Global rise in ultra-processed foods is major public health threat, experts say
Halfdark/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The global rise of ultra-processed foods in diets worldwide poses a major public health threat, according to experts who published a series of papers in medical journal The Lancet.
The authors cite studies that show ultra-processed diets are linked to chronic health conditions like increased risk of becoming overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, chronic kidney disease and overall higher death rates.
Common examples of ultra-processed foods include sugar-sweetened beverages, packaged snacks, instant soups, breakfast cereals, energy bars, mass-produced packaged breads, ready-to-eat meals, ice cream and pizza.
ABC News’ medical correspondent Dr. Darien Sutton investigated the state of America’s food supply including the consumption of ultra-processed foods and the potential risks to Americans’ health in a new “ABC News Live Prime” special “Gut Check: The Foods We Eat.”
Watch the segment on ABC News Live Prime on Wednesday, Nov. 19, at 8:30 p.m. ET. Available to stream on Disney+ and Hulu.
Sutton participated in an experiment at a high-tech laboratory at Virginia Tech where researchers monitored his blood work before and after eating ultra-processed foods. He also visited an American grocery store, comparing the ingredient lists of common food products with similar ones overseas in a French grocery store.
The special also takes viewers to the world’s largest food and science exposition in Chicago, where ingredient makers pitch food companies on their latest innovations. It’s a notable time for the industry, as the Trump administration continues to push food companies to remove additives, like synthetic dyes, from their products.
The warning around the dangers of ultra-processed foods comes as the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement, popularized by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., grows nationwide.
About four in 10 parents consider themselves supporters of the MAHA movement, with support higher among Republicans and white parents, a Washington Post-KFF poll finds.
An overwhelming number of parents, regardless of their support of the MAHA movement, supported increased government regulations on dyes and chemical additives, highly processed foods and added sugars, the poll found.
The authors of The Lancet paper, which was published on Tuesday, note that improving diets requires more than just a change in behavior.
Instead, they are calling for world policy reform with actions targeting the production, marketing and consumption of ultra-processed foods, as well as improving access to health food is needed, they note.
Americans consume over half of their daily calories from ultra-processed foods, on average, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Healthier eating should emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy and protein, the CDC says. Most Americans need to increase their intake of dietary fiber, calcium, vitamin D, and potassium, the agency notes.
(NEW YORK) — The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a final version of its report on pediatric gender-affirming care on Wednesday, claiming it found “medical dangers posed to children,” which is receiving pushback from medical groups.
The report alleged that gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender-affirming surgeries — caused significant, long-term damage.
It comes after HHS published in May an early version of what it referred to as a “comprehensive review” of transgender care for children and teens, in which it called for a broader use of psychotherapy for young people with gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming medical interventions.
The HHS referred to the final version of the report as “peer-reviewed,” but some of those who reviewed the contents are researchers who have spoken against gender affirming care.
Some major medical groups have pushed back, stating that psychotherapy first is the standard approach in gender-affirming care and that additional care, such as hormonal therapies, only occurs after in-depth evaluations between patients and doctors.
The American Psychological Association (APA), which reviewed the report, argued it lacks transparency and that scientific research does not support the authors’ theories.
Experts in the gender-affirming care space questioned the validity of the findings, saying that studies have found that gender-affirming care is generally safe and that youth with gender dysphoria are typically evaluated, diagnosed and treated based on an individual assessment by qualified providers.
“This report does not add to the science. It adds to the noise around care for transgender young people, care that is provided by licensed clinicians according to a standard of care,” Kellan Baker, senior advisor for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank that provides research, insight and analysis on LGBTQ+ issues, told ABC News.
“That standard of care is based on the same comparable quality of evidence as care across any other area of medicine,” Baker continued. “There is nothing new or unusual about care for transgender young people except for the extraordinary degree of political antagonism that is being focused on this very, very small group of young people.”
In a press release on Wednesday, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, called the report “a turning point for American medicine,” adding that “we are committed to ensuring that science, not ideology, guides America’s medical research.”
David Aizuss, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees and Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released a joint statement on Wednesday.
“We reject characterizations of our approach to gender-affirming care as negligent or ideologically driven, and take particular issue with the false assertion that our members have committed ‘malpractice’ or betrayed their oath in any way,” the statement read.
“These claims, rooted in politics and partisanship, misrepresent the consensus of medical science, undermine the professionalism of physicians, and risk harming vulnerable young people and their families,” Aizuss and Kressly added.
The final version of the HHS report listed nine authors, all of whom have expressed skeptical views of, or have opposed, pediatric gender-affirming care.
The initial May report did not list the names of its authors to “help maintain the integrity of this process.” Critics at the time pointed out that this prevented readers from gauging whether the names were credible or had any conflicts of interest.
The disclosures in the final report show that at least six of the nine authors have financial interests or have spoken out extensively opposing gender affirming care.
This includes authors who have been paid to offer expert testimony on legislative efforts to ban pediatric gender medicine and have published papers critical of pediatric gender medicine, including claims that such care does not improve depression or suicidality among trans youth.
The report included 10 reviewers, including individual physicians and medical groups, some of whom praised the report as “scientifically sound” and said the main findings and conclusions are “correct.”
Other reviewers were critical, including the APA, which accused the authors of the report of cherry-picking which studies it used in its findings and not justifying why other studies were excluded. Additionally, it says key findings in studies that were relied on were unexplained or absent.
“While the HHS Report purports to be a thorough, evidence-based assessment of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, its underlying methodology lacks sufficient transparency and clarity for its findings to be taken at face value,” the APA wrote in its review, found in the report’s supplement.
In conclusion, the group wrote, “the report’s claims fall short of the standard of methodological rigor that should be considered a prerequisite for policy guidance in clinical care.”
In a response to the report, the Endocrine Society said in a statement to ABC News that mental health care is already part of treating transgender and gender-diverse youth with health care protocols requiring initial mental health support and evaluations.
However, they add that access to medication such as hormone therapy can be used in conversations between patients, their families and their doctors. They add that such care is also relatively rare.
“The use of puberty-delaying medication or hormone therapy remains rare and reflects a cautious approach as recommended in our guideline,” the statement read. “Fewer than one in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received either treatment during the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, according to a January 2025 study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. And our 2017 guidelines recommend against prescribing any medication for gender dysphoria before puberty starts.”
Gender-affirming care is supported by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the APA, and the Endocrine Society.
Studies have shown that many of the treatment options are generally safe and that care can have a positive impact on mental health, which psychotherapy alone cannot provide, experts said.
Some experts have questioned the significance of interventions on long-term mental health as well as the possibility of regret and point out potential risks to future fertility.
Additionally, systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland and the U.K. have resulted in the three countries restricting gender-affirming care. England’s National Health Service ended prescribing puberty blockers for minors experiencing gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials. Sweden and Finland have followed psychotherapy-first models.
(SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C.) — At least 88 new measles cases in South Carolina have been confirmed amid the state’s outbreak, bringing the total number of infections to 646, state health officials said Tuesday.
The majority of cases have been found in the Upstate region and around Spartanburg County, which sits on the border with North Carolina.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
A child receives a standard immunization on September 15, 2025, in Coral Gables, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Children who miss early vaccinations are far more likely to miss the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine by age 2, a new study found.
The findings come as the U.S. recently surpassed 2,000 measles cases for the first time in more than 30 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC data shows that MMR vaccination declined over the last several years, but the authors say that factors linked to delayed or missed vaccination since the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well studied.
For the new study, published Friday in the journal JAMA Network Open, the team looked data from Truevata, an electronic health records database that includes several U.S. health care systems.
Participants included more than 321,000 children who received routine care within the first two months, first year and second year of life between Jan. 1, 2018 and April 30, 2025.
The CDC currently recommends that people receive two doses of the MMR vaccine, the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second between 4 and 6 years old. One dose is 93% effective, and two doses are 97% effective against measles, the CDC says.
Most children during the study period received the MMR vaccine on time, with 78.4% doing so.
About 13.9% of children had delayed vaccination, 1% received the MMR vaccine early and 6.7% did not receive the MMR vaccine by age 2, according to the study.
The strongest predictors for no MMR vaccination was delay in receiving the recommended 2-month and 4-month vaccines, the study noted.
These early vaccines included diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP); Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV); and the inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV).
Nina Masters, lead author of the study and senior applied research scientist at Truveta, told ABC News that it’s not surprising children who miss early vaccines also miss later vaccines, but it highlights that some parents become vaccine hesitant when their children are young.
“This also means the opportunity for intervention to engage parents and provide more education about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has to happen very early,” she said. “This may be challenging as parents may have yet had the time to forge a strong bond with their child’s pediatrician, but the study highlights the importance of pediatric providers having vaccination discussions and building trust as early as possible with parents.”
Results from the study showed that those who received their 2-month vaccines on time were seven times more likely to get the MMR vaccine.
The team found that the percentage of children who received the MMR vaccine on time changed over the study period, increasing from 75.6% in 2018 to 79.9% in 2021, and then falling to 76.9% in 2024.
This decrease between 2021 and 2024 was associated with an increase in the percentage of children who did not receive the MMR vaccine by age 2, increasing from 5.3% in 2020 to 7.7% in 2024, according to the study.
Children who were more likely to be unvaccinated for the MMR shot by age 2 were boys, and white and non-Hispanic or Latino, the study found.
Rural residence slightly increased the risk of no MMR vaccination, even among children receiving routine care, according to the study.
The study only included children with regular access to care, so real-world vaccination delays may be worse in the broader U.S. population, the team noted.
The authors added that these results point to increased vaccine hesitancy or unmeasured access challenges, highlighting the importance of timely intervention so children are less likely to delay or miss vaccination.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who was not involved in the study, said the findings have major public health implications because there are questions about whether the U.S. will retain its measles elimination status and increasing vaccination is “the way out of this problem.”
“If you want to live in a society where measles is a problem of the past, where we don’t have to think about it, where schools don’t have to come up with contingency plans, where we don’t have children unnecessarily dying from measles, then that’s a reason to get the vaccine,” he told ABC News.
Adalja added that vaccination doesn’t just protect the individual against infection, but it also has a community benefit.
“The higher the vaccination level is in a given community, the more resilient that community will be to those infectious diseases,” he said. “And if you’re someone that’s immunocompromised, you may want to live in to live in an area that has high vaccination rates because you are at higher risk, and if you’re in a high vaccination area, there’s going to be a lowering of that risk because of the community level immunity that exists in that area.”
Crystal Richards, MD, MS is a pediatric resident doctor at New-York Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University Medical Center and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit.
