Aug 2026· Journal of Food Science· Vol 91 8, pp.
e71367
· 0 citations· 40 references
Medicine
TL;DR
It is suggested that UPF consumption may be associated with an increased risk of several cancers, although the overall certainty of the evidence remains low.
Abstract
Evidence on the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption and cancer risk is inconsistent, and systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are fragmented across different cancer types and study populations. A comprehensive synthesis is needed to evaluate the robustness of the evidence. We therefore conducted an umbrella review (UR) of SRs and MAs to synthesize the available evidence on the association between UPF consumption and the risk of various cancers. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to January 15, 2026. Seven MAs and one SR were included. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. UPF consumption may be associated with increased risks of overall cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and gastric cancer. Subgroup analyses indicated that age, region, dietary assessment methods, and study design may contribute to differences in the observed associations. According to the GRADE assessment, two associations were rated as low certainty, while eight were rated as very low certainty. The AMSTAR 2 assessment showed that three reviews were of low methodological quality and four were of very low quality. Overall, this umbrella review suggests that UPF consumption may be associated with an increased risk of several cancers, although the overall certainty of the evidence remains low. Further high-quality prospective studies using standardized methods to assess UPF consumption are needed to strengthen the evidence base and inform public health recommendations.
Background Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been linked to multiple adverse health outcomes; however, their association with infertility remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between UPF consumption and infertility risk in adults. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to May 31, 2026. Eligible studies assessed UPF intake using validated dietary assessment tools based on the NOVA classification and reported infertility outcomes among adults aged ≥18 years. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results Four studies providing five independent effect estimates and including 8,769 participants (8,118 women and 651 men) were included. In the random-effects model, higher UPF consumption was not significantly associated with infertility risk (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.94–1.69), although the point estimate suggested a positive direction of association. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was present (I2 = 72.0%, p = 0.006). In sex-stratified analyses, no significant association was observed among women (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.79–2.00; I2 = 68.4%). Subgroup analyses by study design and exposure assessment yielded no statistically significant associations under random-effects models. Conclusion Current evidence does not show a statistically robust association between UPF consumption and infertility under random-effects models, although estimates consistently suggest a positive trend. Evidence remains limited by few studies, substantial heterogeneity, and self-reported outcomes. Larger prospective, sex-specific studies are needed.
Yan-Zhong Feng, Hui Miao, Na Li· Frontiers in Public Health· 0 citations
Background Lung cancer poses a substantial global public health burden, and dietary factors represent potentially modifiable targets for primary prevention. This study evaluates the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reliability of evidence related to dietary risk factors for lung cancer through an umbrella review and provides a comprehensive overview of the identified risk factors. Methods This review protocol has been registered on PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to collect meta-analyses on dietary factors and lung cancer risk published up to March 2026. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and the evidence strength of each outcome was rated based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results There were 57 meta-analyses included, covering 57 diet-related factors. The association between folate and reduced risk of lung cancer is supported by moderate-quality evidence, while most other factors (such as beta-carotene, red and processed meat, etc.) have low or very low quality evidence. A healthy dietary pattern is associated with a lower risk of lung cancer risk, while a Western/meat diet pattern and a high glycemic load diet are positively associated with risk. Conclusions The quality of evidence for the association between most dietary factors and lung cancer risk is low, with only folate showing moderate-quality evidence, indicating that current research is not sufficient to support strong causal inference. In the future, it is necessary to conduct well-designed prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials to provide a higher-quality scientific basis for precise nutritional prevention of lung cancer.
Zi-Rong Wen, Zhi-Mou Zhang, Cheng-Yang Wu et al.· Translational Cancer Researc...· 0 citations
Background Esophageal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, yet the association between coffee consumption—a ubiquitous dietary exposure—and its risk remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the association between coffee consumption and esophageal cancer risk, aiming to quantify the overall effect and explore potential heterogeneity. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to January 2026 for studies comparing coffee intake between esophageal cancer patients and healthy controls. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Certainty of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results Across 22 included studies encompassing 1,775,988 participants (7,124 cases), neither cohort nor case-control studies demonstrated a significant association between coffee consumption and esophageal cancer risk. The pooled HR from cohort studies was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74–1.03; I2=24.2%), while the pooled OR from case-control studies was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.77–1.35; I2=66.7%). Conclusions This meta-analysis found no statistically significant association between coffee consumption and esophageal cancer risk. The available evidence, of low certainty, does not support coffee as a major risk factor. Exploratory analyses on beverage temperature are inconclusive and require confirmation in prospective studies with standardized exposure assessment. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024562527).
Previous studies have suggested that a high intake of nuts may reduce the risk of hypertension, however, the available data have been limited. Several additional studies have recently been published on the topic. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on nut consumption and hypertension to provide an updated assessment of the evidence. PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to 4th April 2026 for prospective cohort studies with adjusted relative risk estimates published in the English language on the association between nut consumption and hypertension risk. Random effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between nut consumption and hypertension. We used World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) criteria to assess the strength of the evidence. Eight studies (20,665 cases, x) were included in the meta-analysis. The summary RR for the highest vs. lowest category of nut intake was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91, I2=50%, pheterogeneity=0.05, n=8) and per 28 g/d was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71-0.89, I2=75%, pheterogeneity<0.0001, n=8). There was no indication of publication bias with Begg's test (p=0.71) or Egger's test (p=0.10) or by visual inspection of the funnel plot. There was some indication of nonlinearity (pnonlinearity=0.07) and there was a 26% reduction in risk when comparing 30g/d vs. 0 g/d. Using WCRF criteria to assess the strength of evidence, we graded the likelihood of causality as probable. In this meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, we found further evidence for a reduced risk of hypertension with higher intake of nuts. These findings support dietary guideline recommendations to include a serving of nuts per day.
M. Metoudi, Isabelle Sadler, S. Kassam et al.· British Journal of Nutrition· 0 citations
Adherence to high-quality, nutrient-dense plant-based diets may lower breast cancer risk, and protective associations were stronger in premenopausal women and ER-positive subtypes.
Yiqun Han, Hangcheng Xu, Li Liu et al.· European Journal of Clinical...· 0 citations
This study indicates that higher dietary TAC intake is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and well-designed longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Jianying Zhou, Hai-Yan Jin, Shan Jing et al.· Frontiers in Nutrition· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
