The recent study linking ultra-processed food consumption to an increased risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality should be viewed with a critical lens. While the study is well designed, with a large cohort, and adjusted for many relevant confounders, it is crucial to understand that association does not equal causation. There may be other underlying factors that contribute to the observed association, such as differences in lifestyle, types of processed foods, and dietary habits, that could explain the link between UPF consumption and cancer risk.
Additionally, the NOVA classification system used to categorize the degree of food processing in this study may not be the best method for understanding the relationship between UPF consumption and cancer risk. Many human studies have shown the benefits of processing processed foods, and the level of processing used by the NOVA classification may be too broad to accurately capture the nuances of food processing and its impact on health.
Moreover, the concept of hyperpalatability of processed foods and its impact on health needs to be more closely examined. The human palate adapts to stimuli based on frequency and exposure, and it is possible that the palatability of UPFs is not as significant a factor in driving consumption as previously thought.
Finally, it is very important to consider the implications of this study in the hands of sensationalist newspapers and charlatans who may use it to push their alternative products and services, such as cook-from-scratch recipes, diet books, and manifestations of processed information to naive customers.
These types of studies, though suggestive, can be regressive and do not promote a scientifically informed understanding of the complex interplay between diet, health, and disease, especially for the general public. Instead, we need to focus on creating better foods using better science that fit the modern lifestyle. The latter is our vision.