Likewise the categorization of processing is useful for exactly the same reason the category of poisoned is useful. I'd rather not consume poisoned food of any variety even if I'm uncertain which poison has been added to it.
P.S. That being said, I still hate the term ultra-processed. "Junk food" implies the non-specificity better. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45979589
Linnaeus did this, and allowed himself to be wrong, and I argue his organization alone was necessary to talk about theory.
Yes, the UPF classification used here likely flags some false positives and perhaps misses others, but if the methodology is otherwise sound and the link is there, even if fuzzy, I don't think it's as easy as you claim either. And even if if fuzzy, it's still useful as I would be healthier avoiding UPF (assuming accurate study), even if I would also avoid some perfectly healthy foods.
I, and other people argue that it has nothing to do with the processing and it’s all about the ingredients. So the whole differentiation by “processing” amount is useless. We are talking about ingredients without wanting to say so.