Is a Label for Ultra-processed Foods Useful?

Thomas R. Collins

June 17, 2022

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into "fresh or minimally processed," such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; "processed culinary ingredients," such as olive oil; "processed foods," such as cheeses; and "ultra-processed foods." UPFs are defined as "industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups."

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health-funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

UPF Definition Doesn't Flag Some Unhealthy Foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn't flag some "clearly unhealthy foods," such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers — to which Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA's definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Roberts said.

"It's almost like it's an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health — and I think that's asking for trouble because it's just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, 'Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn't,' " she said. What's happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Roberts continued. "This definition grew out of that recognition that we're engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe."

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

"This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously," she said. "I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs."

Doctor's Take on Usefulness of Discussing UPF Concept With Patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

"Persistence wears down resistance," said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview. "A consistent message — you say the same thing and you say it multiple times."

The idea of "ultra-processed foods" plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It's a topic that's important for pediatric health, Corkins said — but he doesn't make it the focal point.

"It's not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction," said Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. "What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better."

He added, "Parents are aware — they don't call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food."

Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods — ultra-processed or not — lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

"Guilt as a motivator isn't really highly successful," he said, in an interview.

Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Monteiro and Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

This story originally appeared on, part of the Medscape Professional Network.


Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.