Hidden Pitfalls of Using Processed Foods in Everyday Life: New Research Shows Link Between Preservatives and Cancer, Diabetes

Hidden Pitfalls of Using Processed Foods in Everyday Life: New Research Shows Link Between Preservatives and Cancer, Diabetes

"Preservatives are the 'defenders' against spoilage and food poisoning." This image was challenged by research results reported from France in January 2026. It suggests that preservatives, which help extend the shelf life of processed foods and beverages, might be associated with an increased risk of cancer and type 2 diabetes.


However, it's important not to jump to conclusions. This report does not definitively state "preservatives are the cause," but rather presents an observational study showing an "association." Nonetheless, given the topic's relevance to everyday food additives, the findings have sparked significant reactions.


What are preservatives? A brief overview of "E numbers"

Preservatives are a group of additives used to enhance the shelf life of foods. There are about 330 additives approved in France/EU, with approximately 80 having properties related to preservation.


Their roles are broadly divided into two types: those that inhibit microbial growth or slow down chemical changes in food (non-antioxidant) and those that prevent oxidation to delay quality degradation (antioxidant). They are generally labeled as E200-E299 (so-called preservatives) and E300-E399 (antioxidant additives).


The key point here is that "preservatives" are not just about processed meats. They are found in a surprisingly wide range of food categories, including cheese, sweets, bread, sauces, and beverages.


"NutriNet-Santé" tracking over 100,000 people—How did the research proceed?

The cancer-related analysis that gained attention this time is based on data from France's online participatory cohort "NutriNet-Santé." The study involved about 105,000 participants, with a follow-up period from 2009 to 2023. During the follow-up, 4,226 people were diagnosed with cancer.


Participants repeatedly reported their dietary intake in detail over 24-hour periods, including product names and brand information. The research team cross-referenced this information with food databases, public information, and measured additive data to estimate the level of "exposure" each individual had to various preservatives.


The analysis also considered numerous factors such as age, gender, smoking, drinking, and overall diet quality (calories, sugar, salt, saturated fats, dietary fiber, etc.) to minimize bias as much as possible.


Which preservatives showed a "higher cancer risk association"?

In summary, "while many preservatives showed no association, some preservatives showed a correlation where higher intake was associated with more cancer."


Specifically, when comparing groups with high intake to those with no or low intake, the following associations were reported:

  • Sorbates: 14% higher association with overall cancer incidence, 26% higher association with breast cancer

  • Sulfites: 12% higher association with overall cancer

  • Sodium nitrite: 32% higher association with prostate cancer

  • Potassium nitrate: 13% higher association with overall cancer, 22% higher association with breast cancer

  • Acetates: 15% higher association with overall cancer, 25% higher association with breast cancer

  • Some antioxidants (such as erythorbates): 12% higher association with overall cancer, 21% higher association with breast cancer


On the other hand, many of the individually examined preservatives showed "no association," indicating an overall pattern where associations are skewed towards specific components.


Researchers repeatedly emphasize the need for caution, noting that the numbers are based on estimated exposure from the specific NutriNet-Santé cohort and that further replication studies are necessary.


It's not just about cancer—Type 2 diabetes analysis also draws attention

A separate analysis concerning type 2 diabetes was also reported from the same research base. This study involved about 108,000 participants, with 1,131 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the follow-up. It showed that those with higher intake of preservatives (overall, non-antioxidant, antioxidant) had a higher incidence, with figures suggesting up to a 40-49% increase.


Thus, the current topic is expanding beyond "preservatives and cancer" to a larger theme of "preservative exposure and chronic disease risk."


Why we can't simply label "preservatives = bad"

This is where it gets important. While sensational figures are easily highlighted on social media, there are several caveats due to the nature of the research.

  1. Causality is not proven
    Observational studies are good at finding associations but not at definitively stating "this is the cause." People with high preservative intake might also have lifestyles with more processed foods, high salt and sugar diets, and less physical activity, among other factors (residual confounding). Even with adjustments in the analysis, these cannot be completely eliminated.

  2. There may be errors in dietary reporting
    Even with meticulous systems, self-reporting has its limits. Changes in product recipes, regional differences, and variations in additives by brand within the same category make exposure estimation complex.

  3. Preservatives also have "safety benefits"
    Preservatives help inhibit microbial growth, reducing food poisoning and waste. Researchers themselves suggest that future regulatory reviews should be evaluated based on the "benefit-risk ratio."

  4. "X% increase" is a "relative risk" and may not align with personal experience
    Even if it appears to increase relatively, an individual's absolute risk varies significantly with age, underlying conditions, and lifestyle. Amplifying fear based solely on numbers is dangerous.

SNS Reactions: Anxiety and Calmness Spread Simultaneously

 


This topic showed the typical "polarization" on social media.

  • Anxiety and Caution Group
    Voices like "I was avoiding processed meats, but does it also relate to cheese and bread?" and "I'm concerned about my children's snacks and store-bought sauces" were prominent. Particularly, nitrites and nitrates have a strong image of "the red color of processed meats," and figures (like 32% for prostate cancer) tend to spread independently. In the English-speaking world, posts suggesting "maybe we should cut back on hot dogs, bacon, cheese, and pastries" were also seen.
    Additionally, reactions pointing at regulations and industries, such as "What are the regulatory authorities doing?" and "Food companies have a responsibility to explain," were noted.

  • Calm and Verification Group
    On the other hand, medical and scientific accounts and news analyses spread posts that "associations were shown but not causality," "many of the 17 types showed no association," and "let's look at the overall lifestyle," aiming to "lower the temperature." Many introduced the BMJ paper's publication date and research design (prospective cohort, observational study), showing a tendency to avoid excessive conclusions.

  • Practical and Consumer Perspective Reactions
    Many proposed compromise solutions like "It's impossible to avoid everything. Realistically, reduce the 'frequency'" and "It's more important not to make ultra-processed foods a 'staple' than the presence or absence of additives."
    This topic connects not to a "good vs. bad debate" on additives alone, but to discussions about "distance from processed foods" and "designing modern eating in a busy world."

So, what should we change starting today?

Don't rush to conclusions, but also don't do "nothing." A reasonable approach at this point is as follows:

  • First, reduce the frequency of "everyday ultra-processed foods" (It's more sustainable than going to zero)

  • Reduce the "quantity and frequency" of processed meats and increase alternatives (fish, beans, eggs, etc.)

  • Check ingredient labels and move products with multiple preservatives from "staple" to "occasional"

  • Enhance the overall quality of meals (vegetables, beans, whole grains, fermented foods, dietary fiber)

  • For those with strong anxiety, review not just single components but also lifestyle habits (sleep, exercise, alcohol, smoking)


Preservatives support convenience and safety while having widespread exposure. Therefore, rather than condemning them in black and white, "designing intake," "regulation and transparency," and "accumulating additional research" are needed.


This research serves as a "trigger" to deepen the discussion. Instead of narrowing food choices out of fear, it expands options through information. Behind the buzz on social media, this turning point is visible.


Source URL

Related Articles