[brokensegue]

"foods with low nutritional value but high energy density" is not the definition of UPFs that I've seen most often. The definition I most see is the NOVA classification. NOVA doesn't require a UPF food to be of low nutritional value or high energy density.

Also the GOP opposed mere taxes on sugary drinks but now they want to ban UPFs? I don't believe it.

[hedora]

Of course. The study goes back to the 1960’s, so they can’t use classifications that didn’t exist back then.

That’s why I said “preliminary”

Alternatively, they could read more than three abstracts, and find a better definition.

Regardless, there’s enough evidence for a ban, and also quantifiable metrics that could be used to define one.

I’d expect the regulators and scientific community to do better than my proposal.