Background: Previous work reports an association between familial risk factors stemming from parental characteristics and offspring disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs). This association may reflect (a) the direct effects of familial environment and (b) a passive gene–environment correlation (r_GE), wherein the parents provide both the genes and the environment. The current study examined the contributions of direct environmental influences and passive r_GE by comparing the effects of familial risk factors on child DBDs in genetically related (biological) and non-related (adoptive) families.Method: Participants were 402 adoptive and 204 biological families. Familial environment was defined as maternal and paternal maladaptive parenting and antisociality, marital conflict and divorce; offspring DBDs included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Mixed-level regressions estimated the main effects of familial environment, adoption status and the familial environment by adoption status interaction term, which tested for the presence of passive r_GE.Results: There was a main effect of maternal and paternal maladaptive parenting and marital discord on child DBDs, indicating a direct environmental effect. There was no direct environmental effect of maternal or paternal antisociality, but maternal and paternal antisociality had stronger associations with child DBDs in biological families than adoptive families, indicating the presence of a passive r_GE.Conclusions: Many familial risk factors affected children equally across genetically related and non-related families, providing evidence for direct environmental effects. The relationship of parental antisociality and offspring DBDs was best explained by a passive r_GE, where a general vulnerability toward externalizing psychopathology is passed down by the parents to the children.

Background: Excessive intake of ultra-processed foods, formulated from substances extracted from foods or derived from food constituents, may be a modifiable behavioral risk factor for adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. Prior work has predominately examined health correlates of maternal ultra-processed food intake in populations with substantially lower ultra-processed food intake compared to the US population. This longitudinal study investigated relations of ultra-processed food intake with maternal weight change and cardiometabolic health and infant growth in a US cohort.Methods: Mothers in the Pregnancy Eating Attributes Study were enrolled at ≤12 weeks gestation and completed multiple 24-Hour Dietary Recalls within six visit windows through one-year postpartum (458 mothers enrolled, 321 retained at one-year postpartum). The NOVA (not an acronym) system categorized food and underlying ingredient codes based on processing level. Maternal anthropometrics were measured throughout pregnancy and postpartum, and infant anthropometrics were measured at birth and ages 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Maternal cardiometabolic markers were analyzed from blood samples obtained during the second and third trimesters.Results: Holding covariates and total energy intake constant, a 1-SD greater percent energy intake from ultra-processed foods during pregnancy was associated with 31% higher odds of excessive gestational weight gain (p= .045, 95% CI [1.01, 1.70]), 0.68±0.29 mg/L higher c-reactive protein during pregnancy (p= .021, 95% CI [0.10, 1.26]), 6.7±3.4% greater gestational weight gain retained (p= .049, 95% CI [0.03, 13.30]), and 1.09±0.36 kg greater postpartum weight retention (p= .003, 95% CI [0.38, 1.80]). No other significant associations emerged.Conclusions: Ultra-processed food intake during pregnancy may be a modifiable behavioral risk factor for adverse maternal weight outcomes and inflammation. Randomized controlled trials are needed to test whether targeting ultra-processed food intake during pregnancy may support optimal maternal health.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov. Registration ID –NCT02217462. Date of registration – August 13, 2014.

Background: Ultra-processed food (UPF) is currently not included in most countries’ dietary guidance. However, there may be growing public interest and consumer avoidance of UPF due to media reporting of studies on the negative health outcomes associated with UPFs. Methods: We surveyed 2386 UK adults (M age = 45 years, 50% female) during February–April 2024. Participants completed measures on awareness of the term UPF, whether the UPF status of foods affects their dietary decision-making, and confidence in identifying UPFs. Participants categorised a list of 10 foods (5 UPFs and 5 non-UPFs) as UPF vs. not, before rating whether information about studies linking UPF to worse health impacts on their negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs. Results: Most participants (73%) were aware of the term UPF and 58% reported that their food choices are determined by whether they believe a food is ultra-processed or not. Participants with the highest income and education levels were most likely to report both being aware of, and, avoiding consuming UPFs. Most participants could not accurately categorise whether foods were UPFs. Some sociodemographic groups (e.g., higher education levels) were more likely to accurately categorise UPFs but were also more likely to incorrectly believe that non-UPFs were UPFs. Participants tended to report that UPF-health risk information increases negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs. Conclusions: In this study, a large number of UK adults reported avoiding consuming UPFs. This was particularly pronounced among those with the highest education and income levels.