“
TL;DR
This letter responds to criticism of a prior commentary that called for close scrutiny of claims made by researchers with declared financial ties to ultra-processed food manufacturers.
The British Journal of Nutrition · 1 author, 1 centre
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
This letter responds to criticism of a prior commentary that called for close scrutiny of claims made by researchers with declared financial ties to ultra-processed food manufacturers.
The author argues that the commentary's purpose was to describe the politicised nature of ultra-processed food (UPF) research and call for scrutiny of claims by researchers with declared interests in UPF manufacturers, not to personally attack anyone. The letter outlines specific misrepresentations by Messina et al., including their claim that soya-based meat and dairy alternatives—not legumes and nuts—are the logical replacements for animal-source foods. The author counters that minimally processed legumes and nuts have a long history as meat replacements and cites a Nordic study supporting this. The letter notes that the authors of Messina et al. have declared long-standing associations with UPF manufacturers.