Food fight: controversy over red meat guidelines rumbles on

Processed Foods - Getting Back to The Basics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Real-world data suggested that more than half of daily energy intake is coming from processed and ultra-processed foods in most western countries. This high consumption of processed foods is of concern, given laboratory and epidemiological studies' findings that prove overwhelming harms of processed foods on human health.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data demonstrate that consumption of processed foods is increasing with more reports linking ultra-processed foods to various medical conditions; namely, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, and certain types of cancer. Scientific community's understanding of the mechanisms and substances by which processed foods are affecting human health is expanding. Holistic approach to the current critical situation is advisable and requires collaborative public health strategies. The current review describes recent classification of processed foods and highlights the pertinent findings in the relationship between processed foods and health. It also outlines key clinical data relevant to the topic.

Arguments about face masks and Covid-19 reflect broader methodologic debates within medical science

There has perhaps been no issue as contentious in Covid-19 as face masks. The most contentious scientific debate has been between those who argue that "there is no scientific evidence", by which they mean that there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs), versus those who argue that when the evidence is considered together, "the science supports that face coverings save lives". It used to be a 'given' that to decide whether a particular factor, either exogenous or endogenous, can cause a particular disease, and in what order of magnitude, one should consider all reasonably cogent evidence. This approach is being increasingly challenged, both scientifically and politically. The scientific challenge has come from methodologic views that focus on the randomized controlled trial (RCT) as the scientific gold standard, with priority being given, either to evidence from RCTs or to observational studies which closely mimic RCTs. The political challenge has come from various interests calling for the exclusion of epidemiological evidence from consideration by regulatory and advisory committees.