Yeah.

It was meant to understand the, the makeup of diets, right? And so what's happened is...

So NOVA would, for instance, say, well, if we have high incidence of obesity in particular communities and not other communities, and the former community eats a diet of, let's say, 75% NOVA ultra-processed, and the latter community eats a diet of, let's say, 50% NOVA ultra-processed, and there are differences in health, we might be able to point to the ultra-processed foods as the culprit.

This is how NOVA was intended to be used.

The way it's come to be used is to suggest that foods that are, quote-unquote, "ultra-processed" are somehow inherently unhealthful.

And we quite simply know that's not the case because if you look at studies that, uh, try to find correlation or causation between the consumption of ultra-processed foods and negative health outcomes, and you actually dig into the data, what you'll find is that ultra... quote-unquote, "ultra-processed foods" are only really, uh, sort of in a statistically meaningful sense correlated to negative health outcomes when they contain the things we already know are bad.

So sodium, sugar, fat, red meat.

What, what's your reaction?