The need for particular scrutiny of claims made by researchers associated with ultra-processed food manufacturers

Abstract

Letter to the EditorThe need for particular scrutiny of claims made by researchers associated with ultra-processed food manufacturers Dear EditorThank you again for your invitation for me to provide a Commentary on ultra-processed foods (UPF) (1) . In this Commentary, I referred to challenges the UPF concept presents to researchers with declared associations with UPF manufacturers. The interplay between nutrition research and commercial interests is a widely recognised phenomenon in the commercial determinants of health literature. For example, it has been reported that findings from systematic reviews of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in which the researchers' declared interests with UPF manufacturers were less likely to be counter to the sponsor's interests than reviews on the same topic where no interests were declared (2) . Of course, not all researchers declaring associations with UPF manufacturers make claims to adversely influence policy processes. Nevertheless, UPF-related research has become highly politicised and the integrity of the claims presented by researchers associated with UPF manufacturers demands close scrutiny.It was therefore surprising that in a letter in reply to my Commentary, published in this issue of the journal, Messina et al. accuse me of using 'classic ad hominem reasoning' in describing this phenomenon (3) . This is an extraordinary accusation and it is incorrect as there was no personal attack anywhere in my Commentary. It is also baseless for reasons which include: 1. Messina et al. misrepresent the Commentary's purpose This article has been co-published with permission in British Journal of Nutrition and in Public Health Nutrition.