Funded in part by Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Sanofi, Meat and Livestock Australia, Servier, Cilag
Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Lane MM, Gamage E, Travica N, Dissanayaka T, Ashtree DN, Gauci S, Lotfaliany M, O'Neil A, Jacka FN, Marx W
Nutrients · 208 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Nonprofit
- Wilson Foundation
- Company
- Eli Lilly and Company
- Company
- Pfizer
- Company
- Sanofi
- Nonprofit
- Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation
- Nonprofit
- PA Research Foundation
- Nonprofit
- David and Elaine Potter Foundation
- University or hospital
- Bond University
- Nonprofit
- Australian Rotary Health
- Industry group
- Meat and Livestock Australia
- University or hospital
- La Trobe University
- University or hospital
- Deakin University
- Company
- Servier
- Nonprofit
- Fernwood Foundation
- Government
- Medical Research Council
- Government
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- Nonprofit
- Cancer Council Queensland
- University or hospital
- Brain and Behaviour Research Institute, University of Wollongong
- Company
- Cilag
- Grants
- National Health and Medical Research Council (2008971)
Based on 19 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2022-06-21 · Nutrients · vol. 14 · issue 13 · p. 2568
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 306 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 14.0× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 91 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- Odds ratio, Observational study, Medicine, Anxiety, Meta-analysis, Depression (economics), Mental health, Odds, Prospective cohort study, Hazard ratio, Psychiatry, Environmental health, Logistic regression, Confidence interval, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- humans, diet, prospective studies, cross-sectional studies, anxiety, mental health, fast foods
10 authors
From AU
- Melissa M. Lane · correspondingDeakin University
- Elizabeth GamageDeakin University
- Nikolaj TravicaDeakin University
- Thusharika Dilrukshi DissanayakaDeakin University
- Deborah N AshtreeDeakin University
- Sarah GauciDeakin University
Abstract
Since previous meta-analyses, which were limited only to depression and by a small number of studies available for inclusion at the time of publication, several additional studies have been published assessing the link between ultra-processed food consumption and depression as well as other mental disorders. We aimed to build on previously conducted reviews to synthesise and meta-analyse the contemporary evidence base and clarify the associations between the consumption of ultra-processed food and mental disorders. A total of 17 observational studies were included (n = 385,541); 15 cross-sectional and 2 prospective. Greater ultra-processed food consumption was cross-sectionally associated with increased odds of depressive and anxiety symptoms, both when these outcomes were assessed together (common mental disorder symptoms odds ratio: 1.53, 95%CI 1.43 to 1.63) as well as separately (depressive symptoms odds ratio: 1.44, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.82; and, anxiety symptoms odds ratio: 1.48, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.59). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of prospective studies demonstrated that greater ultra-processed food intake was associated with increased risk of subsequent depression (hazard ratio: 1.22, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.28). While we found evidence for associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse mental health, further rigorously designed prospective and experimental studies are needed to better understand causal pathways.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.