There are many reasons to avoid super-leg foods, such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. However, the increased risk of lung cancer may be yet another, new research suggests.

Limited foods contain ingredients that are never used or rarely used in kitchens or additive classes that have the ability to make the final product attractive or more attractive, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

These ingredients found in items such as soda, chips, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, and ice cream can be added or altered by adding preservatives against mold and bacteria, artificial colouring, emulsifiers that stop separation, and sugar, salt and fats to make your food even more attractive.

According to a study published in the Journal Thorax, people who eat the most ultra-highly processed foods are 41% more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer, even after considering other factors such as smoking.

In this study, researchers analyzed data from over 100,000 people who completed the National Health and Nutrition Survice Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire on Dietary Habits and compared medical records and information for lung cancer diagnosis.

On average, people drew three drinks of ultra-highly processed foods per day, most commonly lunch meat, diet or caffeinated soft drinks, or caffeinated soft drinks a day.

“Industrial treatments change the food matrix, affecting the availability and absorption of nutrients, and produce harmful contaminants,” the researchers added. They particularly highlight acrolein, which can come from burning tobacco, wood, plastic, gasoline, and cooking fats and oils at high temperatures, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Packaging materials could also be part of the problem, they suggested.

This study is observational. This means that, although the methods were clear and powerful, this study cannot clearly demonstrate that food causes lung cancer. However, there is a link between the two, said Dr. David Katz, a preventive and lifestyle medicine expert and founder of the nonprofit true health initiative. He was not involved in the research.

“This study strongly suggests that (ultra-highly rocessed foods) can contribute to the risk of lung cancer,” he said.

According to the World Health Organization, lung cancer is a common cancer, with an estimated 2.4 million new cases in 2022.

Smoking is a major contributor to the risk of lung cancer, but those who don’t smoke can still get it.

The author adjusted for factors. That is, while we explained other possible things that could increase the diagnosis of lung cancer, such as whether a person smoked or not, it is important to note that measurements are not subtle, Dr. Hwang Fang Chan said he is the chairman of the division of division of nutrition and data science. She was not involved in the research.

“Smoking is a very important risk factor for lung cancer, so adjusting smoking in a crude way can leave a large room for the rest of the confounding,” she said in an email. “It is important to adjust for intensity (e.g., tobacco/day) and duration (e.g., years of smoking) or cumulative exposure of smoking (e.g., pack year). However, the authors found that the association between ultra-high-handled food consumption and the risk of lung cancer is stronger among people in no way strong.”

There are no studies on ultra-positive foods or the risk of lung cancer, but much of the existing evidence shows how important diet quality is to predict early death from any cause in the United States, Katz said.

In many cases, ultra-positive food consumption is linked to lower dietary quality, including higher intakes of saturated fats, chemicals, salt and sugar, as well as higher calorie consumption.

These factors “major pathways in cancer development and progression — can damage the microbiota and impair immune system function,” he said in an email. “This combination of excessive inflammation and immune disorders makes you better at illicit cells. …This scenario is the beginning of cancer.”

Foods with super-legged legs tend to be lower than omega-3s, said Tom Brenna, PhD, professor of pediatrics, human nutrition and chemistry at Dell Medical College, Austin. According to the National Institute of Health, Nutrition Supplements, omega-3 is a healthy, healthy fat that the body cannot produce on its own.

“Omega-3s limit shelf life, so if you’re going to extend something… you’d like to get rid of the omega-3,” said Brenna, who wasn’t part of the research.

Chang said that the additive processed foods, carcinogens formed during processing, or chemicals in food packaging may also be at play.

“However, these pathways are not well understood and guarantee further investigation,” she said.

The study adds the risk of lung cancer to its list of reasons to avoid ultra-highly processed foods and improve diet quality, Katz said.

Health and diet quality improves mostly when you eat untreated foods and plants such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, lentils, nuts and seeds, he added.

If you want to make changes, Zhang recommends starting by reading the food labels.

“While avoid foods with long ingredients lists with unfamiliar names. These are more likely to be additives, preservatives and artificial flavors,” she said. “Whenever possible, prioritize whole foods and prepare meals using all or minimally processed ingredients.”

Instead of focusing on what you don’t eat, try prioritizing adding food directly from nature to your diet, Katz added.

“If you’re used to eating a lot of UPF, then more ‘real’ foods move on to less of those, one better option at a time,” he said in an email.

It may take a minute for the taste to adapt to healthier foods, but if you give them a few weeks to get used to it, you can become more likely to prefer the taste of more natural ingredients, he said.

“When that happens, it becomes much easier to maintain a healthier diet,” Katz added.

Sign up for CNN’s Eat. But better: Mediterranean style. This eight-part guide introduces you to a delicious, expert-supported dietary lifestyle that will boost your health for life.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as the US Surgeon General in the first Trump administration, is a well-known professor of pharmacy practice and public health at Purdue University.

One big, beautiful bill law recently passed predicted by experts will cut Medicaid compensation for millions of Americans and, coupled with the proposed abolition of $56 million grants for overdose reversal training and distribution, threaten to undermine progress in reducing mortality from opioid overdose. Medicaid supports the treatment of approximately 1 million people with opioid use disorders, particularly through its expansion.

If federal funds collapse, many people could lose access to care, reversing the hard-earned profits against overdose deaths driven by expanded health care and life-saving tools. As synthetic opioids like fentanyl fuel the ongoing overdose crisis, maintaining progress requires both robust policies and progress in overdose reversal strategies.

Federal estimates show that drug overdose deaths fell sharply to five-year lows in 2024, but last year there still had more than 80,000 deaths. Synthetic opioids were involved in more than half of these cases.

Highly synthetic opioids like fentanyl (HPSOS) that are 50-100 times more potent than heroin, have formed an overdose landscape. Fentanyl can cause rapid respiratory arrest within minutes and often last longer than standard inverters. First responders frequently report that multiple doses of naloxone (best known under the brand name Narcan) must be administered to reverse fentanyl overdose.

Recent analysis by Dr. Mark Gold, The University of Washington’s School of Psychiatry and colleagues explore the challenges of reverse HPSO overdose and utilizing observational studies, lab data and clinical experience. They emphasize that effective reversal requires the agent to be tailored to the efficacy and duration of the opioid. This is a complicated task given the increasingly unpredictable nature of today’s illicit drugs.

Among the options, nasalmefene has emerged as a prominent tool due to its rapid onset and longer duration compared to the standard inverting drug naloxone. It is administered via a simple spray and acts quickly to restore breathing, helping to reduce the risk of “re-drilling”.

However, the American School of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology are paying attention to the adoption of nalmefene as a primary drug, citing potential risks such as revival of respiratory depression due to prolonged withdrawal symptoms and the weakened effectiveness of the drug.

However, these concerns are not specific to nalmefene, as all opioid antagonists carry similar risks. Furthermore, these risks are easily managed with proper medical surveillance and surveillance. This is the standard practice after inversion.

To put it plainly, we would rather risk having to treat such side effects to living people who have revived, than thinking “if any” about tens of thousands of people each year who are sadly not saved by our current efforts.

The development of new reversal agents such as nalmefene highlights the important need for sustainable research funding to address the evolving opioid crisis. However, recent budget proposals include significant cuts from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with NIH down to $27.5 billion to a 40% reduction and CDC down to 44% in 2026, threatening research into new treatments and public health responses.

These cuts could halt the progression of innovative solutions such as Compound 368. This increases the potency of naloxone by 7.6 times, resulting in a 10-fold effect, allowing covalent naloxone nanoparticles (CNLX-NPs) to maintain treatment levels for 48 hours to prevent linercutting. While promising, slowing the onset of CNLX-NPs requires pairing with fast acting naloxone for rapid effects. Such potentially life-saving advances rely on consistent funding to move from labs to real-world use.

Policy continues to play an important role in stopping the tide. The World Health Organization recommends limiting access to precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production and increasing international control of their analogs. It’s nice to see this is one of the few areas that the Trump administration agrees with whom. Strengthening border security and surveillance could further limit the supply of illegal HPSOs.

Equally important, HPSOS rapidly induces hypoxia, and therefore receives latest training for first responders and bystanders, highlighting the interaction between reversible agents and immediate CPR. Public awareness campaigns should highlight the efficacy of HPSOS and the need for rapid intervention, new agents such as nalmefene and multiple doses and Narcan, and post-inversion monitoring.

Thankfully, the CDC has reported a recent decline in national overdose deaths. However, vulnerability persists, especially in communities facing geographical, racial, or demographic disparities.

The rise in stimulants added to fentanyl, which promoted a 50-fold increase in related overdose deaths between 2010 and 2021 and accounted for 32.3% of fatal overdose, complicating the crisis. These contaminated drugs turn non-opioid use into a fatal risk. This is because users often lack opioid resistance. A comprehensive strategy combining policy, education and innovative reversal tools is essential to addressing this diversity threat.

Protection of Medicaid and overdose prevention funds is important to maintain progress in the fight against deaths caused by opioid overdose. Combining these efforts with evidence-based training and advances in reversal strategies will allow us to better equip our communities to confront the evolving opioid crisis and save lives.