On Wednesday, at a media briefing in London, a panel of expert scientists suggested consumers should not get too hung up on concerns raised about UPFs. They could sometimes even be good for people, they said.
The briefing, organised by the Science Media Centre, generated headlines including “Ultra-processed foods as good as homemade fare, say experts”, “Ultra-processed foods can be good for you, say nutritionists”, and “Ultra-processed foods can sometimes be better for you, experts claim”.
Three of the five participants on the panel have either received financial support for research from UPF manufacturers or hold key positions with organisations that are funded by them. The manufacturers include Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever and General Mills.
…
There is no suggestion that the scientists failed to declare potential conflicts of interest. Each provided declarations of interests before the briefing, which the Science Media Centre shared with journalists. However, there was no mention of their links to UPF manufacturers in any of the media coverage.
The media not passing on the scientists credentials can’t be being influenced by the companies funding those scientists also being some of their biggest advertisers. Can it?
Who pays the bills for these media companies? It’s not the masses who ingest their content mostly for free. It’s the advertisers that get to push their content along with the media content that keep the presses going, websites managed, production costs cleared.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Three out of five scientists on an expert panel that suggested ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are being unfairly demonised have ties to the world’s largest manufacturers of the products, the Guardian can reveal.
Recent studies have linked UPFs such as ice-cream, fizzy drinks and ready meals to poor health, including an increased risk of cancer, weight gain and heart disease.
Prof Pete Wilde, of the Quadram Institute in Norwich, told the briefing: “Homemade cakes or cheesecakes are not considered processed but they contain high levels of sugar, fat and possibly salt and [are] rapidly digested energy.
Prof Ciarán Forde, of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, told the briefing that advice to avoid UPF “risks demonising foods that are nutritionally beneficial”.
Fiona Fox, the chief executive of the Science Media Centre, said: “The SMC regularly runs background briefings where journalists can question leading scientists on topical issues so that the public get good quality evidence.
However, senior scientists these days are encouraged by universities and funders to have contact with a wide array of partners including industry so that scientific research has impact on wider society.
The original article contains 982 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
