I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of.
The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.
We've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though.
I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor.
> I don't care if it's useful to you
> such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.
Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.
