The associated adverse health impacts and lack of consumer understanding of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) often drive skepticism around their consumption. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) is exploring this category in its latest journal, which includes UPFs characterization and definition under the Nova food classification system, which experts agree is too broad and needs refinement.

The Nova food classification system categorizes foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed, processed culinary ingredients, processed, and ultra-processed foods.

According to the FAO, the ingredients and processes used while manufacturing UPFs make them highly convenient and “hyper palatable” for consumers and “highly profitable” for manufacturers due to their low-cost ingredients and long shelf life.

However, the system “fails” to make a reasoned and scientific-based classification of foods, according to their degree of processing and/or formulation and their contribution to health outcomes, Mario Estévez, IFT’s Journal of Food Science scientific editor, and professor at the Universidad de Extremadura, Spain, tells Food Ingredients First.

“Generally speaking, there is no straightforward connection between degree of processing or number of ingredients/additives and negative health outcomes, and hence certain foods into Nova 3 and 4 categories (processed and UPFs) may contribute to a healthy diet.”

Moreover, certain minimally processed foods that, according to their composition (i.e., rich in naturally occurring sugars or starchy foods), are “naturally” caloric-rich and “naturally” deprived of essential nutrients and “may contribute to high caloric intake, overeating, and obesity,” he adds.

Matt Teegarden, Ph. D., a member of IFT’s Food Chemistry division, agrees that the UPFs concept is “entirely too broad” from a research perspective.

“As defined by Nova, store-bought whole grain bread and a candy bar would be considered equivalently healthy because they both fall within the UPF category. These two foods are very different — one is a staple food with certain health benefits, and the other is a treat that should be enjoyed more sparingly.”

“A lot of the epidemiological research that has been done using Nova groups foods like these into one category, which is problematic when trying to understand how UPFs might affect health.”

Acknowledging nutrition

We attended IFT’s recent webinar, “Navigating the Science of Ultra-Processed Foods,” wher the University of Copenhagen presented a two-year initiative to redefine UPF classification. It aims to “distinguish between healthy and unhealthy UPFs,” according to Susanne Gjedsted Bügel, professor and head of Nutrition and Health, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the university

“It all started with the Nova classification system becoming popular and used globally. The Nova classification system is solely based on food processing and formulation and does not include nutritional value and is not based on scientific evidence,” she tells Food Ingredients First.

“Some UPFs are, according to food-based dietary guidelines, classified as highly nutritious — my best example is still rye bread which has a very high content of whole-grain and dietary fibers.”

According to her, bread and cereals, in some instances, “if they have high whole-grain and fiber content and are low in sugar and salt,” are the most misunderstood UPFs.

Meanwhile, Estévez believes that in the present scenario of confusion and controversy surrounding UPFs, there is a “very open debate on the role of certain UPFs in human health.”

“Plant-based alternatives to animal foods are a good example: plant proteins are extruded to imitate the mouthfeel of meat, for instance, and that technological process impacts the nutritional value, digestibility and health outcome of the proteins.”

For Teegarden, breaking down UPFs into subcategories shows that some, like fortified cereals, are not harmful since then they are “not necessarily associated with an elevated risk of certain diseases.”

Leveraging food technology

Taagarden continues that food technologies could help address many of the concerns raised by Nova, but “likely result in foods still being classified as UPFs using the current, inappropriately broad definition.”

However, Estévez points to a focus on formulation and technology. 

“In terms of formulation, avoid free and polymerized sugars (starch) and refined seed oils. Using food ingredients of recognized nutritional value (essential) like high-quality protein, vitamins, minerals, or those with recognized protective effects against certain diseases like dietary fiber or probiotics, should be recommended for health-promoting new foods.”

“In terms of technology, avoid severe processing and always optimize processes to guarantee safety and avoid unnecessary changes that may remove/deplete certain essential nutrients or food components with protective effects.”

Regulating emerging technologies

The US and the EU have strict laws regulating the use of ingredients and additives, sources, doses, and uses, underscores Estévez.

“There is no legislation for many emerging technologies that may contribute to designing and producing new foods with interesting health-promoting properties or, conversely, turn wholesome foods into a caloric-dense, nutrient-deprived junk food.”

Some technologies, like pasteurization, are regulated for food safety and longer shelf life. However, new methods like protein extrusion for texture, don’t address “biological threat” but may lead to severe food changes that may compromise their nutritional value and health outcome, he adds.

 “Since we still ignore the extent to which some of these new technologies impact the health properties of foods, they should be used with care. More knowledge is required to potentially create a scientifically based regulatory framework for these emerging technologies.”

Role of companies and consumer choices

Estévez urges food companies to leverage science to ensure safe, palatable, nutritious UPFs.

“Whether because they have a social responsibility they want, or need, to articulate, or because they simply want to fulfil the demand of health-conscious consumers, it is truly important that companies implement scientific knowledge into their formulations and processing technologies.”

However, Teegarden questions whether consumers will consider less processed food versions healthier.

“I would hypothesize that the average consumer understands that whole grain bread is not nutritionally equivalent to a candy bar. But what about within a certain category? If a company was able to make a ‘less-processed’ candy bar, would it actually be healthier than a UPF candy bar? Likely not, so what would be the point?”

“I am concerned that a non-UPF label might signal consumers that they are able to eat more of the candy bar because it’s ‘healthy.’”

For Bügel, the industry has “too many labels,” and believes it would be much easier for consumers if some of them are combined and the “inclusion of unhealthy processed foods could be part of that.”

Meanwhile, Estévez supports consuming “wholesome unprocessed/minimally processed foods” for better physical health, mood and overall well-being.

Spreading awareness

Despite the high toll that diet-related chronic diseases take on public health and finances, Estévez believes expecting governments or food companies to lead consumer education is unrealistic. 

“Scientists and teachers at all educational levels should be fully involved in trying to increase awareness on the role that foods and nutrition play in our physical and mental health. Mass and social media should also play their part in disseminating scientifically based knowledge, free of interests, political inclinations, and personal beliefs.”

“Every child should know basic knowledge on foods and nutrition.That is essential, as even if they won’t cook for themselves in the future, they will have the knowledge to know what to selec or choose when being at the dining hall, at a restaurant, or while buying foods at the supermarket,” he observes.

Will UPFs continue to dominate food supply?

Processed foods and UPFs provide “safety and convenience” and will still be produced and consumed in ten years and for a much longer time, asserts Estévez.

Bügel agrees, but hopes to collaborate with the food industry to “decrease the use of some of the most harmful industrial processes.”

Meanwhile, Teegarden presents an “optimistic” stance on the future of UPFs.

 “I think a more scientific definition of UPFs will be reached that will help refine what is and is not a UPF. My hope is that it comes closer to what decades of nutrition science are already telling us.”

“The bigger question in my mind is whether having a better definition of UPFs will meaningfully improve public health outcomes. More resources are needed in the public sector to do real, impactful, nutrition science research using an interdisciplinary approach.”

However, Estévez concludes that a fast hedonic response would “never completely replac the joy of taking time to prepare and/or eat wholesome and satiating dishes prepared from fresh foods.”