In summary
* A Canadian study was published mid July 2026. It claimed that one in four heart disease deaths could be associated with eating ultra-processed foods (UPF) and that cutting UPF consumption could prevent thousands of deaths.
* It was a modelling/observational study, so I had no interest in reviewing it. I noticed in the UK media coverage that the study was widely criticised. Being critical of a paper highlighting harms from UPFs effectively defends UPFs.
* The critical comments came from the Science Media Centre (SMC). The SMC has food and drug industry conflicts, as do many of their experts who provide comments.
* The criticisms of the UPF were reasonable, and similar to ones I would have made (with one exception). However, I suspected that similar studies, which attributed many deaths and cardiovascular events to meat consumption, would not receive the same level of criticism. I was right.
* I reviewed the general SMC stance on meat and health, focusing on the same five experts who had criticised the UPF study. I also reviewed some BMJ criticism of industry conflicts among several individuals, universities, food companies, pharmaceutical companies and public health organisations and the SMC response to this criticism.
* While this was far from an exhaustive review, it seems fair to generalise and say that the SMC supports the mainstream narrative in fields. If journalists are looking for any counter views, they will need to look elsewhere.
Zoe
Source link