I could rant about this for hours. Let's see what BBC says....
Thought so. It's trying to find the middle ground and talking about "UPF science" like it's the the law of gravity, instead of recognizing that it's a novel science with little evidence and a very shoddy classification system.
Most of the "UPF is the Devil" proponents don't seem to understand that it's a trojan horse for Big Meat.
I remember reading one of the UPF food studies where they were like upfs cause heart failure and the Aussie diet is very high and the Italian diet is very low. So I looked at statistics and heart failure is more common in Italy as a cause of death and life expectancy is lower.
Fuck me for thinking there's probably important differences between salami, twinkles, and sweet potato burger patties.
I have an Italian relative who got several gastric surgeries in order to keep eating lots of cheese and meat. They have a huge superiority complex over their "cucina", much like the French.
Partly to blame is how the "Mediterranean Diet" has been promoted as something geographic, which means cultural, instead of the actual substance. So perhaps people who live in the area think of themselves as already doing it because they're there, and not realizing that the MD is defined, even has a score system, and it's mostly plants.
It was a study within Australia, like among Aussies upfs apparently lead to an increase in CVD. I looked at there definition of upf though and was baffled as to how it could be useful given it covered everything from inverted sugar with red 5 and soybean oil to ground TVP, seitan and spices held together with plant gum.
Generally it's my impression that nutrition science is a bit garbage. To be fair it's extremely difficult to study. Nonetheless it's prone to fads and shall we say statistical massaging.
I just really struggle to believe that your average person should spend much time freaking out over upfs vs adding some cardio and eating a bowl of oats once a day or something.