UPFs Don't Have USPs? Gosh!

There's a media storm about the health dangers of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs). Amelia Tait, however, points out that the general public is 'left in the dark' about what is or isn't a UPF (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/02/truth-about-ultra-processed-foods-upfs). She points out that Chris Van Tulleken, in his best selling book, claimed "If it's wrapped in plastic and has at least one ingredient that you wouldn't normally find in a standard home kitchen, it's UPF". This is clearly a 'catch-all' definition, actually emphasising that UPFs have no Unique Selling Point (USP). What's a 'standard home kichen'? All the food we buy, is processed. What constitutes too much processing? In a sense, the agonising about UPFs seems like a rehash (sorry for the pun) of the old 'natural foods' debate (remember the UK fuss about GM 'Frankentein foods'?). Not all 'natural' products are good for you. Some contain toxins, hormone-like substances, mutagens and/or behaviour-altering chemicals. Tait also maintains that much of the current research linking UPFs to heart disease, strokes etc., is at best, inconclusive. There appears a danger, she thinks, of folk being panicked, by USP phobia, into missing out on essential (and affordable?) dietary requirements. We already know that some food ingredients are unhealthy. Too much sugar, salt and saturated fats have been linked to a wide range of disorders. To thrive, people need a healthy diet, with more fresh fruit and vegetables and appropriate levels of exercise. Being overweight, we know, is a health risk. Perhaps it's too early to further confuse folk with 'advice' on UPFs? Some products must be better than others!