Ultra-processed foods: a concept in need of revision to avoid targeting healthful and sustainable plant-based foods

Abstract

We read with interest the invited commentary by Dr Mark Lawrence supporting the utility of the NOVA food classification system (1) . However, we take issue with his perspective on our recently published article in which we make two fundamental points (2) . First, the common criticisms of ultra-processed foods (UPF) do not apply to soya-based meat and dairy alternatives more so than they do to their animal-based counterparts, meat and cows' milk, despite the former being classified as UPF and the latter as unprocessed/minimally processed foods. Second, NOVA is overly simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soya. Simply put, soya burgers are not Twinkies, even though NOVA similarly classifies these products. Rather than focusing on the crux of our argument, Dr Lawrence notes the association of several authors with the soyafood industry, that is, classic ad hominem reasoning. Dr Lawrence also criticises us for not considering the ' : : : broader public health, environmental and social implications of such innovations (e.g., soy burgers) relative to food processing innovations to promote existing non-UPF nutritious plant-source protein foods such as minimally processed legumes and nuts'. We fully support greater consumption of legumes and nuts and efforts to promote their intake. However, the products in question are designed to replace meat and dairy products not legumes and nuts. Therefore, the critical comparisons are between hamburgers and soya burgers and cows' milk and soyamilk. We therefore standby our opinion that NOVA does a disservice to the public by suggesting that because soya burgers and soyamilk are NOVA-classified as UPF, they should be avoided. These foods can aid in the transition to and maintenance of plant-based diets.This article has been co-published with permission in British Journal of Nutrition and in Public Health Nutrition.

Bibliometric analysis of the impact of ultra‐processed foods on the gut microbiota

“…NOVA oversimplifies and inadequately assesses the nutritional attributes of soya‐based alternatives. We maintain our view that NOVA misrepresents soya burgers and soy milk, which can be valuable components of plant‐based diets (Messina et al ., 2023).…”

Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Ready-to-Use Meat Alternatives in Belgium

“…Many ready-to-use meat alternatives are ultra-processed according to the NOVA criteria [ 28 ]. However, studies argue that the mere industrial processing of ingredients of plant origin does not make a product ultra-processed by default [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 78 ]. Mostly, the processing of plant-based ingredients may improve their nutritional profile [ 79 ].…”

“…According to a multinational cohort study plant-based alternatives were not associated with a risk of multimorbidity, in contrast to other types of ultra-processed foods such as for example animal-based products and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages [ 29 ]. Nuance is incredibly important to distinguish between ultra-processed foods that carry negative health effects and (ultra-) processed foods with a higher nutrient density [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. The threshold to cook with ready-to-use meat alternatives is small for many consumers because (1) ready-to-use meat alternatives can have better digestibility than, for example, beans, (2) more variety is possible, (3) they have higher protein content and higher bioavailability of protein than legumes, and (4) they have the same functional properties (in terms of use, appearance and method of preparation) as meat.…”