Food industry sells risk as balance while Xiao Liu finds harm

By Josie Calloway · Reporting from Pittsburgh · September 27, 2026

Food companies and some dietitians claim ultra-processed foods fit a balanced diet, but a massive study shows they drive chronic disease and death.

Megan Bamford had no choice. Her seven-year-old daughter, Ella, has a history of severe picky eating. To keep the child fed, Bamford relied on ultra-processed food from a packet. This is where the story actually starts. It starts with a parent in a pinch and a food system that makes the easiest choice the most dangerous one. The food industry and its defenders want you to believe these products are fine in "moderation." They are wrong. They are selling a version of "balance" that ignores the clinical reality of systemic failure.

The math of a slow kill

The data does not care about "balance." A study led by cardiologist Xiao Liu analyzed nearly 8.8 million adults across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. The results were published September 22 in the journal Family Medicine and Community Health. The researchers found a clear dose-response relationship between ultra-processed foods and death.

Every additional 100 grams of these foods eaten daily was linked to a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events. Fox News and FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth both report that this same amount adds a 4% higher risk of cancer.

The risk does not stop there. That same serving is associated with a 3% higher risk of death from any cause. It also carries a higher risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes. This is not "hysteria." This is a chart.

The balance lie

Some experts try to soften this blow. Maeve Hanan, a member of the British Dietetic Association, told the BBC that there is a "growing hysteria" about these foods. She argues that long ingredient lists do not make products "inherently bad." She even suggests that chicken nuggets are a "good source of protein" if eaten in moderation.

This is a dangerous distraction. The Independent reports that diets heavy in ultra-processed foods increase the risk of digestive disease by 31%. These same diets increase the risk of depression and anxiety by 27%.

The "balance" argument suggests that a few good choices can cancel out the industrial additives. But the evidence says otherwise. The Independent notes that heavy UPF diets increase the risk of cardiovascular events, diabetes, and obesity by nearly 25%. You cannot "balance" a toxic cocktail.

The industry playbook

The defense of these foods follows a familiar pattern. Prof David Julian McClements, a food scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, calls the focus on processing a "red herring." He wants to "redesign" processed foods to make them healthier.

This is the same mechanism as The Sugar Industry's funding of research. In both cases, industry-funded science is used to cast doubt on known health risks to protect profits over public safety. They do not want to stop the processing. They want to tweak the formula so they can keep selling the same industrial model.

We have seen this movie before. It is the same script as the opioid epidemic. A highly profitable product was marketed as safe and manageable while the systemic harm was hidden. The industry tells you the product is fine as long as you use it "correctly," while they ignore the evidence of addiction and death.

The poverty trap

The industry claims these foods are a matter of consumer choice. That is a lie. Stanford Medicine states that approximately 60 percent of the American diet is ultra-processed. They note that these foods are often cheaper than healthier options.

For families in the poorest zip codes, this is not a choice. It is a trap. When the local grocery store only stocks shelf-stable packets, "moderation" is a luxury for the rich. This is a systemic failure. It is the same logic as the Flint water crisis. Cost-cutting led to the consumption of toxic substances while officials denied the risk.

The Food and Drink Federation claims its members have cut salt, sugar, and calories by almost a fifth in the last five years. They call this "innovation." But Dr Chris van Tulleken tells the BBC that companies make food "moreish" on purpose. He argues that companies know how to make healthy food, but they do not because it is not profitable.

The industry is not innovating for our health. They are innovating to keep us buying. They are redesigning the poison to make it taste better while the risk remains.

The evidence from Xiao Liu and the data from Stanford Medicine show a system that prioritizes the bottom line over the heartbeat. The industry will likely try to brand these reformulated foods as "functional nutrition" to avoid regulation. We must reject the "balance" narrative. The only balanced diet is one where the profit motive is removed from the bedside and the dinner table. The system is broken, and the patients are paying with their lives.

Food industry sells risk as balance while Xiao Liu finds harm

The math of a slow kill

The balance lie

The industry playbook

The poverty trap

Sources