Just one small serving of ultra-processed food a day linked to higher disease risk, major study findsStory by Deirdre Bardolf Just an extra 3.5 ounces of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) a day was linked to a higher risk of chronic disease, according to a new large-scale analysis. The study, published Sept. 22 in the journal Family Medicine and Community Health, looked at nearly 8.8 million adults who participated in studies across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania, with follow-up periods ranging from two to 32 years. For every additional 100 grams of UPFs consumed daily, researchers found an association with a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% higher risk of cancer, a 3% higher risk of death from any cause and a 2% higher risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes, according to a news release. UPFs are typically packaged and convenient, made through extensive industrial processing and often packed with additives. They can include sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks and candy. One hundred grams is about the size of a 3.5-ounce bag of corn chips, a small box of candy or a single-serve cup of mini cookies. Ultra-processed foods can include sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks and candy, according to the analysis. iStock© iStock People with the highest intake of UPFs also had higher risks of digestive diseases, depression or anxiety, obesity, cancer and cardiovascular events than those with the lowest intake of the foods. READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP "Given that UPF-related chronic diseases often cluster as multimorbidity, reducing consumption of UPFs and replacing them with minimally processed alternatives may be relevant for chronic disease prevention and primary care management," the researchers, led by Xiao Liu, a cardiologist at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital in China and a research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, wrote. These types of foods tend to crowd out healthier, nutrient-dense options, according to Kelly Springer, a New York-based registered dietitian and founder of Kelly's Choice. "It's not that you can never eat them again," Springer, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital. "It's the fact that we are not getting real foods — real foods like fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, whole grains." Researchers said ultra-processed foods can add up throughout the day through snacks, sugary drinks and convenience foods. iStock© iStock Rather than focusing on taking foods away, Springer recommended adding protein and fiber to meals and snacks. She suggested options such as an apple with peanut butter, nuts with cucumbers, or meals built around beans, chicken or tuna alongside fruits, vegetables and whole grains. "A diet built around whole, minimally processed foods is one of the best investments we can make in our long-term health," she added. Springer noted that the study was observational, so it cannot establish that UPFs directly caused the poor health outcomes. It also relied on participants' self-reported diets and may not be able to account for other lifestyle factors. Nonetheless, the study can teach people about the link between ultra-processed foods and chronic disease, Springer said. ARTICLE SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general/just-one-small-serving-of-ultra-processed-food-a-day-linked-to-higher-disease-risk-major-study-finds/ar-AA2cQVsy?
From Seed Oil Scout
What stevia is doing to your hormones
Brought to you by animal., starring Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Eric Berg, and Dr. Anthony Chaffee
Stevia is everywhere—from electrolyte powders to protein bars to toothpaste.
It’s sold as a plant-based, zero-calorie sweetener, and for many people, it feels like a safe, natural alternative to sugar. But the research tells a more complicated story, especially when you look beyond short-term human trials. We’re breaking it down, and explaining why stevia doesn’t get the SOS stamp of approval.
@reallytanman
What the studies show
Although stevia is generally considered safe by regulatory bodies, a growing body of evidence—particularly from animal and in vitro studies—raises questions about its long-term biological effects.
A 2016 in vitro study found that steviol glycosides disrupted human progesterone receptor function and reduced sperm fertilization capacity (PubMed).
A 2010 study in male rats reported reduced testosterone levels, decreased testicular weight, and structural changes in reproductive tissues following chronic exposure to stevia extract (PubMed).
Additional studies observed decreased fertility and smaller litters in female rats after prolonged stevia intake. (PubMed, PubMed)
While these outcomes haven’t been observed in short-term human trials, most clinical studies to date are limited in duration and often exclude reproductive endpoints altogether.
The takeaway: Stevia appears to have pharmacologic activity. And repeated exposure—not just one-time use—is where the concern lies.
Stevia as birth control
Before it was a fixture in wellness products, stevia was studied for its effect on fertility.
In the 1960s and ’70s, researchers in Paraguay and Brazil reported that female rats given daily doses of stevia extract over several weeks experienced a drop in fertility. Litter sizes shrank. Conception rates fell. When the extract was removed, normal fertility resumed—suggesting the effect was hormonal, not toxic (PubMed).
These were early, well-documented findings. But they’ve rarely resurfaced in the decades since—at least not in ways most consumers would notice.
@jessicagenetics
What you’re eating isn’t the stevia plant
The version used in most products is a purified compound—usually rebaudioside A—processed with solvents or resins. It’s typically blended with erythritol, monk fruit, or sucralose to mask bitterness.
Why that matters: these ingredients are consumed together, often several times a day, across supplements, drinks, and snacks. A 2025 mouse study found that erythritol impaired memory and learning, possibly by disrupting synaptic plasticity. (Journal of Applied Physiology)
Stevia was never fully approved by the FDA
The FDA has never approved whole-leaf stevia or crude stevia extracts for use in food. Instead, it granted GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status to isolated compounds like rebaudioside A, based on short-term studies in healthy adults.
Despite this narrow approval, stevia gained popularity because it was marketed as natural, plant-based, and calorie-free.
Why we don’t approve stevia at SOS
Brands that partner with Seed Oil Scout can earn the Seed Oil Safe stamp to use on their packaging and be listed in our marketplace. But stevia-containing products don’t qualify.
This decision comes from our guiding philosophy: we apply scrutiny to ingredients with questionable safety data, regulatory ambiguity, or a track record of underreported risks—especially when they’re used daily under the assumption of safety.
We built the SOS Grocery Scanner around this principle.
Stevia doesn’t meet our standard. Here’s why:
Hormonal and reproductive effects have been documented in multiple animal studies
Long-term safety data in humans is limited
It’s rarely consumed alone and typically paired with other additives like erythritol or sucralose.
It’s marketed as natural, but chemically refined and far from a whole food
This isn’t about trends—it’s about applying consistent standards to ingredients that haven’t earned our confidence.
Try the SOS Grocery Scanner. It flags more than just seed oils.
Bottomline
Stevia demonstrates biological effects in animal models.
Long-term safety in humans has not been established.
The version used in products is highly processed.
It’s not Seed-Oil Safe. 🫡
See the #1 Documentary in America Now!
The groundbreaking documentary animal. reveals how politics, profit, and modern culture have distorted humanity’s natural relationship with meat, leaving us sicker than ever.
Featuring nutrition experts like Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Shawn Baker, Dr. Anthony Chaffee, Dr. Eric Berg, Judy Cho, Eddie Abbew, and more, animal. uncovers the truth behind our diets - and how to reclaim our health.
You are what you eat. And you've been eating a lie.