Dr. Chris van Tulleken

France, Israel, Belgium, most South and Central American countries, Canada, give advice using the NOVA classification. And it's a nine-paragraph definition. But the definition, and it broadly describes modern, pre-packaged, pre-prepared American industrial food. And I'm sorry, I know this is an American audience here.

And in fact, you know, many, many transnational corporations make these products. But we're talking about food wrapped in plastic made using additives. Now, the definition was never designed to be used in law to ban something or tax something. So when commentators say, oh, the definition has, it's too vague. You can't use it to define a product. Absolutely.

And in fact, you know, many, many transnational corporations make these products. But we're talking about food wrapped in plastic made using additives. Now, the definition was never designed to be used in law to ban something or tax something. So when commentators say, oh, the definition has, it's too vague. You can't use it to define a product. Absolutely.

And in fact, you know, many, many transnational corporations make these products. But we're talking about food wrapped in plastic made using additives. Now, the definition was never designed to be used in law to ban something or tax something. So when commentators say, oh, the definition has, it's too vague. You can't use it to define a product. Absolutely.

And no one, I don't think anyone sensible is saying we should use this as the way of labeling food or taxing it or banning it. But the definition has had research power because it was testing a hypothesis. It was saying, is there something more to harmful food than simple levels of salt, sugar and fat?

And no one, I don't think anyone sensible is saying we should use this as the way of labeling food or taxing it or banning it. But the definition has had research power because it was testing a hypothesis. It was saying, is there something more to harmful food than simple levels of salt, sugar and fat?

And no one, I don't think anyone sensible is saying we should use this as the way of labeling food or taxing it or banning it. But the definition has had research power because it was testing a hypothesis. It was saying, is there something more to harmful food than simple levels of salt, sugar and fat?

And is industrially produced food different to the food you cook at home even when you adjust for that? And so across now hundreds of research studies, I mean... Just a few years ago, for any one health outcome, there were maybe 10 to 15 longitudinal studies. We now have really more than 100 of the kind of prospective studies that we use to link cigarettes to lung cancer.

And is industrially produced food different to the food you cook at home even when you adjust for that? And so across now hundreds of research studies, I mean... Just a few years ago, for any one health outcome, there were maybe 10 to 15 longitudinal studies. We now have really more than 100 of the kind of prospective studies that we use to link cigarettes to lung cancer.

And is industrially produced food different to the food you cook at home even when you adjust for that? And so across now hundreds of research studies, I mean... Just a few years ago, for any one health outcome, there were maybe 10 to 15 longitudinal studies. We now have really more than 100 of the kind of prospective studies that we use to link cigarettes to lung cancer.

We now have these for ultra processed food and negative health outcomes.

We now have these for ultra processed food and negative health outcomes.

We now have these for ultra processed food and negative health outcomes.

I can't think of anything other than maybe asbestos that has that same hazard ratio or odds ratio, however you want to calculate it in epidemiological terms, in terms of the magnitude of harm it causes. What we see with UPF, depending on the outcome you look at, is we see increases of times 1.5, times 2, times 3. So big increases in absolute risk. Exactly the kind of risks that we accept

I can't think of anything other than maybe asbestos that has that same hazard ratio or odds ratio, however you want to calculate it in epidemiological terms, in terms of the magnitude of harm it causes. What we see with UPF, depending on the outcome you look at, is we see increases of times 1.5, times 2, times 3. So big increases in absolute risk. Exactly the kind of risks that we accept

I can't think of anything other than maybe asbestos that has that same hazard ratio or odds ratio, however you want to calculate it in epidemiological terms, in terms of the magnitude of harm it causes. What we see with UPF, depending on the outcome you look at, is we see increases of times 1.5, times 2, times 3. So big increases in absolute risk. Exactly the kind of risks that we accept

for many, many other links between, you know, let's say poor sleep quality and early mortality, for example. So cigarettes, we see enormous deltas, but we, you know, ultra processed food, it's smaller because diet related disease has many, it's very causally dense. And there are lots of different ways that dietary patterns affect you.

for many, many other links between, you know, let's say poor sleep quality and early mortality, for example. So cigarettes, we see enormous deltas, but we, you know, ultra processed food, it's smaller because diet related disease has many, it's very causally dense. And there are lots of different ways that dietary patterns affect you.

for many, many other links between, you know, let's say poor sleep quality and early mortality, for example. So cigarettes, we see enormous deltas, but we, you know, ultra processed food, it's smaller because diet related disease has many, it's very causally dense. And there are lots of different ways that dietary patterns affect you.

So one of the really important things to say is when we look at those hazard ratios and different studies report this in different ways, Almost all of the epidemiological evidence has made adjustments for dietary pattern and for nutrient profile. So if we look at this was a study, a really well reported study done by one of my PhD students, Sam Dickin. He's now not a PhD student.