I'm just gonna leave a thought here...

Young people forget how contentious the idea that "tobacco causes cancer" was back in the day. The "circunstancial evidence" was overwhelming[1], so naturally the industry did all it could to muddle the water, in the shape of making money flow towards people who were already predisposed against targeting tobacco. So the thought is: since theres an industry profiting from UPFs, the same will happen around the debate on whether UPFs cause problems.

[1] because the evidence was almost always observational from which you cannot conclude causation, unlike with randomized controlled trials, like with UPFs. They mention to this in the article.