Robustness of Food Processing Classification Systems

Abstract

Discrepancies exist among food processing classification systems and in the relationship between processed food intake and dietary quality of children. This study compared inter-rater reliability, food processing category, and the relationship between processing category and nutrient concentration among three systems (Nova, International Food Information Council (IFIC), and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)). Processing categories for the top 100 most commonly consumed foods children consume (NHANES 2013–2014) were independently coded and compared using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Relative ability of nutrient concentration to predict processing category was investigated using linear discriminant analysis and multinomial logistic regression and compared between systems using Cohen’s kappa coefficient. UNC had the highest inter-rater reliability (ρ = 0.97), followed by IFIC (ρ = 0.78) and Nova (ρ = 0.76). UNC and Nova had the highest agreement (80%). Lower potassium was predictive of IFIC’s classification of foods as moderately compared to minimally processed (p = 0.01); lower vitamin D was predictive of UNC’s classification of foods as highly compared to minimally processed (p = 0.04). Sodium and added sugars were predictive of all systems’ classification of highly compared to minimally processed foods (p < 0.05). Current classification systems may not sufficiently identify foods with high nutrient quality commonly consumed by children in the U.S.

Addressing Challenges with the Categorization of Foods Processed at Home: A Pilot Methodology to Inform Consumer-Facing Guidance

“…The UNC framework incorporates expanded processing categories ( Table 1 ). Several studies have demonstrated that the UNC system has the highest inter-rater reliability compared to other classification systems using European [ 14 ] and U.S. food samples [ 15 ]. As described by the authors of NOVA, the systems were developed to “group foodstuffs according to the extent and purpose of the industrial processing applied to them [ 12 ]”.…”

“…The NOVA and other processing classification systems have received extensive criticism from the scientific community regarding their consistency [ 19 ], reliability [ 14 , 15 ], validity [ 14 , 15 ], and policy implications [ 19 , 20 ]. Importantly, misclassification of home-prepared foods as their store-bought equivalent may lead to inappropriate associations of home-cooked items with less desirable health outcomes or misrepresentation of nutrient profiles associated with highly processed food consumption.…”

The Effects of Ultra-Processed Food Consumption—Is There Any Action Needed?

“…Ultra-processed food is subjected to multidirectional processes and modifications prior to consumption and contains significant amounts of added sugar, salt, saturated fat and number of additives per product. Currently, there is no clear classification system or definition describing processing levels and categories reflecting real nutrient loading, which could increase applicability and efficiency in public health improvement [10].…”

“…According to Monteiro et al [9,11], ultra-processed food has been defined as the result of a series of processing operations carried out in order to obtain a formulation mostly from cheap sources of energy, nutrients and selected additives, thus containing minimal whole foods. The NOVA food classification system has been among those most often applied in scientific research, however, it may not sufficiently identify foods with high nutrient quality commonly consumed by children in the U.S. [10]. It categorizes foods and beverages into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed foods.…”

Consumer and technological insights for improving the quality of osmo-dehydrated mango

“…On the other hand, among the various stakeholders (producers, scientists, governmental agencies like FAO/WHO, and consumers), a substantial discrepancy exists about the understanding and interpretation of various food processing classification systems (Bleiweiss-Sande et al, 2019). While the NOVA system divides processing of foods into four categories (Monteiro et al, 2010), the IFIC systems identifies five categories (International Food Information Council Foundation, 2010), and the UNC divides it even into seven categories of processing (Poti et al, 2015).…”