> Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict

> Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict of interest? What kind of sense does that make? > The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. I wasn't make a comment on what they do. I was making a comment on what I would find useful. I don't find saying "ultraprocessed bad mmmm'kay" particularly interesting or insightful. All processes and preservatives are not equal. Pretending they are (or even just glossing over the details) is unscientific and a waste of time and money.