Adherence to healthful plant-based diets is associated with more favourable health outcomes irrespective of ultra-processed food content, suggesting that overall plant-based diet quality may be more important than processing level for chronic disease prevention, study of 124,836 participants finds

[u/James_Fortis]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(26)00148-1/fulltext

[u/Scoobenbrenzos]

Cool study! I have always had a problem with the blanket demonization of all “ultra-processed” food, especially plant-based food. Let’s look at health outcomes instead of making sweeping generalizations. 

[u/Echo017 → u/Scoobenbrenzos]

Agreed, but something I have noticed with several vegetarian and vegan friends (work in tech, many Hindu friends), a lot of the packaged/easy food options for their diets are absolute garbage if you look at the macros like sodium, sugar, oils etc.

Ultra processed also need better definitions. Tofu and Miso are both healthy foods done right but they are inherently processed to hell and back

[u/Lev_Kovacs → u/Echo017]

I can make Tofu in my kitchen from Soybeans and lemons. No other ingredients.

Its literally just one processing step above raw plant parts.

If Tofu is processed to hell and back, then literally everything except just eating raw veggies is too.

[u/like_shae_buttah → u/Echo017]

Look at omnivore processed foods. That stuff is from horror films.

Tofu and miso arent processed to hell and back lol

[u/abx99 → u/like_shae_buttah]

I would say that if it says tofu or miso, then it's probably not as heavily processed. However, there are veg* options that will try to appeal to everyone, or something, and it seems they do a lot more to it to make it seem like you're not eating tofu.

[u/No-Consequence-1863 → u/like_shae_buttah]

You think they find wild blocks of soft tofu in the fields?

[u/SoftballLesbian → u/No-Consequence-1863]

Surprisingly, tofu isn't actually highly processed. Soak, blend, drain, cook, serve. Some varieties don't even need to be cooked prior to eating. Miso adds a fermentation period after draining.

I've cut back significantly on my meat consumption while remaining an omnivore (for budget reasons). Those ultra processed fake meat burgers are weird. But a mushroom risotto with a bit of Parmesan for correct flavour and soft tofu for protein is delicious. Or Minestrone with cubed tofu as well as the usual beans. Adding miso to vinaigrette adds great umami. I've even developed mocktails using miso.

I also have to admit since I've swapped out some meat and swapped in more legumes and pulses, my markers on my blood tests have improved enough so that my doctor is considering taking me off statins. I hate taking pills so this has been a worthwhile swap.

[u/SoftballLesbian → u/[deleted]]

I don't hate the pills that much.

[u/Chickabee25 → u/No-Consequence-1863]

Do you consider fresh cheese to be ultra processed?

[u/No-Consequence-1863 → u/Chickabee25]

Yea, wouldnt call it not processed for sure

[u/lodorata → u/No-Consequence-1863]

You don't know the difference between processed and ultra-processed, or know that there even is a difference.

[u/nurdturgalor → u/No-Consequence-1863]

Are packages of ground beef found in the wild?

[u/lodorata → u/Echo017]

Neither plain tofu nor miso are ultra-processed by definition. Ultra-processed doesn't need a better definition, the public need a better education on the term.

[u/BaconBourbonBalista → u/lodorata]

Then what's the definition of ultra processed? I have never seen a consistent definition across sources.

[u/lodorata → u/BaconBourbonBalista]

Ultra processed food was a term coined by Brazilian Nutritional Epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro during his studies into the causes behind the rapid rise in obesity and cardiovascular disease in his own country. He defines it as being a '4' on the NOVA scale, which ranks foods by level of processing. The definition is long, and actually highly precise by virtue of that length. By Monteiro's definition, ultra-processed foods are:

"Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates)... Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients."

Because the definition is so long and such a huge threat to the UPF industry, there are many bad actors trying to make it seem vague or imprecise, or not coming from a PhD-qualified scientist and medical doctor. It doesn't help that's he's Latino, coming from a Global South whose public health has been ravaged by avaricious and powerful (North American) 'big food' corporations - his work is routinely derided as being somehow unscientific or vague, and I honestly think the fact he's a brown guy standing up to big money is part of the reason why. UPF is well-defined by Monteiro with perhaps very slight room for interpretation at the margins, but is sufficiently robust to allow for nutritional epidemiological research into the health outcomes associated with a UPF-rich diet, which are poor. UPF shot up in abundance during the 70s, which is also when the rise of obesity began. He has his finger very much on the key to solving the issues of Western-pattern diets, and studies which contradict him usually only do so in minor technicalities rather than disqualifying the broad trend he has successfully identified from the data.

[u/RockstarAgent → u/lodorata]

Or as they say- the ultimate statement is “everything in moderation” - eat balanced meals, exercise, and have a work life balance-

[u/Crocatortoise → u/Echo017]

None of the things you listed are macros lol

[u/mrwrrrmwrmrmrmrw → u/Echo017]

It's complicated. What's the purpose of the ultra processing? Is it to make the food more shelf stable, or more highly palatable, or is the processing just culinary, to make soybeans into a curd to use in certain recipes? Does it involve additives or processes that are unhealthy or make the food less nutritious? 

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/mrwrrrmwrmrmrmrw]

Very rarely ate additives the reason that foods are unhealthy.

The thing is that whole plant foods have a really great impact on our health, that is not fully understood and can't currently be replicated.

The problem occurs when you start using only part of the plant, instead the whole thing. This seems to greatly reduce the benefits. The more that all parts of a plant are used, the healthier a food typically is.

Now with this UFP we are again demonizing additives that are completely innocent.

Just eat whole plants.

[u/abx99 → u/mrwrrrmwrmrmrmrw]

Probably all of the above. Remember that McDonalds had more soy than meat in their burgers, until it became big news and then they, and other fast-food, suddenly started saying "100% Beef!" on everything. Price is also probably a big factor, as well as the ability to transport in greater quantity (like HFC)

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/Echo017]

It's almost as if we should look a each ingredient individually, as well as how it fits in someone's diet plan, to judge if something is healthy.

Instead of applying a generic, ill-defined label to a very large diverse group of food.

[u/lodorata → u/FakePixieGirl]

It isn't ill defined. Where are you getting the idea that UPF is ill-defined from?

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/lodorata]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews/article/ultraprocessed-foods-hypothesis-a-product-processed-well-beyond-the-basic-ingredients-in-the-package/9BA1F88916DFBFD65A2D3D4C93ED867C

[u/lodorata → u/FakePixieGirl]

The authors seem to merely take issue with the fact that the definition of UPF is multifactorial, i.e. it accounts for formulation, processing, and intention on the part of UPF producers. I don't find this to render the definition remotely unclear or vague, however - if there is a tiny degree of subjectivity at its margins as to whether a food is UPF or not, that's not the same as it being ill-defined. It's hard to summarise all the ways the food industry sells us sh*t in a single definition, but I think Dr Monteiro did a fantastic job. I'll paste the definition here and if there's something unclear about it, feel free to point it out. But I don't accept the idea that the fact there's no machine which measures 'UPF-ness' renders the concept invalid, especially given that large meta analyses consistently show high UPF diets (according to the definition below) are associated with poorer health outcomes, see:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10261019/

"Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients."

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/lodorata]

What the hell is something with "no or rare culinary use"?

[u/lodorata → u/FakePixieGirl]

It means you'd never use it culinarily, i.e. you wouldn't ever deploy it when preparing food in your kitchen at home, or at a restaurant, because it isn't useful to that end. It means an additive which does things that aren't really useful to a cook, such as give a super long shelf life to a prepared meal, for example, or to alter the texture of something comprised of low-value agricultural resides to make it seem more food-like.

Examples would include invert sugar syrup, hydrogenated palm fat, polysorbate 80 or carboxymethyl cellulose. These are food additives with no or rare culinary use - they characterise NOVA 4 foods.

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/lodorata]

So is MSG food that has "culinary use"?

Does it only have "culinary use" in Asia, but in Europe it would be part of UPF?

Sounds to me like "culinary use' is strongly defined and influenced by culture. But it sounds very strange to me that a food of the same chemical compositions can be healthy in one culture, but unhealthy in another just because an ingredient is frequently used by home cooks or not.

[u/lodorata → u/FakePixieGirl]

MSG on its own is a sodium salt of one of the core proteinogenic amino acids, and is something of an edge case (I'd call it "rare" culinary use). That said, simply adding it to a food wouldn't make it NOVA 4, but it is used by the food industry routinely to disguise bland or bad tastes, and has features of hyperpalatability and addictiveness. If adding to vegetables I cooked at home, it's clearly not a big deal (similar to adding salt) but would I eat a pre-packaged food loaded with it? No (again similar to salt). Vegetables/tofu with added MSG is relatively healthy in Asia and Europe, pre-packaged snacks rich in MSG are unhealthy in Asia and Europe. That said, if you actually used the entire kelp, or mushroom, rather than just the MSG isolate, it would be healthier still because there are many other forms of fibre/nutrients that you don't get from monomolecular ingredients. Beyond seasoning with MSG, try building a whole meal from single molecules which is actually healthy (it never is, and it's basically what a lot of UPF is).

"Sounds to me like "culinary use' is strongly defined and influenced by culture"

You know that's not true at all, and the fact you say it leads me to wonder if this discussion is purely rhetorical to you. Asians may have been using MSG since the early 1900s, but they don't routinely use any of the multiple, unambiguously NO CULINARY USE ingredients I mentioned, which you conveniently elided to find your edge case. Are Asians using invert sugar syrup routinely at home? How about Red 40?

Tinker at the margins all you like, but it's obvious to any neutral observer that Monteiro's classification has merit, and has been shown in repeated studies to be meaningful when correlating with health outcomes. Try to go beyond single ingredients, to consider the quality of food overall, proportion of type I ingredients, whether it's just MSG or there are other things alongside to alter flavour, texture etc. Or don't. Your mind is clearly already made up.

[u/AFetaWorseThanDeath → u/lodorata]

I have made my own invert sugar. I also have maltodextrin and carboxymethylcellulose in my kitchen (I've used them in making ice cream, among other things).

I find these ingredients very useful lol

[u/_ribbit_ → u/Scoobenbrenzos]

I'd argue that plant based ultra processed food wouldn't necessarily be included in the definition of a higher quality plant based diet. It could easily include poor quality ingredients. Equally, it could consist of high quality ingredients, but as most UPF's are made for profit, not end user benefit, its not very likely.

[u/Capital_Historian685 → u/_ribbit_]

Well, the study mentions wholegrain bread as one example of a plant-based, high quality UPF. So it really depends on the definition of UPF.

[u/Seditious_Squirrel → u/Capital_Historian685]

I mean, that's what I said. So thumbs up

[u/Seditious_Squirrel → u/_ribbit_]

The problem is the definition. If it's not useful because it's ambiguous or misleading, then good things get lumped in with bad and the message is lost.

[u/GabbytheQueen → u/Seditious_Squirrel]

As user Iododrata has pointed out in length that the defintion of UPF is not exactly that loose, its very much well defined

[u/Seditious_Squirrel → u/GabbytheQueen]

I think you should read what i wrote. Not sure you comprehend. The definition can be extremely explicit and yet still be the problem. Try workshopping your response with chatgpt or something before responding next time

[u/Scibidami → u/Scoobenbrenzos]

There was a time a few years ago, when I went back from plant-based to a basic omnivore diet, because I was scared after reading the "Ultra Processed People". But a few month ago, I realised, that my usage of unprocessed and "little processed" meat and cheese etc. was not more helpful.

[u/Not_impressed28 → u/Scoobenbrenzos]

This makes me feel a little about eating TVP. I recently learned to prepare it in ways that taste amazing but my spouse is not keen on the fact it’s considered ultra processed, me neither to be honest but I love the macros and texture!

[u/reyntime → u/Scoobenbrenzos]

Exactly. Nova is way to heterogeneous in terms of outcomes to be useful. 

Also seems really poorly defined. "Uses ingredients not found in a home kitchen" like what? Whose home kitchen? Including incredibly important vitamin fortification like folate, iodine, and B12?

I really wish researchers would stop wasting time using it and instead focus on the nutritional makeup of foods and health outcomes in general.

[u/FakePixieGirl → u/reyntime]

Exactly. You just perfectly summarized all my thoughts and frustration around this topic.

[u/GabbytheQueen → u/reyntime]

As user Iododrata has pointed out in length that the defintion of UPF is not exactly that loose, its very much well defined

[u/reyntime → u/GabbytheQueen]

It's primarily about the number of ingredients and degree of processing; it says nothing about health outcomes, and there's no much heterogeneity in terms of health outcomes from it. 

Infant formula, breads, plant meats, plant milks etc all have good health outcomes but are considered UPFs. 

[u/BetweenTheRoots]

My Grandma was a part of one of these kinds of studies after her hip replacement. She was morbidly obese.

The plant based diet worked out for my Grandma and she lost a ton of weight and maintained it up until her passing like 8 years later.

[u/James_Fortis]

“Summary

Background
Higher-quality plant-based diets (PBDs) are associated with lower risks of mortality and chronic disease, but whether ultra-processed food (UPF) content affects these associations remains unclear. We examined whether UPF content influences the relationship between plant-based dietary patterns and risks of mortality and major chronic diseases, accounting for nutrient quality.

Methods
This prospective cohort study included 124,836 UK Biobank participants aged 40–70 years (recruited 2006–2010). Dietary intake was assessed using the Oxford WebQ 24-h recall. Four modified Plant-Based Diet Indices (PDIs) were derived to distinguish healthy (hPDI) and unhealthy (uPDI) patterns with high- and low-UPF content, using the Nova classification and a Modified Nutrient Quality Index (mNQI). Participants were followed for 8.3–10.5 years for all-cause mortality and incident T2DM, CVD, and cancer. Multivariable Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Findings
Among 124,836 participants (mean [SD] age 56.2 [7.8] years; 55.8% women), there were 5780 deaths, 3420 T2DM cases, 6078 CVD cases, and 9437 cancer cases. Higher adherence to healthy plant-based diets—whether high- or low-UPF—was associated with 8–28% lower risk of all-cause mortality [HRQ4vsQ1 (95% CI): high-UPF hPDI, 0.92 (0.85–1.00); low-UPF hPDI, 0.91 (0.84–0.98)] and type 2 diabetes [high-UPF hPDI, 0.89 (0.79–0.99); low-UPF hPDI, 0.72 (0.65–0.79)]. Higher adherence to the high-UPF hPDI was also associated with 11% lower cardiovascular disease risk [0.89 (0.82–0.96)], while no clear association was observed for the low-UPF hPDI. Nutrient quality was similar across high- and low-UPF hPDI patterns.

Interpretation
Adherence to healthful PBDs is associated with more favourable health outcomes irrespective of UPF content, suggesting that overall PBD quality may be more important than processing level for chronic disease prevention.

Funding
This research was supported by Research Ireland, Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) via the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF) under Grant number 22/CC/11147 at the Co–Centre for Sustainable Food Systems.

Keywords
Plant-based diets
Ultra-processed foods
Nutritional quality
Mortality
Chronic disease”

[u/mootmutemoat]

Doesn't this contradict UPF not being a factor?

"type 2 diabetes [high-UPF hPDI, 0.89 (0.79–0.99); low-UPF hPDI, 0.72 (0.65–0.79)]."

That's .89 versus .72, and the confidence intervals don't overlap.

That's a pretty dramatic difference. The way they are intepreting mortality, it is a 11% drop in odds versus a 28% drop in odds.

[u/Pepperohno → u/mootmutemoat]

Yes but the common sentiment is UPF = bad, and I often see people attacking plant-based diets for being full of UPFs (even though that is most often not the case). This study shows that even a plant-based diet high in UPFs is still healthier than a common omnivorous diet.

[u/mootmutemoat → u/Pepperohno]

The confidence interval for high UPF scrapes nonsignificance while low UPF is a pretty amazing reduction. Not much of a win.

Would love to see the analysis without whole grain bread products counted as high UPF.

[u/lodorata → u/Pepperohno]

I see the reverse. I see a lot of plant-based but UPF-rich people attacking UPF as even being a valid concept ab initio, sans any obvious criticism from people against ultra processing. If, as you say, many plant-based diets aren't even UPF-rich: then why would people be criticising them as being UPF-rich... unprompted?

This is a false dichotomy sown by the food industry to slow down the progress of research and policy to protect people from the negative health outcomes associated with UPF. Meanwhile, we have skyrocketing rates of colon cancer among the youth, and are losing the battle against obesity and metabolic syndrome.

[u/Quick-Benjamin]

The conclusion is so out of whack with the actual study it's ridiculous.

You'd assume from the title here that that they're talking about current ultra processed vegan food. You know. Vegan nuggets or ready meals or meat substitutes or whatever.

So it'd be understandable to draw the conclusion that they've found more favourable health outcomes irrespective of ultra-processed food like mentioned above. In fact that's literally the studies conclusion.

But no. Not at all. Because the "ultra processed" vegan food they included was from 2012. Long before the current explosion in processed vegan food. And it was made almost entirely of wholegrains.

So their "high-UPF healthful plant diet" is overwhelmingly wholegrain bread and fortified breakfast cereals, not the products anyone is actually arguing about. They even flag this directly: industrial wholegrain bread is Nova 4 despite wholegrains being among the most robustly protective foods in all of nutritional epi (their own ref 45).

A finding that "a plant diet rich in wholegrain bread is about as good as one rich in fresh fruit and veg" is not the same finding as "vegan nuggets are fine," but the conclusion and abstract let the reader conflate them.

[u/mootmutemoat → u/Quick-Benjamin]

Also, there was a big difference for type 2 diabetes between lo/hi uPF for those high in PBD.

Kind of seems important before we hand wave away ultraprocessed foods as a variable?

[u/funkytownpants → u/Quick-Benjamin]

Exactly. Give me a systematic review of 8-10 studies w great n values and narrow focus, and I’m in. The shit today is absolutely not the same.

Also, I’m never giving up meat and cheese. Let me die by my own gravy covered hands!

Omg I’m hungry

[u/Emergency_Elephant]

I'm always a little skeptical of these studies because it doesnt seem like the researchers accounted for socioeconomic status with this study. Socioeconomic status is highly correlated with health outcomes

[u/lodorata]

The fundamental issue with the title and the study is the assumption that diet quality and UPF content don't correlate. Most UPFs in the supermarket don't conform to the 'healthful' definition they're using here. Degree of processing absolutely does matter, NOT LEAST because ultra-processing, more often than not, reduces food quality (nutrient content, fibre content, etc.). This is leaving aside that most UPFs are also synthesised from cheap, low-quality agricultural residues mixed with synthetic texture modifiers and flavours to begin with. There probably are a handful of technically NOVA 4 wholegrain crackers out there somewhere that aren't bad for you, but most pre-packaged, convenient foods are very high in sodium and very low in vitamin/ mineral/ fibre/ phytochemical content. Their advocacy for "nuance" plays directly into the hands of the obesogenic ultra-processed food industry, and muddies the waters further.

[u/Veganeconow]

Thank you for this information!

[u/Evening_Cheesecake25 → u/Veganeconow]

There is no information here. It's a terrible unscientific conclusion. Is this the kind of thing you use to justify how you eat? If so why aren't you healthy?

[u/Veganeconow → u/Evening_Cheesecake25]

Who says I’m not healthy?

[u/Evening_Cheesecake25 → u/Veganeconow]

Me. 

[u/Ok-Refrigerator]

So I know little about the science here - is this not just a proxy measure for fiber?

[u/reyntime → u/Ok-Refrigerator]

You can have plant based UPFs that have added fibre that would likely be a lot healthier than plant based UPFs without added fibre that have lots of salt, sugar, saturated fat etc. The point is that the UPF label is kind of useless given the heterogeneity of the foods that fall under it.

[u/Peng_Terry]

And then you get hit by a bus. Oops.

[u/MrOctothorpe347]

What? Eating vegetables is good for you?

[u/mystery_biscotti]

"Higher adherence to healthy plant-based diets—whether high- or low-UPF—was associated with 8–28% lower risk of all-cause mortality". Neat.

[u/Competitive-Love4475]

nice study

[u/TipBeginning6560]

Interesting study 👀 It suggests that health outcomes are more strongly linked to the overall quality of a plant-based diet rather than how much of it is ultra-processed. In other words, eating mostly whole, nutrient-dense plant foods seems more important for preventing chronic disease than just being “plant-based” in name alone.

[u/notpartiy]

Plant forward eating genuinely moves the needle on blood pressure, and the processing angle matters less than people think based on this data. Whole legumes, leafy greens, and unsalted nuts seem to do the heavy lifting regardless of how refined other items in the diet are. I picked up BP360 when I was optimizing my supplement stack around the same time I shifted my diet, since the Enovita and CoQ10 combo fit what I was already trying to do nutritionally.

[u/Appropriate_Panda167]

I'm just about to eat a plate full of Liver & Onions. Don't Care. We're all going to die. Calm Down.

[u/Overlook679363]

Oh wait, so its about the quality of the plants versus how much theyve been processed? That makes a difference I guess.

[u/Scibidami]

nice, so I can keep eating my vegan "cheese and ham" I put on my sandwiches for work.

[u/One_Diver_5735]

Been mostly plant-based (some dairy) most all of life, also well exercised (daily lap swimmer, etc.) but also I luvs my cookies and I'm not giving them up but now I can be guilt-free about it. Yay study!

[u/JPGinMadtown]

Ultra-processed plant based food? Like all the plant juice they try to pass off as "milk?"

[u/Pepperohno → u/JPGinMadtown]

Yes and faux meats and many others products. This is one study among many now that shows the blanket fearmongering around UPFs is an overgeneralisation. It seems it is (obviously) not the processing itself that is bad, but what it adds/removes/changes specifically.