Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
IMDEA-Food, CEI UAM+CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Nutr Res Rev. 2023 Dec;36(2):340-350. doi: 10.1017/S0954422422000117. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
The NOVA classification of food items has become increasingly popular and is being used in several observational studies as well as in nutritional guidelines and recommendations. We propose that there is a need for this classification and its use in the formulation of public health policies to be critically discussed and re-appraised. The terms 'processing' and 'ultra-processing', which are crucial to the NOVA classification, are ill-defined, as no scientific, measurable or precise reference parameters exist for them. Likewise, the theoretical grounds of the NOVA classification are unclear and inaccurate. Overall, the NOVA classification conflicts with the classic, evidence-based evaluation of foods based on composition and portion size because NOVA postulates that the food itself (or how much of it is eaten) is unimportant, but rather that dietary effects are due to how the food is produced. We contend that the NOVA system suffers from a lack of biological plausibility so the assertion that ultra-processed foods are intrinsically unhealthful is largely unproven, and needs further examination and elaboration.
NOVA 分类法在食品领域越来越受欢迎，被广泛应用于多项观察性研究、营养指南和建议中。我们认为，有必要对该分类法及其在制定公共卫生政策中的应用进行批判性讨论和重新评估。“加工”和“超加工”这两个对 NOVA 分类法至关重要的术语，其定义并不明确，因为它们没有科学的、可衡量的或精确的参考参数。同样，NOVA 分类法的理论基础也不清晰和准确。总的来说，NOVA 分类法与基于成分和份量的经典、基于证据的食品评估相冲突，因为 NOVA 假设食物本身（或食用的份量）并不重要，而是食物的生产方式决定了其饮食效果。我们认为，NOVA 系统缺乏生物学上的合理性，因此超加工食品本质上不健康的说法在很大程度上未经证实，需要进一步的研究和阐述。
