448. doi:10.17221/341/2013-CJFSGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM); Knutsen  HK, Alexander  J,  et al.  Risks for public health related to the presence of furan and methylfurans in food.  EFSA J. 2017;15(10). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5005Google Scholar
76.
Kiage  JN, Merrill  PD, Judd  SE,  et al.  Intake of trans fat and incidence of stroke in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(5):1071-1076. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.075713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Willett  WC, Mozaffarian  D.  Trans fats in cardiac and diabetes risk: an overview.  Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2007;1(1):16-23. doi:10.1007/s12170-007-0004-xGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Fagot-Campagna  A, Fosse  S, Roudier  C, Romon  I. Prévalence et Incidence Du Diabète, et Mortalité Liée Au Diabète En France.; 2010. https://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/Publications-et-outils/Rapports-et-syntheses/Maladies-chroniques-et-traumatismes/2010/Prevalence-et-incidence-du-diabete-et-mortalite-liee-au-diabete-en-France. Accessed May 23, 2019.
79.
Song  M, Giovannucci  E.  Substitution analysis in nutritional epidemiology: proceed with caution.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(2):137-140. doi:10.1007/s10654-018-0371-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Andreeva  VA, Salanave  B, Castetbon  K,  et al.  Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of the large NutriNet-Santé e-cohort with French Census data: the issue of volunteer bias revisited.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(9):893-898. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Andreeva  VA, Deschamps  V, Salanave  B,  et al.  Comparison of dietary intakes between a large online cohort study (Etude NutriNet-Santé) and a nationally representative cross-sectional study (Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé) in France: addressing the issue of generalizability in E-epidemiology.  Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):660-669. doi:10.1093/aje/kww016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Haut Conseil de La Santé Publique. Avis Relatif à La Révision Des Repères Alimentaires Pour Les Adultes Du Futur Programme National Nutrition Santé 2017-2021.; 2017. https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/Telecharger?NomFichier=hcspa20170216_reperesalimentairesactua2017.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2019.
83.
Ministry of Health of Brazil. Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population.; 2014. http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    A Plausible Mechanism Explains this Study’s Results
    Charles Fred, Electrical Engineering | Retired
    A plausible mechanism explains this study’s results.

    Human evolution expects glucose to be released little by little from the liver, just as needed. Then, blood glucose never rises very much or very fast and our beta cells are never overtaxed. But, dietary carbs, especially modern quick-digesting carbs, cause blood glucose to rise massively and quickly, requiring massive and quick insulin secretion. This threatens the very survival of our beta cells.

    The main trigger of apoptosis is failure of a cell to perform its function; so requiring beta cells to massively and quickly secrete insulin tempts
    them into failure and triggers apoptosis. When most of the pancreas’ beta cells have suffered apoptosis, you have diabetes.

    If, eight hours after eating, the pancreas is unable to supply enough insulin to push fasting blood glucose below 90, there must be few surviving beta cells - and each of those few survivors now are asked to secrete even more insulin. Thus an avalanche effect, fewer beta cells, more asked from each cell, faster apoptosis - worsening diabetes.

    Continued dietary carbs will continue to overtax and kill the remaining beta cells, while a very low carb diet may allow the survival of the remaining beta cells.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    December 16, 2019

    Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Paris 13 University, Inserm, Inra, Cnam, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center–University of Paris (CRESS), 93017 Bobigny, France
    • 2Public Health Department, Avicenne Hospital, AP-HP, Bobigny, France
    • 3Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, Av. Dr Arnaldo 715, São Paulo 01246-904, Brazil
    JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):283-291. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942
    Key Points

    Question  Is consumption of ultraprocessed foods associated with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D)?

    Findings  This observational prospective study of 104 707 participants found that a higher proportion of ultraprocessed foods in the diet was associated with a higher risk of T2D.

    Meaning  Ultraprocessed food intake is a modifiable factor that may play a role in T2D etiology. Public health authorities in several countries recently started to recommend privileging unprocessed/minimally processed foods and limiting ultraprocessed food consumption.

    Abstract

    Importance  Ultraprocessed foods (UPF) are widespread in Western diets. Their consumption has been associated in recent prospective studies with increased risks of all-cause mortality and chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and dyslipidemia; however, data regarding diabetes are lacking.

    Objective  To assess the associations between consumption of UPF and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this population-based prospective cohort study, 104 707 participants aged 18 years or older from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009-2019) were included. Dietary intake data were collected using repeated 24-hour dietary records (5.7 per participant on average), designed to register participants' usual consumption for more than 3500 different food items. These were categorized according to their degree of processing by the NOVA classification system.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Associations between UPF consumption and risk of T2D were assessed using cause-specific multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known risk factors (sociodemographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, medical history, and nutritional factors).

    Results  A total of 104 707 participants (21 800 [20.8%] men and 82 907 [79.2%] women) were included. Mean (SD) baseline age of participants was 42.7 (14.5) years. Absolute T2D rates in the lowest and highest UPF consumers were 113 and 166 per 100 000 person-years, respectively. Consumption of UPF was associated with a higher risk of T2D (multi-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for an absolute increment of 10 in the percentage of UPF in the diet, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25; median follow-up, 6.0 years; 582 252 person-years; 821 incident cases). These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for several markers of the nutritional quality of the diet, for other metabolic comorbidities (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23), and for weight change (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27). The absolute amount of UPF consumption (grams per day) was consistently associated with T2D risk, even when adjusting for unprocessed or minimally processed food intake (HR for a 100 g/d increase, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08).

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this large observational prospective study, a higher proportion of UPF in the diet was associated with a higher risk of T2D. Even though these results need to be confirmed in other populations and settings, they provide evidence to support efforts by public health authorities to recommend limiting UPF consumption.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03335644

    Introduction

    Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a major public health problem worldwide, affecting 425 million people in 2017, with an estimated projection of 629 million cases by 2045.1 It is therefore urgent to control the disease by intervening on modifiable risk factors, including diet, physical activity, and weight. According to the 2018 Global Burden of Diseases, 34.9% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of diabetes are attributable to dietary factors,2 such as high intakes of sugar and meat, and low intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and yogurt.3,4

    Ultraprocessed foods (UPF) (ie, foods undergoing multiple physical, biological, and/or chemical processes, among which mostly of exclusive industrial use, and generally containing food additives5) are widespread worldwide and especially in Western diets,6-11 representing between 25% and 60% of total daily energy.12-24 During the past decade, scientists’ interest in this topic has increased because several characteristics of these products, beyond a poorer nutritional quality,12-20,25 are hypothesized to convey adverse health effects. Indeed, UPF usually go through several physical and chemical processes such as extruding, molding, prefrying, hydrogenation,5 possibly leading to the production of new compounds with potential cardiometabolic disruption properties. They also typically contain food substances of no or rare culinary use (eg, some varieties of refined sugars, hydrogenated oils) and various types of cosmetic additives (eg, emulsifiers, sweeteners, thickening agents, colorants),5 with cardiometabolic effects postulated for some.26-28 Finally, UPF often have longer shelf-lives compared with non-UPF, particularly owing to the use of preservatives. Thus, they stay for long periods in their packaging, favoring potential migration of materials in contact with food, such as bisphenol A, associated with increased T2D risk in a recent meta-analysis of observational studies.29

    Recently, our research group showed in the NutriNet-Santé cohort that UPF consumption (using the NOVA classification30) was associated with increased risks of cancer,31 mortality,32 depressive symptoms,33 inflammatory bowel syndrome,34 and cardiovascular diseases.35 Other prospective studies also observed associations with mortality risk,36 depression,37 frailty,38 dyslipidemia in children,39 overweight/obesity,40 and hypertension.41 However, no such large-scale prospective study has been conducted regarding T2D. Our objective was to explore the associations between the consumption of UPF and the risk of T2D in a large cohort of French adults.

    Methods
    Study Population and Data Collection

    The NutriNet-Santé study is an ongoing web-based cohort launched in 2009 in France aiming to study the associations between nutrition and health.42 It was approved by the relevant institutional review boards (Inserm and Cnil). Participants provided electronic informed consent. Adults aged 18 years or older are continuously recruited among the general population and followed using a dedicated web interface (etude-nutrinet-sante.fr). At baseline, participants completed a set of 5 questionnaires related to sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics43 (eg, sex, date of birth, educational level, smoking status), anthropometry44,45 (eg, height, weight), physical activity (7-day International Physical Activity Questionnaire [IPAQ]),46 health status, and dietary intake. In addition, fasting blood samples were collected for 19 772 participants.

    Dietary Data and Food Processing Categorization

    Participants were invited to complete a series of 3 nonconsecutive validated web-based 24-hour dietary records at baseline and every 6 months (to vary the season of completion), randomly assigned over a 2-week period (2 weekdays and 1 weekend day).47-49 Corresponding nutrient intakes were calculated using the NutriNet-Santé food composition database, containing more than 3500 food items. Mean dietary intake from 24-hour dietary records available during the first 2 years of each participant’s follow-up were averaged and considered as baseline usual dietary intakes in this prospective analysis. The NutriNet-Santé web-based self-administered 24-hour dietary records have been tested and validated against an interview by a trained dietitian,47 and against blood and urinary biomarkers.48,49 Details on dietary and biological data collection is provided in the eMethods in the Supplement.

    All food and beverage items of the NutriNet-Santé composition table were categorized into 1 of the 4 NOVA categories (unprocessed/minimally processed foods, culinary ingredients, processed foods, ultraprocessed foods),50 a food classification system based on the extent and purpose of food processing.30,51,52 This study primarily focused on the “ultraprocessed foods” NOVA group. Definitions and examples are presented in the eMethods in the Supplement.

    Case Ascertainment

    Participants were asked to declare major health events though the yearly health questionnaire, through a specific health check-up questionnaire every 3 months, or at any time through a specific interface on the study website. They were also asked to declare all currently taken medications and treatments via the check-up and yearly questionnaires. In addition, data are linked to medico-administrative databases of the SNIIRAM, providing detailed information about the reimbursement of medication and medical consultations. Details on T2D case ascertainment (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code E11) are provided in the eMethods in the Supplement, including Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification codes considered for T2D medication. Mortality cases were identified using a linkage to CépiDC, the French national mortality registry.

    Statistical Analyses

    The flowchart for participants’ selection is presented in the Figure. The final population study included 104 707 individuals. For each participant, the proportion (percentage) of UPF in the total weight of food and/or beverages consumed (grams per day) was calculated. It was determined by making a weight ratio rather than an energy ratio to take into account UPF that do not provide energy (eg, artificially sweetened beverages). Multiple imputation for missing data was performed using the multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE) method.53 Unadjusted means of the proportion of UPF in the diet were calculated and presented across strata of the population using appropriate unpaired, 2-tailed t tests or analysis of variance for assessing the differences between groups. Regression analysis was performed to assess the association between nutrient and food group intakes, and UPF proportion, adjusted for sex, age, and total energy intake. The distribution of the ultraprocessed variable in the sample is described in eFigure 1 in the Supplement.

    Cause-specific Cox models were performed, with a left-truncation to account for delayed entries, and age as timescale, to evaluate the association between the proportion of UPF in the diet (coded as a continuous variable for a 10-point increment) and incidence of T2D. For purposes of analysis, T2D and death during follow-up were handled as competing events. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were computed. The Cox model assumptions were verified (eFigures 2 and 3 in the Supplement). Participants contributed person-time until the date of T2D diagnosis or death (competing events), the date of last completed questionnaire, or January 9, 2019, whichever occurred first. The Fine and Gray model for competing events54 was additionally tested in sensitivity analyses.

    Models were adjusted for age (time-scale), sex, educational level, body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, number of 24-hour dietary records, energy intake without alcohol, family history of diabetes, and overall nutritional quality of the diet as measured by the validated Food Standard Agency nutrient profiling system dietary index (FSAm-NPS DI) (Model 1). This index, based on the British FSA nutrient profiling system is the one underlying the official French, Belgian, Spanish and German front-of-package food labeling (the Nutri-Score). It was extensively described and validated elsewhere55-57 and its computation is detailed in the eMethods in the Supplement. In secondary analyses, Model 2 was further adjusted for several nutrient intakes, whereas Model 3 was adjusted for various food groups associated with T2D risk with consistent evidence.3 Model 4 was based on Model 1 and included further adjustments for baseline dyslipidemia and hypertension and treatments for these conditions, and Model 5 was adjusted for weight change during follow-up. The associations with T2D risk were also tested for the proportion of UPF among specific food groups, the absolute amount of UPF consumption (in grams per day) (adjusted for the absolute amount of unprocessed/minimally processed food), and the proportion of unprocessed/minimally processed foods in the diet. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed to assess the robustness of the findings (eMethods in the Supplement). All tests were 2-sided, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. For analyses, SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc) was used.

    Results

    A total of 104 707 participants (21 800 [20.8%] men and 82 907 [79.2%] women) were included. Mean (SD) baseline age of participants was 42.7 (14.5) years. The mean weight contribution of UPF to the diet was 17.3%. Overall, UPF proportions were higher in younger participants, obese individuals, those with lower physical activity levels, and current smokers (Table 1). Higher consumption of UPF was associated with higher FSAm-NPS DI scores (reflecting a poorer nutritional quality of the diet), higher intakes of energy, SFA, sodium and sugar, lower intakes of fiber and alcohol, higher consumptions of sugary drinks and red and processed meats, and lower consumptions of whole grains, yogurt, nuts, and fruits and vegetables (Table 2).

    The contribution of main food groups to the ultraprocessed category, along with the proportions of the other NOVA categories are presented in the eResults in the Supplement.

    During follow-up (582 252 person-years; median follow-up time, 6.0 years; interquartile range [IQR], 2.8-8.4 years), 821 incident T2D cases were detected. Absolute incidence rates for T2D in the whole population were 132 per 100 000 person-years; age and sex corrected absolute rates were 113, 125, 143 and 166 per 100 000 person-years in the first quarter (lowest consumers), second, third, and fourth quarter (highest consumers) of the proportion of UPF intake in the diet, respectively.

    Ultraprocessed food intake was associated with an increased T2D risk (Model 1: HR for a 10-point increment in the percentage of UPF in the diet, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25; P = .001). The associations remained significant after further adjustments for Model 2, 3, 4, and 5 covariates (Table 3). The findings also remained robust throughout all sensitivity models (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Although HRs were in the same direction, this association was significant in women only, but statistical power was reduced for men (eTable 1 in the Supplement). The absolute amount of UPF consumption in grams per day was consistently associated with T2D risk, even when adjusting for the absolute amount (in g/d) of unprocessed/minimally processed food intake (HR for a 100 g/d increase in UPF consumption, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; P = .003).

    The proportions of UPF in beverages, sugary products, fats/sauces, and dairy products were more specifically associated with increased T2D risk (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

    The proportion of unprocessed/minimally processed foods in the diet was inversely associated with T2D risk (HR for a 10-point increment, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98; P = .01; [Model 1 covariates]).

    Discussion

    In this large cohort, UPF consumption was associated with increased T2D risk. To our knowledge, although UPF consumption was previously found to be associated with increased risks of cancer,31 cardiovascular diseases,35 mortality,32,36 depressive symptoms,33,37 and metabolic disorders (obesity,40 hypertension,41 and dyslipidemia39), no prior prospective epidemiological study had evaluated their association with T2D risk.

    Several mechanistic hypotheses can be postulated to explain these findings. Overall, UPF usually have a lower nutritional quality35 because they are on average richer in sodium, energy, fat, sugar, and poorer in fiber12-20,25 and often exhibit a higher glycemic index.61 Several of these factors are associated with T2D with different levels of consensus.3 Many food groups, mostly ultraprocessed (eg, processed meat, and sugary sweetened beverages) are recognized T2D risk factors.3 Sugary sweetened beverages may impact metabolic health by several mechanistic pathways that are still currently debated.62 Consistently, in a 1-month randomized clinical trial,63 an ultraprocessed diet vs an unprocessed one led to an increased energy intake, which was highly correlated with weight gain. Of note, energy balance and overweight are both associated with T2D risk.3 However, this could not have entirely explained the associations observed because our models were adjusted for BMI and weight change. Moreover, high consumers of UPF in our population had lower consumptions of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, which are recommended in the prevention of T2D, consistent with our finding of lower T2D risk in higher consumers of minimally/unprocessed foods. However, our analyses showed that the UPF-T2D risk association was not entirely explained by the simultaneous lower consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods. Moreover, the UPF-T2D risk association was adjusted for overall diet quality and energy intake, and remained significant in our models after further adjustment for a wide range of dietary factors. Thus, these factors did not fully explain the observed associations.

    Caution is needed in interpreting biological mechanisms underlying these associations because, so far, potentially involved compounds and modes of action are diverse and evidence is still limited. Beyond nutritional values, UPF are often characterized by the presence of food additives. Most of them are likely to be neutral for long-term health and some may even be beneficial (eg, antioxidants), but recent concerns emerged mainly from in vitro/in vivo models for several compounds commonly used in thousands of foods. For instance, carrageenan, a thickening and stabilizing agent, used in more than 5500 products in France and pertaining to the top-20 used additives in France, might contribute to the development of diabetes by impairing glucose tolerance, increasing insulin resistance, and inhibiting insulin signaling in human HepG2 cells.64 However, as for most additives, human data on long-term health impacts are still lacking and potential cocktail effects remain largely unknown. These aspects will soon be investigated through a large-scale multidisciplinary research program, notably based on the NutriNet-Santé cohort,65 combining epidemiological and experimental data. Moreover, 2 meta-analyses observed associations between T2D risk and the intakes of nonnutritive sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages.28,66

    In addition, UPF may be contaminated by the migration of contact materials, especially because they often stay in their packaging for long periods owing to extended expiration dates. In particular, the exposure to bisphenol-A (BPA), a hydrophobic substance of very high concern,66 having endocrine disrupting properties, as well as high BPA serum concentrations, have been associated with increased T2D risk in recent meta-analyses.29,67 Of note, BPA was forbidden for use in food packaging in 2015 in France, after the dietary data collection period in this study. However, BPA is being replaced by other components such as bisphenol-S, also presenting endocrine disruption properties, and suspected to be about 250 times more absorbed orally than BPA.68 A recent study conducted in the United States showed that UPF consumption was associated with increased exposure to phthalates,69 endocrine-disrupting chemicals70 used in industrial plastic packaging.

    Furthermore, UPF that went through processes such as high-temperature heating and extruding may contain neoformed contaminants. For instance, acrylamide71 and acrolein72 metabolites were associated with insulin resistance, and urinary biomarkers of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were positively associated with diabetes.73 Acrylamide is found mainly in fried potatoes, biscuits, cakes, bread, or coffee, but is not specific to industrial processes. On the other hand, high levels of furans were observed in industrial breakfast cereals, canned food, and coffee. Even though furans might be detected in cooked/baked home-made food (toasted bread for instance) especially in foods rich in carbohydrates, it is likely that industrial processes lead to substantially higher levels of furans.74 Hepatotoxic and genotoxic properties for this substance were suspected by the European Food Safety Authority.75 Finally, industrial partial oil hydrogenation may lead to the creation of transunsaturated fatty acids in products containing hydrogenated oils. Although still debated, trans fats were linked to increased risks of heart disease76 and T2D.77 Additional research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms underlying the present observations.

    Limitations

    This study has some limitations. Even though we used a multisource case ascertainment approach, exhaustiveness could not be guaranteed. About 20% of T2D cases are estimated to be underdiagnosed in France.78 This probably resulted in a loss of statistical power. Only 1304 participants had a null follow-up and were excluded. Some of them may have had T2D that was not detected thereafter. However, this should represent a small number of missed cases (<20 cases considering T2D incidence in France78) and, owing to the prospective design, the resulting potential misclassification bias was most likely nondifferential and rather resulted in an underestimation of the associations. Second, causation could not be established from this single observational study and residual confounding cannot be entirely ruled out. Nevertheless, several mechanistic hypotheses support the biological plausibility of these findings, and the results remained unchanged after a series of sensitivity analyses adjusting for many lifestyle and dietary confounders. These findings are in line with previous observational studies showing associations between UPF and cardiometabolic outcomes.32,35,36,39-41 To our knowledge, only 1 short-term randomized clinical trial published so far showed a strong effect of an ultraprocessed diet on weight gain and energy intake.63 This kind of trial would not be ethically or logistically feasible to investigate longer-term associations with hard health end points (eg, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, T2D), but provides useful insights into potential mechanisms underlying associations observed in long-term epidemiological cohorts. Third, misclassification bias in the NOVA cannot be ruled out; however, this would have led to a nondifferential measurement error (in cases and noncases), and potentially biasing toward the null hypothesis. Fourth, the ultraprocessed category covers diverse products; this exploratory approach was not designed to focus on a specific food category or to isolate a particular process/additive. However, it allowed us to explore overall exposure to UPF and to observe associations with T2D resulting from cumulative intakes and potential cocktail effects of their ingredients. It would be interesting to explore the associations with chronic diseases of substituting UPF by less processed foods. Classic substitution models, initially designed for macronutrients, are less straightforward for complex food groups,79 but adapted statistical methods should be developed to tackle these challenges. Finally, compared with the general French population, participants to this study were younger, more often women, with higher educational levels80 and healthier dietary habits.81 This might have underestimated the associations owing to a narrower range of UPF intake. Furthermore, T2D incidence was lower (186 cases per 100 000 person-years in our sample after standardization vs 289 per 100 000 in the French population78), thereby limiting statistical power, especially for some stratified analyses (eg, in men).

    Conclusions

    These results suggest an association between UPF consumption and T2D risk. They need to be confirmed in large prospective cohorts in other settings, and underlying mechanisms need to be explored in ad hoc epidemiological and experimental studies. Beyond nutritional factors, nonnutritional dimensions of the diet may play a role in these associations, such as some additives, neoformed contaminants, and contact materials. Even if a causal link between UPF and chronic diseases cannot be established so far, the accumulation of consistent data leads public health authorities in several countries such as France82 or Brazil83 to recommend privileging the consumption of unprocessed/minimally processed foods, and limiting the consumption of UPF in the name of the precautionary principle.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Corresponding Author: Bernard Srour, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN): Inserm (U1153), Inra(U1125), Cnam, Université Paris 13 Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistiques Université de Paris, SMBH Paris 13, 74 rue Marcel Cachin F-93017 Bobigny Cedex, France (b.srour@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr).

    Accepted for Publication: October 10, 2019.

    Published Online: December 16, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942

    Author Contributions: Drs Srour and Touvier had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Study concept and design: Srour, Kesse-Guyot, Monteiro, Touvier.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Srour, Fezeu, Kesse-Guyot, Allès, Debras, Druesne-Pecollo, Chazelas, Deschasaux, Hercberg, Galan, Julia, Touvier.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Srour, Chazelas, Touvier.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Srour, Fezeu, Kesse-Guyot, Allès, Debras, Druesne-Pecollo, Deschasaux, Hercberg, Galan, Monteiro, Julia, Touvier.

    Statistical analysis: Srour, Monteiro, Julia.

    Obtained funding: Touvier.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Fezeu, Kesse-Guyot, Julia.

    Study supervision: Hercberg, Galan, Touvier.

    Funding/Support: The study was supported by the following public institutions: Ministère de la Santé, Santé Publique France, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM) and Université Paris 13. Mr Chazelas was supported by Doctoral Funding from Université Paris 13–Galilée Doctoral School. Dr Deschasaux was supported by a grant from the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale. Mrs Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute (INCa). Researchers were independent from funders.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding institutions had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: We thank all the volunteers of the NutriNet-Santé cohort. We also thank Younes Esseddik, MSc, Thi Hong Van Duong, MSc, Régis Gatibelza, MSc, and Jagatjit Mohinder, MSc, computer scientists; Cédric Agaesse, BA, dietitian; Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, PhD, Julien Allègre, MSc, Nathalie Arnault, MSc, and Laurent Bourhis, MSc, data-managers/biostatisticians; and Fatoumata Diallo, MD, and Roland Andrianasolo, MD, physicians; for their technical contribution to the NutriNet-Santé study.

    Additional Information: NutriNet-Santé is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines and was approved by the institutional review board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (IRB Inserm n 0000388FWA00005831) and the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL n 908450/n 909216). ORCID: 0000-0002-1277-3380

    References
    1.
    International Diabetes Federation. International Diabetes Federation - Facts & figures - Atlas 8th Edition 2017. https://www.idf.org/aboutdiabetes/what-is-diabetes/facts-figures.html. Accessed May 15, 2019.
    2.
    Dicker  D, Nguyen  G, Abate  D,  et al; GBD 2017 Mortality Collaborators.  Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality and life expectancy, 1950-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.  Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1684-1735. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31891-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Forouhi  NG, Misra  A, Mohan  V, Taylor  R, Yancy  W.  Dietary and nutritional approaches for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes.  BMJ. 2018;361:k2234. doi:10.1136/bmj.k2234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Schwingshackl  L, Hoffmann  G, Lampousi  A-M,  et al.  Food groups and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):363-375. doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0246-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Levy  RB,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.  Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(5):936-941. doi:10.1017/S1368980018003762PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Monteiro  CA, Moubarac  JC, Cannon  G, Ng  SW, Popkin  B.  Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system.  Obes Rev. 2013;14(suppl 2):21-28. doi:10.1111/obr.12107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Moodie  R, Stuckler  D, Monteiro  C,  et al; Lancet NCD Action Group.  Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries.  Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670-679. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Moubarac  JC, Batal  M, Martins  AP,  et al.  Processed and ultra-processed food products: consumption trends in Canada from 1938 to 2011.  Can J Diet Pract Res. 2014;75(1):15-21. doi:10.3148/75.1.2014.15PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Martins  AP, Levy  RB, Claro  RM, Moubarac  JC, Monteiro  CA.  Increased contribution of ultra-processed food products in the Brazilian diet (1987-2009 ). RevSaude Publica. 2013;47:656-665. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047004968
    10.
    Juul  F, Hemmingsson  E.  Trends in consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Sweden between 1960 and 2010.  Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(17):3096-3107. doi:10.1017/S1368980015000506PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    PAHO. Ultra-Processed Food and Drink Products in Latin America: Trends, Impact on Obesity, Policy Implications.; 2015. http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/7699/9789275118641_eng.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y&ua=1. Accessed May 15, 2019.
    12.
    Luiten  CM, Steenhuis  IH, Eyles  H, Ni Mhurchu  C, Waterlander  WE.  Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets—CORRIGENDUM.  Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(3):539. doi:10.1017/S1368980015002840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Adams  J, White  M.  Characterisation of UK diets according to degree of food processing and associations with socio-demographics and obesity: cross-sectional analysis of UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-12).  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:160. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0317-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Cediel  G, Reyes  M, da Costa Louzada  ML,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the Chilean diet (2010).  Public Health Nutr. 2017;21(1):1-9. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001161PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.
    Costa Louzada  ML, Martins  AP, Canella  DS,  et al.  Ultra-processed foods and the nutritional dietary profile in Brazil.  Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:38. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006132PubMedGoogle Scholar
    16.
    Martínez Steele  E, Baraldi  LG, Louzada  ML, Moubarac  JC, Mozaffarian  D, Monteiro  CA.  Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009892. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892PubMedGoogle Scholar
    17.
    Moubarac  JC, Batal  M, Louzada  ML, Martinez Steele  E, Monteiro  CA.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada.  Appetite. 2017;108:512-520. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Moubarac  JC, Martins  AP, Claro  RM, Levy  RB, Cannon  G, Monteiro  CA; Evidence from Canada.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health.  Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2240-2248. doi:10.1017/S1368980012005009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Poti  JM, Mendez  MA, Ng  SW, Popkin  BM.  Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households?  Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1251-1262. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.100925PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Slimani  N, Deharveng  G, Southgate  DA,  et al.  Contribution of highly industrially processed foods to the nutrient intakes and patterns of middle-aged populations in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study.  Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(suppl 4):S206-S225. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2009.82PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Marrón-Ponce  JA, Sánchez-Pimienta  TG, Louzada  MLDC, Batis  C.  Energy contribution of NOVA food groups and sociodemographic determinants of ultra-processed food consumption in the Mexican population.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):87-93. doi:10.1017/S1368980017002129PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Baraldi  LG, Martinez Steele  E, Canella  DS, Monteiro  CA.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and associated sociodemographic factors in the USA between 2007 and 2012: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study.  BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e020574. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020574PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Rauber  F, da Costa Louzada  ML, Steele  EM, Millett  C, Monteiro  CA, Levy  RB.  Ultra-processed food consumption and chronic non-communicable diseases-related dietary nutrient profile in the UK (2008-2014).  Nutrients. 2018;10(5):587. doi:10.3390/nu10050587PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Vandevijvere  S, De Ridder  K, Fiolet  T, Bel  S, Tafforeau  J.  Consumption of ultra-processed food products and diet quality among children, adolescents and adults in Belgium.  Eur J Nutr. 2018;(December). doi:10.1007/s00394-018-1870-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
    25.
    Louzada  ML, Martins  AP, Canella  DS,  et al.  Impact of ultra-processed foods on micronutrient content in the Brazilian diet.  Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:45. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006211PubMedGoogle Scholar
    26.
    Bhattacharyya  S, O-Sullivan  I, Katyal  S, Unterman  T, Tobacman  JK.  Exposure to the common food additive carrageenan leads to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and inhibition of insulin signalling in HepG2 cells and C57BL/6J mice.  Diabetologia. 2012;55(1):194-203. doi:10.1007/s00125-011-2333-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Roca-Saavedra  P, Mendez-Vilabrille  V, Miranda  JM,  et al.  Food additives, contaminants and other minor components: effects on human gut microbiota-a review.  J Physiol Biochem. 2018;74(1):69-83. doi:10.1007/s13105-017-0564-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Azad  MB, Abou-Setta  AM, Chauhan  BF,  et al.  Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies.  CMAJ. 2017;189(28):E929-E939. doi:10.1503/cmaj.161390PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Hwang  S, Lim  JE, Choi  Y, Jee  SH.  Bisphenol A exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: a meta-analysis.  BMC Endocr Disord. 2018;18(1):81. doi:10.1186/s12902-018-0310-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Levy  RB,  et al.  NOVA: the star shines bright.  World Nutr. 2016;7(1-3):28-38.Google Scholar
    31.
    Fiolet  T, Srour  B, Sellem  L,  et al.  Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.  BMJ. 2018;360:k322. doi:10.1136/bmj.k322PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Schnabel  L, Kesse-Guyot  E, Allès  B,  et al.  Association between ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of mortality among middle-aged adults in France.  JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(4):490-498. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Adjibade  M, Julia  C, Allès  B,  et al.  Prospective association between ultra-processed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort.  BMC Med. 2019;17(1):78. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1312-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Schnabel  L, Buscail  C, Sabate  J-M,  et al.  Association between ultra-processed food consumption and functional gastrointestinal disorders: results from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(8):1217-1228. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0137-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Srour  B, Fezeu  LK, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé).  BMJ. 2019;365:l1451. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Kim  H, Hu  EA, Rebholz  CM.  Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994).  Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(10):1777-1785. doi:10.1017/S1368980018003890PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Gómez-Donoso  C, Sánchez-Villegas  A, Martínez-González  MA,  et al.  Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of depression in a Mediterranean cohort: the SUN Project.  Eur J Nutr. 2019;(May). doi:10.1007/s00394-019-01970-1PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Sandoval-Insausti  H, Blanco-Rojo  R, Graciani  A,  et al.  Ultra-processed food consumption and incident frailty: a prospective cohort study of older adults [published online May 27, 2019].  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;glz140. doi:10.1093/gerona/glz140PubMedGoogle Scholar
    39.
    Rauber  F, Campagnolo  PD, Hoffman  DJ, Vitolo  MR.  Consumption of ultra-processed food products and its effects on children’s lipid profiles: a longitudinal study.  Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;25(1):116-122. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2014.08.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Mendonça  RD, Pimenta  AM, Gea  A,  et al.  Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(5):1433-1440. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.135004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Mendonça  RD, Lopes  AC, Pimenta  AM, Gea  A, Martinez-Gonzalez  MA, Bes-Rastrollo  M.  Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a mediterranean cohort: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra Project.  Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(4):358-366. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpw137PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    Hercberg  S, Castetbon  K, Czernichow  S,  et al.  The Nutrinet-Santé Study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status.  BMC Public Health. 2010;10:242. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Vergnaud  AC, Touvier  M, Méjean  C,  et al.  Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study.  Int J Public Health. 2011;56(4):407-417. doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Lassale  C, Péneau  S, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Santé study.  J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2575PubMedGoogle Scholar
    45.
    Touvier  M, Méjean  C, Kesse-Guyot  E,  et al.  Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):287-296. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Craig  CL, Marshall  AL, Sjöström  M,  et al.  International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381-1395. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FBPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Touvier  M, Kesse-Guyot  E, Méjean  C,  et al.  Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies.  Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055-1064. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Correlations between fruit, vegetables, fish, vitamins, and fatty acids estimated by web-based nonconsecutive dietary records and respective biomarkers of nutritional status.  J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(3):427-438.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Lassale  C, Castetbon  K, Laporte  F,  et al.  Validation of a Web-based, self-administered, non-consecutive-day dietary record tool against urinary biomarkers.  Br J Nutr. 2015;113(6):953-962. doi:10.1017/S0007114515000057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Julia  C, Martinez  L, Allès  B,  et al.  Contribution of ultra-processed foods in the diet of adults from the French NutriNet-Santé study.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):27-37. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001367PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Monteiro  CA, Cannon  G, Moubarac  JC, Levy  RB, Louzada  MLC, Jaime  PC.  The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.  Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):5-17. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000234PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Moubarac  JC, Parra  DC, Cannon  G, Monteiro  CA.  Food classification systems based on food processing: significance and implications for policies and actions: a systematic literature review and assessment.  Curr Obes Rep. 2014;3(2):256-272. doi:10.1007/s13679-014-0092-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    van Buuren  S.  Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification.  Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16(3):219-242. doi:10.1177/0962280206074463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Fine  JP, Gray  RJ.  A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496-509. doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144Google ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Julia  C, Méjean  C, Touvier  M,  et al.  Validation of the FSA nutrient profiling system dietary index in French adults-findings from SUVIMAX study.  Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(5):1901-1910. doi:10.1007/s00394-015-1006-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Julia  C, Etilé  F, Hercberg  S.  Front-of-pack Nutri-Score labelling in France: an evidence-based policy.  Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(4):e164. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30009-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
    57.
    Deschasaux  M, Huybrechts  I, Murphy  N,  et al.  Nutritional quality of food as represented by the FSAm-NPS nutrient profiling system underlying the Nutri-Score label and cancer risk in Europe: results from the EPIC prospective cohort study.  PLoS Med. 2018;15(9):e1002651. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002651PubMedGoogle Scholar
    58.
    Rubin  DB.  Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York. 2004.
    59.
    Rubin  DB.  Inference and missing data.  Biometrika. 1976;63(3):581-592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581Google ScholarCrossref
    60.
    PROC MIANALYZE. The MIANALYZE Procedure: SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 User’s Guide, Second Edition. https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#mianalyze_toc.htm. Accessed December 19, 2018.
    61.
    Fardet  A.  Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods.  Food Funct. 2016;7(5):2338-2346. doi:10.1039/C6FO00107FPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Allison  DB.  Liquid calories, energy compensation and weight: what we know and what we still need to learn.  Br J Nutr. 2014;111(3):384-386. doi:10.1017/S0007114513003309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Hall  KD, Ayuketah  A, Brychta  R,  et al.  Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake.  Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67-77.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    64.
    Bhattacharyya  S, Feferman  L, Tobacman  JK.  Carrageenan inhibits insulin signaling through GRB10-mediated decrease in Tyr(P)-IRS1 and through inflammation-inducediIncrease in Ser(P)307-IRS1.  J Biol Chem. 2015;290(17):10764-10774. doi:10.1074/jbc.M114.630053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Gourd  E.  Ultra-processed foods might increase cancer risk.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e186. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30184-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
    66.
    European CHemical Agency (ECHA). Member State Committee support document for identification of 4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol (bisphenol a) as a substance of very high concern because of its toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) properties. Adopted on 2 December 2016. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/b10d6a00-8e47-9b14-4f61-c779a8dc8450. Accessed February 18, 2019.
    67.
    Rancière  F, Lyons  JG, Loh  VHY,  et al.  Bisphenol A and the risk of cardiometabolic disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence.  Environ Health. 2015;14:46. doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0036-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Gayrard  V, Lacroix  MZ, Grandin  FC,  et al.  Oral systemic bioavailability of bisphenol A and bisphenol S in pigs.  Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127(7):77005. doi:10.1289/EHP4599PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    Buckley  JP, Kim  H, Wong  E, Rebholz  CM.  Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to phthalates and bisphenols in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013-2014.  Environ Int. 2019;131:105057. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105057PubMedGoogle Scholar
    70.
    Serrano  SE, Braun  J, Trasande  L, Dills  R, Sathyanarayana  S.  Phthalates and diet: a review of the food monitoring and epidemiology data.  Environ Health. 2014;13(1):43. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-43PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    Lin  C-Y, Lin  Y-C, Kuo  H-K,  et al.  Association among acrylamide, blood insulin, and insulin resistance in adults.  Diabetes Care. 2009;32(12):2206-2211. doi:10.2337/dc09-0309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    72.
    Feroe  AG, Attanasio  R, Scinicariello  F.  Acrolein metabolites, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Environ Res. 2016;148:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    73.
    Stallings-Smith  S, Mease  A, Johnson  TM, Arikawa  AY.  Exploring the association between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and diabetes among adults in the United States.  Environ Res. 2018;166:588-594. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.041PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    74.
    Fromberg  A, Mariotti  MS, Pedreschi  F, Fagt  S, Granby  K.  Furan and alkylated furans in heat processed food, including home cooked products.  Czech J Food Sci. 2014;32(5):443-448. doi:10.17221/341/2013-CJFSGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM); Knutsen  HK, Alexander  J,  et al.  Risks for public health related to the presence of furan and methylfurans in food.  EFSA J. 2017;15(10). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5005Google Scholar
    76.
    Kiage  JN, Merrill  PD, Judd  SE,  et al.  Intake of trans fat and incidence of stroke in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(5):1071-1076. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.075713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    77.
    Willett  WC, Mozaffarian  D.  Trans fats in cardiac and diabetes risk: an overview.  Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2007;1(1):16-23. doi:10.1007/s12170-007-0004-xGoogle ScholarCrossref
    78.
    Fagot-Campagna  A, Fosse  S, Roudier  C, Romon  I. Prévalence et Incidence Du Diabète, et Mortalité Liée Au Diabète En France.; 2010. https://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/Publications-et-outils/Rapports-et-syntheses/Maladies-chroniques-et-traumatismes/2010/Prevalence-et-incidence-du-diabete-et-mortalite-liee-au-diabete-en-France. Accessed May 23, 2019.
    79.
    Song  M, Giovannucci  E.  Substitution analysis in nutritional epidemiology: proceed with caution.  Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(2):137-140. doi:10.1007/s10654-018-0371-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    80.
    Andreeva  VA, Salanave  B, Castetbon  K,  et al.  Comparison of the sociodemographic characteristics of the large NutriNet-Santé e-cohort with French Census data: the issue of volunteer bias revisited.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(9):893-898. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    81.
    Andreeva  VA, Deschamps  V, Salanave  B,  et al.  Comparison of dietary intakes between a large online cohort study (Etude NutriNet-Santé) and a nationally representative cross-sectional study (Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé) in France: addressing the issue of generalizability in E-epidemiology.  Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):660-669. doi:10.1093/aje/kww016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    82.
    Haut Conseil de La Santé Publique. Avis Relatif à La Révision Des Repères Alimentaires Pour Les Adultes Du Futur Programme National Nutrition Santé 2017-2021.; 2017. https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/Telecharger?NomFichier=hcspa20170216_reperesalimentairesactua2017.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2019.
    83.
    Ministry of Health of Brazil. Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population.; 2014. http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.
    ×