Is the discussion about ultra-processed foods mainly a moral panic, as others have written much more eloquently today? In my opinion, it is: and it is a panic that, like so many others, cause a considerable amount of harm.

It is no secret that I firmly reject the concept of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and the NOVA classification system on which it relies. This is not a fringe opinion—as a matter of fact, it’s fairly common and there is now even an open letter that calls for an end to this nonsense1. Even SACN (the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition), which is usually cautious, does not see cause for immediate action and calls out a lack of robust evidence.

Why am I so opposed to ultra-processed foods? My research interest are dietary assessment methods—and I approached NOVA from this angle and was shocked: the system is not suited to be used with the methods we currently use for dietary assessment. But if we can’t measure what people are eating—how can we be so convinced if affects health? There are many other potential explanations—which are usually ignored by activists2.

Read the full post on Substack →

Originally published on Substack.