Dr. Chris van Tulleken

They're a sign that your food has been designed in a system that is about profit, not health. We can argue there are certain classes of additives, and I think you've had some very sophisticated thoughts on this and have spoken a lot about this. There are some classes of additives I think have quite good evidence for health harms.

They're a sign that your food has been designed in a system that is about profit, not health. We can argue there are certain classes of additives, and I think you've had some very sophisticated thoughts on this and have spoken a lot about this. There are some classes of additives I think have quite good evidence for health harms.

There are others where, who knows, a bit of potassium sorbate probably doesn't do you any harm. There's lots of things like acetate or propionate your body makes anyway. A lot of the colouring probably doesn't do much harm. There's natural flavouring. These are signs that food is industrially processed. So taking that definition...

There are others where, who knows, a bit of potassium sorbate probably doesn't do you any harm. There's lots of things like acetate or propionate your body makes anyway. A lot of the colouring probably doesn't do much harm. There's natural flavouring. These are signs that food is industrially processed. So taking that definition...

There are others where, who knows, a bit of potassium sorbate probably doesn't do you any harm. There's lots of things like acetate or propionate your body makes anyway. A lot of the colouring probably doesn't do much harm. There's natural flavouring. These are signs that food is industrially processed. So taking that definition...

The question is then to go, if due for whatever reason, does that definition of food, do products that meet that definition cause negative health outcomes? And so we then have a set of criteria, as you very well know, to evaluate evidence where we go, are we just mistaking products Food that's eaten by people who live in disadvantage, people with low incomes, people who also smoke and drink.

The question is then to go, if due for whatever reason, does that definition of food, do products that meet that definition cause negative health outcomes? And so we then have a set of criteria, as you very well know, to evaluate evidence where we go, are we just mistaking products Food that's eaten by people who live in disadvantage, people with low incomes, people who also smoke and drink.

The question is then to go, if due for whatever reason, does that definition of food, do products that meet that definition cause negative health outcomes? And so we then have a set of criteria, as you very well know, to evaluate evidence where we go, are we just mistaking products Food that's eaten by people who live in disadvantage, people with low incomes, people who also smoke and drink.

Are we mistaking food that's signifying a poor lifestyle for food that's actually causing harm? And of course, we now have across, I mean, we can go through this in detail, the Bradford Hill criteria. I would say ultra processed food has more than met the threshold for causality where we can say with confidence it causes negative health outcomes.

Are we mistaking food that's signifying a poor lifestyle for food that's actually causing harm? And of course, we now have across, I mean, we can go through this in detail, the Bradford Hill criteria. I would say ultra processed food has more than met the threshold for causality where we can say with confidence it causes negative health outcomes.

Are we mistaking food that's signifying a poor lifestyle for food that's actually causing harm? And of course, we now have across, I mean, we can go through this in detail, the Bradford Hill criteria. I would say ultra processed food has more than met the threshold for causality where we can say with confidence it causes negative health outcomes.

And we have experimental evidence, we have epidemiological evidence and so on.

And we have experimental evidence, we have epidemiological evidence and so on.

And we have experimental evidence, we have epidemiological evidence and so on.

I wondered if you were going to... I have them in front of me, actually. I spend a lot of my academic life and my broadcasting life critiquing people who don't declare and who do declare significant conflicts of interest. The interesting thing about that debate is there was very little scientific merit to what Astrup was saying in terms of the arguments he was making were not good faith.

I wondered if you were going to... I have them in front of me, actually. I spend a lot of my academic life and my broadcasting life critiquing people who don't declare and who do declare significant conflicts of interest. The interesting thing about that debate is there was very little scientific merit to what Astrup was saying in terms of the arguments he was making were not good faith.

I wondered if you were going to... I have them in front of me, actually. I spend a lot of my academic life and my broadcasting life critiquing people who don't declare and who do declare significant conflicts of interest. The interesting thing about that debate is there was very little scientific merit to what Astrup was saying in terms of the arguments he was making were not good faith.

So he would set up propositions that no one else was setting up in order that they would be easy to knock down. So he was setting up straw men saying it's not a useful policy instrument.

So he would set up propositions that no one else was setting up in order that they would be easy to knock down. So he was setting up straw men saying it's not a useful policy instrument.

So he would set up propositions that no one else was setting up in order that they would be easy to knock down. So he was setting up straw men saying it's not a useful policy instrument.