> "Ultra-processed foods" isn't a scientific concept

This is like arguing astronomy isn’t real because colloquial definitions of space are ambiguous.

The study [1] uses a definition that finds a significant effect. We should investigate that further. If it pans out and the term ultra-processed food triggers people, we can rebrand it. (Did the cigarette lobby ever try muddying the water on what cigarettes are?)

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.70066