I’m writing in response to your article as one of many scientists named in it (Scientists on panel defending ultra-processed meals linked to meals companies, 28 September). I’m a researcher at Quadram Institute Bioscience with virtually 40 years’ analysis expertise. My analysis focuses on the mechanisms by which meals and its composition underpin well being advantages or harms.
As a government-supported institute, we’re inspired to have interaction with business to maximise the affect of our publicly funded analysis, to translate the findings in direction of benefiting the general public. We work with meals firms once in a while to attempt to assist enhance the well being impacts of meals.
The advantage of working with business is that we will entry processing applied sciences and perceive the function of processing in an actual world surroundings. Whereas most of my analysis has been publicly funded, a small quantity has been collaboratively supported by meals firms to deal with particular points round meals processing and performance.
The definition of ultra-processed meals (UPFs) is generic and never primarily based on present scientific proof. This ends in the classification incorporating meals which were designed to have a optimistic affect on well being.
We can’t say that each one UPFs are unhealthy, in the identical method that we can’t say that each one unprocessed meals are wholesome. We simply need an goal, science-based analysis of the affect of meals on well being, regardless of the extent of processing and to maneuver away from the incorrect place that each one processed meals are dangerous.
Prof Pete Wilde
Quadram Institute Bioscience