Does the concept of "ultra-processed foods" help inform dietary guidelines, beyond conventional classification systems? NO.

The Nova classification of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) rests on poorly defined food processes and the presence of food additives from a chemically heterogeneous group, easily leading to misclassification. UPFs are claimed to promote overconsumption of energy and obesity due to high palatability, but little evidence supports effects beyond those that can be accounted for by nutrient composition, energy density, and food matrices. Observational studies link dietary intake of UPFs with obesity, but none have demonstrated independent associations after controlling for likely confounders. A highly cited randomized controlled feeding study that compared a UPF diet with an unprocessed diet showed a rapidly weaning effect on energy intake that can be entirely explained by more conventional and quantifiable dietary factors, including energy density, intrinsic fiber, glycemic load, and added sugar. Clearly, many aspects of food processing can affect health outcomes, but conflating them into the notion of ultra-processing is unnecessary, because the main determinants of chronic disease risk are already captured by existing nutrient profiling systems. In conclusion, the Nova classification adds little to existing nutrient profiling systems; characterizes several healthy, nutrient-dense foods as unhealthy; and is counterproductive to solve the major global food production challenges.