Thank you. I accidentally published a near-final draft rather than the final version of this post, so I've gone back to the archive and cleaned it up a bit.
I agree with your point. I think the NOVA system works well for the majority of foods, but, as you mentioned, the exceptions complicate things, particularly if we shift focus away from how foods are processed to their health impacts.
For instance, whole milk represents group 1, because it's "minimally processed", but people still need to be cautious about intake given the saturated fat content.
At the same time, some sweetened, flavored milk products represent group 4 owing to the additives, but they're way more nutritious per calorie than, say, Cheetos.
NOVA calls attention to the negative correlation between processing and healthfulness. But when people see a classification system, we don't think correlationally. We don't say, oh, of course there are exceptions. We hold the system to a different standard.
That said, I agree with you on the need to distinguish between empty calorie junk foods and other UPFs. Flavored dairy products for instance seem like a mixed blessing ¬– lots of protein, but also processing effects as well as excessive sugar and saturated fat that make them unhealthy too. Cheetos are just plain unhealthy. Full stop.
Ken, see you wading into some deep waters here. Thanks for this look and I still question the NOVA system usefullness. Seems is really an overly simple classification of a complex area. I prefer the "junk" food classification which are the sugar, salt, saturated fats, no nutritional value "edibles." I find this helpful. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/are-all-ultraprocessed-foods-bad-a-critical-review-of-the-nova-classification-system/16D07B81A1587340B3EE847F3C662E60
Not everything in group 4 is automatically bad.
So, are all "natural" dietary supply under the NOVA Group 4: Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) ? ;)
Thank you. I accidentally published a near-final draft rather than the final version of this post, so I've gone back to the archive and cleaned it up a bit.
I agree with your point. I think the NOVA system works well for the majority of foods, but, as you mentioned, the exceptions complicate things, particularly if we shift focus away from how foods are processed to their health impacts.
For instance, whole milk represents group 1, because it's "minimally processed", but people still need to be cautious about intake given the saturated fat content.
At the same time, some sweetened, flavored milk products represent group 4 owing to the additives, but they're way more nutritious per calorie than, say, Cheetos.
NOVA calls attention to the negative correlation between processing and healthfulness. But when people see a classification system, we don't think correlationally. We don't say, oh, of course there are exceptions. We hold the system to a different standard.
That said, I agree with you on the need to distinguish between empty calorie junk foods and other UPFs. Flavored dairy products for instance seem like a mixed blessing ¬– lots of protein, but also processing effects as well as excessive sugar and saturated fat that make them unhealthy too. Cheetos are just plain unhealthy. Full stop.