The NOVA classification system is the most widely studied system to characterize food processing and the most extensively used by researchers around the world to investigate the impact of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) on health. According to this system, UPFs are “industrial formulations made mostly or entirely with substances extracted from foods, often chemically modified, and from additives, with little if any whole food added”

1. A US study using nationally represented data found that children and adults consuming higher amounts of UPFs had significantly higher odds of having poor diet quality, as measured by the American Heart Association diet score and the Healthy Eating Index score, with the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fish significantly decreasing as UPF intake increased

2.UPFs are increasingly prevalent in the Canadian food supply, with recent estimates suggesting they account for nearly half of all energy consumed

3. Among Canadian adults aged 18 and older, UPFs represent approximately 45% of total daily energy intake, with consistently high consumption across all sociodemographic subgroups

4. In Canadian children and adolescents under 18, UPFs make up an even larger portion, accounting for more than half of their daily energy intake

5.A growing body of epidemiological evidence links the consumption of UPFs to multiple adverse health outcomes such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), certain cancers, poor mental health, and increased all-cause mortality

6. A recent report commissioned by Heart & Stroke estimated the burden of CVD attributed to the consumption of UPFs in Canada and found that the high level of UPF consumption was associated with a high burden of CVD, representing 38% of all CVD events in 2019

7. Importantly, current research suggests that the nutritional profile of UPFs alone (i.e., high sugar, fat and sodium and low fiber and protein) does not fully explain observed links between UPF consumption and health risks, indicating other mechanisms may be involved

8.A recent longitudinal study of Canadian children found that among boys, early childhood consumption of UPFs is linked to increased adiposity by age 5

9. Another study reported that higher UPF consumption was associated with 32% lower odds of healthy aging, including maintaining intact cognitive function, physical function and mental health, living free of chronic diseases, and reaching the age of 70

10. Although UPF consumption is high across the population, certain groups may be disproportionately affected. In Canada, the severity of household food insecurity has been found to be strongly associated with a higher proportion of dietary energy from UPF consumption in both adults and children

11.In June 2024, a Best Brains Exchange (BBE) was held at the request of Health Canada entitled, “Unpacking Ultra-Processed Foods – Identifying Research Priorities”. This BBE brought together researchers, policymakers, and non-governmental organizations, to examine the impact of UPF consumption on health and identify research priorities to fill evidence gaps of relevance to public health, including considerations for heterogeneity and health equity. Participants identified several key research gaps, including the need for improved exposure assessment, a greater number of experimental and mechanistic studies, and a better understanding of the factors that drive UPF consumption including structural and commercial determinants of health. Applicants are highly encouraged to review the summary of this BBE posted on the CIHR website.

Research is needed to address limitations of existing epidemiological evidence and to explore the mechanistic pathways through which UPFs affect health. The Team Grants: Health Effects of UPFs aim to address these research gaps by supporting research that will generate evidence to inform policies and regulations related to UPFs that will improve health equity and the health of Canadians across the lifespan.

Research Areas

This funding opportunity will support projects relevant to the following research areas:

Mechanisms of Health Effects of UPFs Pool
This funding pool will support research to understand the biological mechanisms triggered by UPFs in whole or by specific components (e.g., food additives, by-products of food processing techniques) that contribute to non-communicable disease (NCDs). This includes the role of UPFs in modulating the microbiome and contributing to immune/metabolic perturbations associated with disease processes.

Health Effects of UPFs on Older Persons Pool

This funding pool will support research to understand the effects of UPFs on the health of older persons, in particular mechanisms by which they could result in tissue injury contributing to the development and progression of NCDs, including cardiometabolic processes, and lead to accelerated biological aging with onset of frailty and cognitive decline.

Biological Mechanisms of UPFs and Development of Cardiovascular Diseases Pool

This funding pool will support research focused on the biological mechanisms triggered by specific UPF components (e.g., food additives, by-products of food processing techniques) that contribute to increased risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular diseases. The research should include a focus on the early stages of the lifespan (before the age of 18, including fetal development), but may also include other life stages (e.g., adults) with the goal of informing policy and regulatory actions (e.g., threshold sensitive exposure, early clinical biomarkers, and/or improve the quality of food for people living in Canada).

Health Effects of UPFs in Human Development, Child and Youth Health Pool

This funding pool will support research to understand the effects of UPFs on human development, child and/or youth health, consistent with IHDCYH’s areas of focus. To be considered relevant, there must be a clear and direct link to the health and well-being of children, from preconception to youth.

Structural Determinants of UPFs Pool

This funding pool will support research to understand the structural determinants of UPF production, distribution, regulation and consumption in Canada and globally and their inequitable impacts on population health, including:

• The identification of barriers and solutions to implementing UPF regulation in Canada
• The evaluation and assessment of population health interventions and their impacts on UPF consumption, such as school food programs, subsidized workplace meal programs, food literacy initiatives, etc.

The following Institutes will co-fund projects within any of the above funding pools that align with their research areas:

• The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) will support research that aligns with the objectives of this funding opportunity and advances knowledge of the impacts of UPFs on cancer risk and development.
• The Institute of Infection and Immunity (III) will fund research that aligns with its mandate and examines how UPFs affect microbiome composition and function, and how these changes contribute to immune/metabolic disruptions associated with disease processes.

Funding Exclusions:

• Research focused on nutrients known to be highly associated with NCDs (i.e., high fat, high salt, and high sugar).
• Research solely focused on excess energy intake.

Key Design Elements

The following key design elements must be considered and incorporated as appropriate by the research teams:

• Interdisciplinary Team-Based Approaches: Research must cross disciplinary boundaries and research teams must be interdisciplinary in nature (i.e., consisting of members trained in different disciplines bringing their unique expertise together to solve a problem).
• Integration of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Considerations in Research: Research teams must integrate Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) considerations to assess how both biological and sociocultural factors such as sex, gender, age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation, cultural background, migration status, and geographic location interact and intersect with each other and broader systems of power12 to impact health outcomes, as appropriate. This includes the lifespan considerations, as appropriate, where research teams must provide a rationale for decisions regarding which ages and life stages are included and excluded in their applications. Refer to the Best practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research for additional guidance.
• Knowledge Mobilization (KM): Research teams are encouraged to meaningfully engage with knowledge users as appropriate to the type of research being proposed. Teams that engage with KU should ensure that they are involved throughout the project lifecycle.
• Data and Biosample Governance: Research teams must have a robust strategy for how data will be stored, linked, and shared, as well as how biological samples will be collected, stored, and analyzed. Data should be disaggregated by sex and/or gender, age, and population group, where appropriate. The Data Management Plan (DMP) and Biosample Governance Plan must identify and describe a process for granting external researchers access to the data and biological samples. Research data management should align with the FAIR principles.

Role and Contributions of Applicant Partners: CIHR recognizes that a broad range of partners may be relevant to this opportunity and it is expected that applicant(s) describe the role of all applicant partners and how/if they will contribute to research and research related activities. Any consideration of risk and/or conflict of interest should also be explained, as appropriate.

Funds Available

CIHR and partner(s) financial contributions are subject to availability of funds. Should CIHR or partner(s) funding levels not be available or decrease due to unforeseen circumstances, CIHR and partner(s) reserve the right to reduce, defer or suspend financial contributions to grants received as a result of this funding opportunity.

The total amount available for this funding opportunity is $7,560,000, enough to fund approximately sixteen (16) LOIs and seven (7) Team Grants. This amount may increase if additional funding partners participate.

Letter of Intent (LOI) Stage

• Development grants of up to $10,000 per grant will be offered, if requested, to successful applications at the Letter of Intent (LOI) stage. The total amount available at the LOI stage is $160,000.
• Of this $ 160,000:
  • $60,000 is available to fund six (6) LOIs relevant to Mechanisms of Health Effects of UPFs Pool
  • $20,000 is available to fund two (2) LOIs relevant to Health Effects of UPFs on Older Persons Pool
  • $20,000 is available to fund two (2) LOIs relevant to Biological Mechanisms of UPFs and Development of Cardiovascular Diseases Pool
  • $20,000 is available to fund two (2) LOIs relevant to Health Effects of UPFs in human Development, Child and Youth Health Pool
  • $20,000 is available to fund two (2) LOIs relevant to Structural Determinants of UPFs Pool
• The following Institutes will fund LOIs in any of the above funding pools that align with their research areas:
  • $10,000 is available to fund one (1) LOI relevant to the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)’s mandate and research areas
  • $10,000 is available to fund one (1) LOI relevant to the Institute of Infection and Immunity’s (III)’s mandate and research areas
• Applications must choose a maximum of 1 pool (the most relevant or preferred pool) to apply to and applications will be funded in rank order within each pool.
• If a pool is undersubscribed or lacks fundable applications, funds may be reallocated to another pool depending on relevance criteria.

Full Application Stage

• The total amount available for the full application stage is $7,400,000, enough to fund approximately seven (7) grants. The maximum amount per grant is $250,000 per year for up to four years, for a total of $1,000,000 per grant.
• Of this $7,400,000:
  • $3,000,000 is available to fund three (3) applications relevant to Mechanisms of Health Effects of UPFs Pool
  • $1,000,000 is available to fund one (1) application relevant to Health Effects of UPFs on Older Persons Pool
  • $1,000,000 is available to fund one (1) application relevant to Health Effects of UPFs in human Development, Child and Youth Health Pool
  • $1,000,000 is available to fund one (1) application relevant to Biological Mechanisms of UPFs and Development of Cardiovascular Diseases
  • $1,000,000 is available to fund one (1) application relevant to Structural Determinants of UPFs Pool
• The following Institutes will co-fund applications in any of the above funding pools that align with their research areas:
  • $200,000 is available to co-fund application relevant to the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)’s mandate and research areas
  • $200,000 is available to co-fund application relevant to the Institute of Infection and Immunity (III)’s mandate and research areas
• Applications must choose a maximum of 1 pool (the most relevant or preferred pool) to apply to and applications will be funded in rank order within each pool. The selected pool must remain the same between the Letter of Intent and the Full Application.
• If a pool is undersubscribed or lacks fundable applications, funds may be reallocated to another pool depending on relevance criteria.

For more information on the appropriate use of funds, refer to Allowable Costs.

Applicant Partners

The following applicant partners have expressed an interest in supporting research projects on a particular theme or on issues that are a priority for them. Please contact the partner directly if interested.

Health Canada's Food and Nutrition Directorate

In-kind applicant partner support from Health Canada's Food and Nutrition Directorate may be available for projects that aim to build evidence related to its mandate to protect the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply and promote the nutritional health of Canadians. Health Canada is interested in collaborating on research to:

• elucidate potential pathways and mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may affect health outcomes;
• enhance understanding of the effects of UPF consumption on health outcomes across different ages and life-stages with consideration for under-represented populations;
• enhance understanding of factors that influence UPF consumption; and
• strengthen and apply dietary intake tools to better assess UPF consumption.

The partnership or collaboration could include the following in-kind support on research projects. In-kind support could include:

• providing advice in nutrition and food chemical safety biomarkers and standards, including exposure assessment.
• collaborating on related laboratory activities.
• organizing webinars or roundtable expert discussions to discuss research project results.
• facilitating networking and collaboration with other knowledge users (e.g., in other government departments).

Health Canada may consider co-supervision of graduate students, post-doctoral trainees, and visiting scientists.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1️⃣ High Scientific Excellence & Rigorous Methodology (Most Important)

CIHR reviewers heavily weight methodological rigor, including:

Strong theoretical framework

Clear hypotheses or research questions

Robust study design

Adequate controls, power calculations, and statistics

Reproducibility & transparency practices

Clear milestones and contingency plans

Predictor: Methodological strength is the #1 determinant across all CIHR committees.

2️⃣ Strong Significance & Clear Health Impact for Canadians

CIHR prioritizes research that benefits:

The health of people living in Canada

Canadian healthcare systems and policies

Vulnerable or underserved populations

Chronic disease burdens in Canadian demographics

Predictor: Clear articulation of Canadian relevance dramatically improves scores.

3️⃣ Feasible, Focused, Achievable Objectives

Successful CIHR proposals:

Have 2–3 well-defined aims

Present realistic deliverables within the grant period

Include detailed methodologies for each aim

Avoid overambitious or unfocused scope

Demonstrate precise timeline and project management

Predictor: Feasibility + clarity of approach = high reviewer confidence.

4️⃣ Strong Investigator Track Record & Appropriate Team Expertise

Reviewers value:

Publications relevant to the field

Prior successful funding

Expertise aligned to each aim

Multi-disciplinary teams (clinicians, statisticians, biomedical scientists, policy experts)

For early-career investigators: mentorship, protected time, and institutional support

Predictor: A well-matched, credible team is essential.

5️⃣ Compelling Preliminary Data (especially for Project Grants)

Highly competitive CIHR proposals commonly include:

Pilot experiments or feasibility data

Retrospective analyses

Early mechanistic insights

Proof-of-concept findings

For high-risk or exploratory programs, strong rationale can substitute, but evidence is still preferred.

Predictor: Preliminary data significantly boosts chances.

6️⃣ Strong Integration of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)

CIHR explicitly evaluates EDI in:

Team composition

Training environment

Research design (sex, gender, intersectionality, inclusive sampling)

Barriers to participation or recruitment

Engagement with under-represented or Indigenous populations

Predictor: Meaningful EDI integration is essential; weak EDI sections lower scores.

7️⃣ Clear Knowledge Translation (KT) & Dissemination Plan

CIHR places high value on:

How findings will reach clinicians, policymakers, communities, or the public

Realistic KT activities (briefs, publications, engagement, partnerships)

Integrated knowledge translation when applicable (co-design with stakeholders)

Predictor: Strong KT plan with defined stakeholders and products.

8️⃣ Alignment With CIHR Priority Areas (If Applying Under Strategic Calls)

High success when aligned with:

Indigenous health

Digital health & AI

Aging and dementia

Chronic disease (cancer, cardiovascular, neurological)

Rare disease

Implementation science

Mental health, substance use

Health system strengthening

Predictor: Direct strategic alignment increases competitiveness.

9️⃣ Access to Required Data, Cohorts, Facilities, or Patient Populations

CIHR reviewers look for feasibility evidence:

Confirmed clinical recruitment sites

Existing cohort or biobank access

Computational / lab infrastructure

Letters of support verifying data access

Agreements for collaboration or sharing

Predictor: Proven resource availability reduces perceived risk.

🔟 Well-Justified, Realistic Budget

Successful budgets:

Are lean and proportional to aims

Avoid unnecessary equipment or inflated salaries

Align with Canadian Tri-Council rules

Include justification for trainees, supplies, analyses

Predictor: A clear, efficient budget strengthens feasibility.

🚫 COMMON PITFALLS (Reasons CIHR Applications Fail)