Yeah I get that. I think there is merit there, but I think the effect such an article has is to promote the safety and nutritional value of brands that use meat-substitute, plant-based proteins, like beyond-meat (among many others.) It may well be that it is largely harmless. But I think the net effect of a 'double-debunking volley', is that consumers read it, and then ape into diets full of branded cardboard boxed foods, and it obscures the premise of whether or not such a diet is helpful. There's profit and market-share to win back, that's what I read.

I'm not sure that the study which it critisized was particulrly aimed at these products exclusively. More inclusively as ultra-processed foods take many shapes and forms.