Some academics argue that the connection is not a coincidence.

Professor Tim Spector is Professor of Epidemiology at King’s College London and specializes in the study of disease trends.

Professor Spector told BBC Panorama: “Over the past decade, there has been increasing evidence that ultra-processed foods are bad for us in ways we didn’t previously think.

“We’re talking about different types of cancer, heart disease, stroke and dementia.”

Ultra-processed foods contain chemicals that are considered safe under British regulations governing the sector, but the Panorama project investigated the latest scientific evidence suggesting links between some ingredients and cancer, diabetes and stroke.

Last January, one of the most comprehensive studies of ultra-processed foods conducted by the Imperial College School of Public Health was published in the medical journal The Lancet.

A study of 200,000 people in the UK found that consuming highly processed foods can lead to an increased risk of cancer in general and ovarian and brain cancers in particular.

Starting last month, the World Health Organization began warning against long-term use of artificial sweeteners, saying it could lead to health risks.

This comes on the heels of dozens of studies linking high consumption of highly processed foods to an increased risk of serious illness.

But it is difficult to prove that certain elements cause health harm in humans – there are many factors in our lifestyles that lead to these diseases. For example, not exercising, smoking, eating foods high in sugar.

Common Highly Processed Foods:

Initial investigations into the link between death and highly processed foods began as part of an ongoing study of the dietary habits of nearly 174,000 people at the Sorbonne University in France.

“We have 24-hour food records,” explains Dr. Mathilde Douvier, who led the study. [المشاركون في الدراسة] All the food and drink they consume.

This ongoing research has already produced some findings showing that highly processed foods may contribute to cancer risk.

Emulsifiers – target For the food industry

More recently, research has focused on the effect of emulsifiers, a specific ingredient that works to hold all the ingredients in highly processed foods together.

Emulsifiers are a desirable target for those in charge of the food industry because they improve the shape and texture of food and help extend shelf life compared to less processed foods.

These ingredients are found in many foods, from mayonnaise to chocolate to peanut butter to meat products. When you eat, you can consume emulsifiers as part of your diet.

Panorama has an exclusive look at the preliminary results of Dr Dovier’s study.

The findings have yet to be reviewed and evaluated by other researchers – a key step for scientific studies – but Dr Dovier says they are still troubling.

And he adds: “We observed significant associations between the amount of pills taken and a higher risk of cancer in general – especially breast cancer – and cardiovascular disease.”

This means that a pattern linking the consumption of highly processed foods to the risk of developing these diseases has been identified, but more research is needed.

Despite the mounting evidence, England’s Food Standards Agency – which sets regulations for the food industry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – has yet to issue a directive to reduce the use of emulsifiers.

When the Panorama agency was asked to comment on the growing evidence that food additives could harm health, it said: “We have not been provided with any evidence – by this project or by others – that certain emulsifiers are believed to pose a health risk.”

But the company added that it plans to hold a public consultation.

Could the food industry be resisting promulgation of regulations governing the use of these products?

The Panorama team has been investigating this for the past 8 months.

“The food industry is not a public health company… their goal is to sell their products,” says Professor Nestl.

A food policy expert says the food industry is funding research, subsidizing experts and undercutting related studies to prevent tougher rules from being issued.

The International Life Sciences Institute receives funding from the world’s largest food companies.

The agency says its mission is to “provide scientific research that improves human health” — but it has previously published studies that undermine general guidelines around healthy eating. In 2012, the European Food Safety Agency became so concerned about conflicts of interest that it insisted that anyone working in contact with the agency resign or leave the agency.

Professor Alan Bobis is Professor Emeritus at Imperial College London and is also the Unpaid Director of the European Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. But he also heads a group of UK scientists who will form the Toxicology Review Group, which will advise the government’s Food Standards Agency on how many dangerous chemicals are in foods.

More than half of the board members have recent connections with the food industry or the chemical industry. For the past 10 years, the Committee has not approved any restrictions on the use of food additives in our food.

Professor Bobis told Panorama that he did not give advice to the benefit of the food industry and that he was “always committed to conducting and identifying the best scientific research… regardless of who is funding it”.

The Food Standards Agency said it had “clear codes of conduct in relation to declarations of interest” and “no evidence” of bias influencing its decisions.

The company said: “We work within the framework of the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

ASpatame: Sweeter than sugar

Among the most controversial additives in highly processed foods is a sweetener called aspartame.

The substance is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and has been touted as a great low-calorie alternative — in turn labeled as “healthy” to sugary drinks, ice cream and candy.

Questions have been raised about the potential harm of this sweetener over the past two decades.

The World Health Organization said last month that, although the evidence is not conclusive, it is concerned that long-term use of sweeteners such as aspartame may increase the risk of “type 2 diabetes, heart disease and death”.

In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that aspartame is safe after reviewing all the evidence. This decision has been accepted by the UK Food Standards Agency.

The Toxicological Review Board looked at a 2013 study on aspartame and concluded that it “does not indicate the need to take any action to protect public health.”

Six years later, Professor Eric Millstone, emeritus professor of science policy at the University of Sussex, decided to review the same evidence that the European Agency had examined to see who funded the various studies.

Professor Millstone discovered that 90 percent of the studies that protect the substance were funded by the large chemical companies that manufacture and sell aspartame.

It found that all studies citing aspartame as harmful to health were funded by independent, non-commercial sources.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Food and Drink Manufacturers told the BBC they “take the health of consumers and the safety of the food they produce very seriously and adhere to strict rules”.

The Food Standards Agency says it is considering the World Health Organization’s current assessment of aspartame.

The British government says it is aware of growing concerns about highly processed foods and has ordered a review of evidence that they may harm health.