Well I cannot address the accuracy of your statement on UPFs unless I assume the term UPF is synonymous with the Nova Classification, which is much of the problem. If it is synonymous then the term is bound to a classification system and that system can dictate what is meant by UPFs leading to the inability for others to refine the term for more accuracy. This is where we are headed with UPF being an evocative term that does not represent the scientific opinion of what is good for you.
The Siga Index seems to be better suited to aiming for positive outcomes but associating it with the term UPF then enables people to conflate findings regarding Nova results with Siga results.
>Currently UPF is not similar to this, in that nobody has yet shown that UPFs are a category containing something else which is bad for you.
There are two aspect to this, firstly it is not that there is containing something 'else'. By definition if it meets the criteria of the definition it is not an 'else' but a part of the criteria.
To phrase that a different way is to say it all fits within in the criteria but the criteria itself is not homogenous.
And that's the second problem with your statement. The Nova classification _is_ similar to this.
From Wikipedia
A number of studies show that although UPFs in general are associated with higher health risks, there exists a large heterogeneity among UPF subgroups. For example, although bread and cereals are classified as UPFs, a large 2023 study published in The Lancet finds them inversely associated with cancer and cardiometabolic diseases in the European population (hazard ratio 0.97). The study found that animal-based products (HR = 1.09) and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages (HR = 1.09) are most strongly associated with diseases among UPFs.
They did find a parallel of Polonium, sweeteners (and another one with animal products)
The Siga Index seems to be better suited to aiming for positive outcomes but associating it with the term UPF then enables people to conflate findings regarding Nova results with Siga results.
>Currently UPF is not similar to this, in that nobody has yet shown that UPFs are a category containing something else which is bad for you.
There are two aspect to this, firstly it is not that there is containing something 'else'. By definition if it meets the criteria of the definition it is not an 'else' but a part of the criteria.
To phrase that a different way is to say it all fits within in the criteria but the criteria itself is not homogenous.
And that's the second problem with your statement. The Nova classification _is_ similar to this.
From Wikipedia
A number of studies show that although UPFs in general are associated with higher health risks, there exists a large heterogeneity among UPF subgroups. For example, although bread and cereals are classified as UPFs, a large 2023 study published in The Lancet finds them inversely associated with cancer and cardiometabolic diseases in the European population (hazard ratio 0.97). The study found that animal-based products (HR = 1.09) and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages (HR = 1.09) are most strongly associated with diseases among UPFs.
They did find a parallel of Polonium, sweeteners (and another one with animal products)