Why I Completely Disagree with Ultra-Processed Foods and NOVA
Why the UPF Narrative Fails Science and Society
Is the discussion about ultra-processed foods mainly a moral panic, as others have written much more eloquently today? In my opinion, it is: and it is a panic that, like so many others, cause a considerable amount of harm.
It is no secret that I firmly reject the concept of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and the NOVA classification system on which it relies. This is not a fringe opinion—as a matter of fact, it’s fairly common and there is now even an open letter that calls for an end to this nonsense1. Even SACN (the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition), which is usually cautious, does not see cause for immediate action and calls out a lack of robust evidence.
Why am I so opposed to ultra-processed foods? My research interest are dietary assessment methods—and I approached NOVA from this angle and was shocked: the system is not suited to be used with the methods we currently use for dietary assessment. But if we can’t measure what people are eating—how can we be so convinced if affects health? There are many other potential explanations—which are usually ignored by activists2.
I thought I should outline my objections. In my opinion, the framework is fundamentally flawed—marred by inconsistencies, ambiguous definitions, and a lack of robust evidence—rendering it unreliable as a guide for dietary policy or personal choice.
No authoritative version of NOVA: A critical flaw in the NOVA system is the absence of a single, authoritative definition. Multiple published versions exist, each differing slightly in its criteria, leaving users without a clear standard to apply. This lack of consensus renders the framework inherently unreliable for consistent use.
Inconsistent Profit Criterion: Certain NOVA definitions designate foods sold for profit as UPF. This criterion is untenable, as the vast majority of food in modern economies is commercially produced. For instance, wine is classified as NOVA 3, yet its status remains unchanged whether sold by a small vintner (like my family) or a multinational corporation. Similarly, a soup sold commercially might be deemed UPF, while the same food distributed in a soup kitchen is not. This lack of coherence undermines the system’s integrity.
Ambiguity in Ingredient Integration: The classification fails to clarify whether incorporating a UPF ingredient elevates an entire dish to NOVA 4 status. If a homemade soup includes a stock cube, does it become UPF? No definitive guidance exists, leaving the boundary between processed and ultra-processed indeterminate and impractical for application.
Arbitrary Categorisation: NOVA’s classifications lack consistency. Bacon and ham, often containing nitrates, are designated NOVA 3, whereas a sausage or burger—sometimes composed solely of meat and herbs—is invariably NOVA 4.
Overreach on Additives: The FAO’s adaptation of NOVA identifies additives such as thickeners, flavours, and colours as hallmarks of UPF. Yet, substances like pectin, used in jam-making for centuries, and cornflour, a traditional thickening agent, are commonplace in domestic kitchens. Labelling these as UPF indicators casts an excessively broad net, misrepresenting their historical and practical roles.
Weak Scientific Foundation: The purported health risks of UPF stem primarily from observational studies, which cannot establish causation. Compounding this, NOVA’s imprecise categories and reliance on dietary assessment tools with known limitations—such as food-frequency questionnaires—introduce significant error. Assumptions, such as classifying all UK bread as UPF irrespective of production methods, further distort findings, rendering the evidence base unreliable.
Diversion of Research Resources: The focus on UPF diverts critical funding from more substantive inquiries into health determinants, such as nutrient deficiencies, microbiome dynamics, or socioeconomic barriers to nutritious diets.
Contradictory Reliance on Composition: NOVA explicitly excludes nutritional composition from its framework, prioritising processing instead. Initially, its proponents dismissed composition-based critiques as food industry tactics and claimed that composition was largely irrelevant. Yet, organisations like Zoe, which once adhered to this UPF narrative, now attribute adverse health effects on high sugar, salt, and fat content—a direct contradiction of NOVA’s foundational stance. Previously, those raising such points were branded industry mouthpiece.
Defensive Campaign Against Reform and Critics: UPF advocates appear so unsettled by criticism that they have initiated a campaign to resist refinements to the system. This is nothing new: they have tried to discredit opponents before by attacking their integrity and trying to silence them.
In my view, the ultra-processed foods narrative resembles a form of moral panic—amplified by a classification system, NOVA, that is riddled with inconsistencies. From the unclear profit criterion to the ambiguous role of food composition, the framework lacks the clarity and rigour needed for sound dietary advice. Rather than guiding meaningful policy, it risks misdirecting resources, distracting from more robust avenues of inquiry, and narrowing the scope of scientific debate. The absence of a definitive, authoritative version of NOVA, combined with the resistance to reform among some of its advocates, further diminishes its credibility. This perspective is not mine alone; the recent open letter from leading experts and SACN’s cautious stance reflect growing unease with the current approach. If we are serious about public health nutrition, we must move beyond catch-all categories and return to evidence-based frameworks that are precise, transparent, and rooted in measurable health outcomes.
It is evident that scientific opinions on the NOVA classification system vary widely. Some researchers staunchly defend it, while others adamantly oppose it. Based on my personal observations, the majority of scientists I have encountered express skepticism toward NOVA, and I am aware of only a small number who actively endorse it.
And this is where the harm comes in. We focus on the pet-topic of some vocal activists while ignoring how we could actually improve the food system and make people healthier.
As a policy analyst and academic, your points about the inconsistencies and ambiguities resonate. I don’t see how NOVA can be helpful for population health. At the same time, as a layperson I do like a few simple heuristics to help me navigate menus and food stores. Some of the heuristics that make prima facie sense to me include the adage of prioritising fresh ingredients with a short shelf life that my great grandparents would have recognised as food, and preparing my own meals at home so I know what’s in them, even if these principles are incomplete and come with a few type I and II errors. Perhaps the folly is trying to over-codify it?
Well done! NOVA is a clumsy, biased, and wholly unreliable method of evaluating the health effects of processed food, and yet it has been used in nearly every study (which as you point out are nearly all observational in nature) that makes headlines and unnecessarily scares consumers. There's so much more to the conversation about processed foods than meets the eye. Thank you for this thoughtful piece.