Funded in part by Amgen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
Cross-sectional examination of ultra-processed food consumption and adverse mental health symptoms
Hecht EM, Rabil A, Martinez Steele E, Abrams GA, Ware D, Landy DC, Hennekens CH
Public health nutrition · 41 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
- Cross-sectional study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Food diaries or recalls
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Company
- Amgen
- Nonprofit
- Fondation Bertarelli
- Company
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
- Nonprofit
- British Heart Foundation
- Government
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Government
- CIHR
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
Based on 6 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2022-07-28 · Public Health Nutr · vol. 25 · issue 11 · pp. 3225–3234
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Cited
- 59 citations · more than 99% of similar papers · 8.6× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 48 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Keywords
- Medicine, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Depression (economics), Confounding, Cross-sectional study, Mental health, Environmental health, Adverse effect, Calorie, Demography, Psychiatry, Population, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- humans, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, diet, nutrition surveys, cross-sectional studies, mental health, energy intake, food handling, adult, fast foods
7 authors
From US, BR
- Eric Michael Hecht · correspondingUniversity of Miami; Florida Atlantic University
- Anna M. RabilFlorida Atlantic University
- Eurídice Martínez SteeleUniversidade de São Paulo
- Gary A. AbramsPrisma Health; University of South Carolina
- Deanna P. WareGeorgetown University; Georgetown University Medical Center
- David C. LandyUniversity of Kentucky
Abstract
Objective
To explore whether individuals who consume higher amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) have more adverse mental health symptoms.
Design
Using a cross-sectional design, we measured the consumption of UPF as a percentage of total energy intake in kilo-calories using the NOVA food classification system. We explored whether individuals who consume higher amounts of UPF were more likely to report mild depression, more mentally unhealthy days and more anxious days per month using multivariable analyses adjusting for potential confounding variables.
Setting
Representative sample from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2007 and 2012.
Participants
10 359 adults aged 18+ without a history of cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin use.
Results
After adjusting for covariates, individuals with the highest level of UPF consumption were significantly more likely to report at least mild depression (OR: 1·81; 95 % CI1·09, 3·02), more mentally unhealthy (risk ratio (RR): 1·22; 95 % CI 1·18, 1·25) and more anxious days per month (RR: 1·19; 95 % CI 1·16, 1·23). They were also significantly less likely to report zero mentally unhealthy (OR: 0·60; 95 % CI 0·41, 0·88) or anxious days (OR: 0·65; 95 % CI 0·47, 0·90).
Conclusions
Individuals reporting higher intakes of UPF were significantly more likely to report mild depression, more mentally unhealthy and more anxious days and less likely to report zero mentally unhealthy or anxious days. These data add important information to a growing body of evidence concerning the potential adverse effects of UPF consumption on mental health.
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.