Given evident multiple threats to food systems and supplies, food security, human health and welfare, the living and physical world and the biosphere, the years 2016-2025 are now designated by the UN as the Decade of Nutrition, in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. For these initiatives to succeed, it is necessary to know which foods contribute to health and well-being, and which are unhealthy. The present commentary outlines the NOVA system of food classification based on the nature, extent and purpose of food processing. Evidence that NOVA effectively addresses the quality of diets and their impact on all forms of malnutrition, and also the sustainability of food systems, has now accumulated in a number of countries, as shown here. A singular feature of NOVA is its identification of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are not modified foods, but formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes (hence 'ultra-processed'). All together, they are energy-dense, high in unhealthy types of fat, refined starches, free sugars and salt, and poor sources of protein, dietary fibre and micronutrients. Ultra-processed products are made to be hyper-palatable and attractive, with long shelf-life, and able to be consumed anywhere, any time. Their formulation, presentation and marketing often promote overconsumption. Studies based on NOVA show that ultra-processed products now dominate the food supplies of various high-income countries and are increasingly pervasive in lower-middle- and upper-middle-income countries. The evidence so far shows that displacement of minimally processed foods and freshly prepared dishes and meals by ultra-processed products is associated with unhealthy dietary nutrient profiles and several diet-related non-communicable diseases. Ultra-processed products are also troublesome from social, cultural, economic, political and environmental points of view. We conclude that the ever-increasing production and consumption of these products is a world crisis, to be confronted, checked and reversed as part of the work of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and its Decade of Nutrition.

The present commentary contains a clear and simple guide designed to identify ultra-processed foods. It responds to the growing interest in ultra-processed foods among policy makers, academic researchers, health professionals, journalists and consumers concerned to devise policies, investigate dietary patterns, advise people, prepare media coverage, and when buying food and checking labels in shops or at home. Ultra-processed foods are defined within the NOVA classification system, which groups foods according to the extent and purpose of industrial processing. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances, frequent use of cosmetic additives and sophisticated packaging. Processes and ingredients used to manufacture ultra-processed foods are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-consume), hyper-palatable products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups, notably unprocessed or minimally processed foods. A practical way to identify an ultra-processed product is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the NOVA ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).

The study contributes to a growing literature showing that the consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of diet-related non-communicable diseases. Its findings reinforce the need for public policies and actions that promote consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and make ultra-processed foods less available and affordable.

Dietary share of ultra-processed foods determines the overall nutritional quality of diets in Brazil.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the consumption of ultra-processed foods in Australia and its association with the intake of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases (NCDs).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingNational Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (2011-2012).Participants12,153 participants aged 2+ years.Main outcome measuresAverage dietary content of nutrients linked to NCDs and the prevalence of intake outside levels recommended for the prevention of NCDs.Data analysisFood items were classified according to the NOVA system, a classification based on the nature, extent and purpose of industrial food processing. The contribution of each NOVA food group and their subgroups to total energy intake was calculated. Mean nutrient content of ultra-processed food and non-ultra-processed food fractions of the diet were compared. Across quintiles of the energy contribution of ultra-processed foods, differences in the intake of nutrients linked to NCDs as well as in the prevalence of intakes outside levels recommended for the prevention of NCDs were examined.ResultsUltra-processed foods had the highest dietary contribution (42.0% of energy intake), followed by unprocessed or minimally processed foods (35.4%), processed foods (15.8%) and processed culinary ingredients (6.8%). A positive and statistically significant linear trend was found between quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption and intake levels of free sugars (standardised β 0.43, p<0.001); total (β 0.08, p<0.001), saturated (β 0.18, p<0.001) and trans fats (β 0.10, p<0.001); sodium (β 0.21, p<0.001) and diet energy density (β 0.41, p<0.001), while an inverse relationship was observed for dietary fibre (β -0.21, p<0.001) and potassium (β -0.27, p<0.001). The prevalence of non-recommended intake levels of all studied nutrients increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food intake, notably from 22% to 82% for free sugars, from 6% to 11% for trans fat and from 2% to 25% for dietary energy density, from the lowest to the highest ultra-processed food quintile.ConclusionThe high energy contribution of ultra-processed foods impacted negatively on the intake of non-ultra-processed foods and on all nutrients linked to NCDs in Australia. Decreasing the dietary share of ultra-processed foods would substantially improve the diet quality in the country and help the population achieve recommendations on critical nutrients linked to NCDs.

We examined the association between the consumption of ultra-processed foods and adiposity in a nationally representative sample of the UK adult population. We studied 6,143 participants (19 to 96 years, 51.6% female) sampled by the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-16). Food items reported in four-day food diary were classified according to the NOVA system. Multiple linear and logistic regressions were used to evaluate associations between the dietary contribution of ultra-processed foods (sexspecific quartile and continuous) and Body Mass Index (BMI), Waist Circumference (WC) and obesity (BMI>30kg/m 2) and abdominal obesity (men: WC�102cm, women: WC�88cm) status. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics. In multivariable analyses, the highest consumption of ultra-processed food was associated with 1.66 kg/m 2 higher BMI (95%CI 0.96-2.36), 3.56 cm greater WC (95%CI 1.79-5.33) and 90% higher odds for being obese (OR = 1.90, 95%CI 1.39-2.61), compared with the lowest consumption. A 10% increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with an increase of 0.38 kg/m 2 in BMI (95%CI 0.20-0.55), 0.87 cm in WC (95%CI 0.40-1.33) and 18% higher odds of being obese (OR = 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.28). The consumption of ultra-processed food was associated with an increase in BMI, WC and prevalence of obesity in both sexes. A dose response relationship was observed in both sexes, with a 10% increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods being associated with a 18% increase in the prevalence of obesity in men and a 17% increase in women. Higher consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with greater adiposity in the UK adult population. Policy makers should consider actions that promote consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Objective: To evaluate the association of ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption with gains in weight and waist circumference, and incident overweight/obesity, in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) cohort. Design: We applied FFQ at baseline and categorized energy intake by degree of processing using the NOVA classification. Height, weight and waist circumference were measured at baseline and after a mean 3·8-year follow-up. We assessed associations, through Poisson regression with robust variance, of UPF consumption with large weight gain (1·68 kg/year) and large waist gain (2·42 cm/year), both being defined as ≥90th percentile in the cohort, and with incident overweight/obesity. Setting: Brazil. Participants: Civil servants of Brazilian public academic institutions in six cities (n 11 827), aged 35-74 years at baseline (2008)(2009)(2010). Results: UPF provided a mean 24·6 (SD 9·6) % of ingested energy. After adjustment for smoking, physical activity, adiposity and other factors, fourth (>30·8 %) v. first (<17·8 %) quartile of UPF consumption was associated (relative risk (95 % CI)) with 27 and 33 % greater risk of large weight and waist gains (1·27 (1·07, 1·50) and 1·33 (1·12, 1·58)), respectively. Similarly, those in the fourth consumption quartile presented 20 % greater risk (1·20 (1·03, 1·40)) of incident overweight/obesity and 2 % greater risk (1·02; (0·85, 1·21)) of incident obesity. Approximately 15 % of cases of large weight and waist gains and of incident overweight/obesity could be attributed to consumption of >17·8 % of energy as UPF. Conclusions: Greater UPF consumption predicts large gains in overall and central adiposity and may contribute to the inexorable rise in obesity seen worldwide. Keywords Ultra-processed food Obesity Weight gain Food handlingThe world has witnessed a progressive, major increase in the burden of obesity over recent decades. Since 1980, the prevalence has doubled in more than seventy out of 195 countries (1) and obesity has become a major problem not only in high-income but also in low-and middleincome countries (2) .

OBJECTIVE:To describe the regional and socioeconomic distribution of household food availability in Brazil. METHODS: Data from the 2008-2009Household Budget Survey on food and beverage acquisition for household consumption, conducted by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografi a e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), were analyzed. The amounts of foods, recorded during seven consecutive days in the 55,970 sample households, were converted into calories and nutrients. Food quality indicators were constructed and analyzed according to the regional and socioeconomic strata of the Brazilian population. RESULTS:The amount of energy from protein was adequate in all regional and socioeconomic strata. On the other hand, an excess of free sugars and fats was observed in all regions of the country, especially in the Southern and Southeastern regions. The proportion of saturated fats was high in urban areas and consistent with the greater contribution of animal-derived products. Limited availability of fruits and vegetables was found in all regions. An increase in the fat content and reduction in carbohydrate content of the diet were observed with the increase in income. CONCLUSIONS:The negative characteristics of the Brazilian diet observed at the end of the fi rst decade of the 21 st century indicate the need to prioritize public policies for the promotion of healthy eating.