Reacción a "A series of articles warns about the threat of ultra-processed foods to public health"

The claims about the health effects of ultra-processed foods are largely based on observational data.  Randomised clinical trials - the gold standard in nutrition research - have not given cause for concern: while they have shown that some ultra-processed foods can result in overconsumption, they have also shown that a diet with ultra-processed foods that follows current dietary guidelines is not detrimental to health.

Estimating ultra-processed food intake in the general public is difficult, as most methods used in nutrition research have never been designed to estimate UPF intake.  Claims about consumption at a population scale therefore need to be interpreted very carefully as some of these figures are based on very crude assumptions, e.g. that all bread consumed in the UK is ultra-processed.

Many observational studies rely on dietary assessment methods that are unable to estimate actual UPF intake because they do not distinguish e.g. between UPF and non-UPF versions of the same foods such as bread, yoghurt or cereals.  The authors claim that such measurement errors would be inconsequential without explaining why this should be the case.

Without reliable data on ultra-processed food intake at the level of the individual - i.e. not purchase data - it is impossible to make any claims about the health effects of these foods.  The difficulty of estimating intake is not a new criticism and has been raised by many scientists, including the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN).  It is therefore very disappointing that neither the authors nor the reviewers have engaged with this criticism.