You will struggle to get foods without chemicals - and so far, the evidence for adverse effects of UPF on health (beyond composition) is incredibly weak. Indeed - RCTs suggest that as long as one follows recommendations, there is no increase in disease risk.

What is really interesting: he completely ignores the massive reformulation to reduce salt - which was very successful.

www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcar...

Because industry followed public health advise and reformulated food. Obviously they wanted to make profit - someone has to pay for example for pensions.

But now: all food is bad (except apparently for Quorn, which he approves of).

Where can I read about this? Here is our paper:|
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/a...

What does that mean? It is important to take background diet and adherence into consideration in RCT to obtain more reliable estimates of outcomes through nutritional biomarker-based analyses. And it is quite likely that many studies underestimate the effect size.

We have compared traditional analysis (based on randomisation) and biomarker based analysis (using actual adherence and background) - and the results are striking: the effect sizes are much larger.

In our study, we found that at baseline, 20% of participants in either group (control or intervention) already consumed 500 mg/d of flavanols - the amount used in the study.

Ignoring this in the analysis weakens the observed effect size.

But here comes the hitch: in drug trials, it's very unlikely that people take the drug before the begin of the study - but that's different in nutrition as we all eat.

That has a huge impact on the outcome, because the control group won't be a real control anymore.

We can use biomarkers: blood & urine don't lie. For flavanols, we have developed two validated biomarkers that help us estimate intake.

It is interesting to see that while most in the intervention group did take their flavanols - not all did! And we now know who they were.

A key challenge in all trials is adherence: how do we know whether participants take the intervention? We can ask people whether they followed the intervention - but some people might just forget about it.

How cute! And so healthy!

Menu labelling was meant to empower us, but inaccurate info might mislead instead. Should we ditch static labels for something smarter? Tech?

This has big implications for public health:
Unreliable food data = misinformed diets = bigger health crises.
#FoodComposition #HealthPolicy

This isn’t just a consumer issue—it’s a science problem. Nutrition studies rely on consistent food data. If what’s on the plate doesn’t match the database, how reliable are those findings? Time to rethink dietary assessment. #DietaryResearch

We tested 39 takeaway meals for sodium - which can be measured very reliably. But labels menu labels don’t match reality. Variability is wild—enough to throw off diet tracking and blow past health guidelines. Are we eating blind? #MenuLabelling #PublicHealth

Those who have most to gain from such an approach is the public - because the food system can be improved.

Why do some people vehemently object to changing the status quo? Many signatories have clear financial interest in keeping the narrative alive.