Do you have any evidence to support that 'processed' food is worse than the alternative?
I don't. Thats why I labelled it "beliefs". If I've got a choice between 1) Carrot 2) Carrot flavoured goo then I'm not going to look for a peer reviewed journal supporting the view that the carrot is better.
I've simply drawn a line in the sand and decided that give uncertainty I'll place my faith in the carrot rather than whatever a profit seeking enterprise engineered for me. We all make decisions in the face of uncertainty & this is one of those judgement calls.
I genuinely believe science can do better than nature can (i.e. engineered functional foods)...but right now looking at the supermarket...its not there for me to buy so I will continue buying nature.
This isn't true. The entire reason there's more salt and sugar in processed foods is to make them taste good. Compare a Snickers bar with broccoli.
Regarding salt, "the experts" don't seem so confident on what levels. In the past few years, the daily recommended intake of sodium has increased.
If you are burning 5000 calories a day hunting or farming, eat all the sugar and fat you want (and can get by your own efforts). But if you are burning 2000 calories a day sitting at a desk... You can't debate food in a vacuum without considering lifestyle.
If one does not believe that they were trolling (i.e. they do not believe that they were doing what trolling is. This is a belief about what they were doing, not a belief about what the word "trolling" means), then that seems like fairly good evidence that they were not trolling.
I don't know what would be a better (and available) measure of one's intent than one's own perception of one's own intent. (Of course, one could imagine that there might be a better source, but in practice I think it is the best evidence we have).
This would only be as convincing to oneself I suppose, but I think that one's memory of one's intent is generally fairly good evidence to present to oneself to show that one was not trolling.