Abstract
Background One of the key assumptions underlying causal inference is the assumption of consistency; that is, the absence of relevant multiple versions of the same treatment. Although ultra-processed food (UPF) as a dietary construct has been associated with a greater risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), subtypes of UPFs may exert different strengths and directions of associations on T2D. The main objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the current literature on subtypes of UPFs and their associations with T2D and to contextualize these findings within the framework of counterfactual theory, with particular emphasis on the consistency assumption.
Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for relevant articles. Cohort studies of adult men and women without T2D and with the exposure (subtypes of UPFs) and outcome (incident T2D) of interest were included. Two independent researchers screened the articles and evaluated risk of bias using the ROBINS-E tool. UPFs were categorized into eight subtypes. No meta-analyses were conducted. A post-hoc analysis of n=52,201 in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health (DCH) cohort was performed to illustrate the implications of causal inconsistency. We formed a fictive food group (the terrible five) combining sugar sweetened beverages, processed meat, red meat, refined grains and vegetables and investigated the associations with T2D.
Results Out of n=222 articles screened for eligibility, n=6 cohort studies with n=635,332 participants (average follow-up of 6-26.1 years) were finally included. Most studies on UPF breads and cereals; packaged snacks; and sauces, spreads and condiments showed no associations with T2D. Most studies on UPF ready-to-eat-dishes; meat-based products; and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages were positively associated with T2D. UPF dairy products; and sweets, snacks and confectionaries were generally inversely associated with T2D, although with some variation. Overall risk of bias was considered moderate to high in all included studies. In the DCH cohort, a positive association between the “terrible five” and T2D was observed (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.23). Intake of vegetables was inversely associated with T2D (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.98).
Conclusion The systematic review showed different strengths and directions of associations on the risk of T2D across the different subtypes of UPFs. Aggregating these sources into a coarse food category such as UPF therefore violates the assumption of causal consistency and, as illustrated in our post hoc analysis, can mask individual associations. This study illustrates potential unintended consequences of broad implementation of UPF-related policies without further improvement of the definition or mechanistic understanding.
Registration The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD420251058458).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251058458
Funding Statement
M.F. is supported by a research grant from the Danish Diabetes and Endocrine Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, grant number NNF22SA0079901. D.B.I is funded by Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus which is partially funded by an unrestricted donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Funders had no role in planning, conducting or interpreting the findings from this systematic review.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Diet, Cancer and Health Cohort was approved by relevant ethics committees and the Danish Data Protection Agency, and had been de-identified prior to use in this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed for the systematic review are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). De novo cohort results were derived from data from the Diet, Cancer and Health Cohort and are not publicly available due to personal information content, but can be acquired upon reasonable request from the Danish Cancer Society (dchdata{at}cancer.dk).
