9/10 research papers disputing ultraprocessed food definition have industry ties

A review published in the American Journal of Public Health examined academic critiques of the NOVA system, the leading framework that classifies foods by processing level and flags ultraprocessed items such as chicken nuggets, Doritos or canned soda. The review found that 91% of papers disputing NOVA had at least one author with financial ties to the food industry, and more than two-thirds of those authors did not disclose those connections in their publications. Investigators identified ties through public profiles and biographies, noting journals often leave past industry affiliations to authors’ judgment, and argued this pattern parallels industry strategies to cast doubt on scientific standards while influencing policy debates.

The contested critiques echo food-industry talking points - that NOVA is too broad (claimed to cover nearly 80% of the food supply), misclassifies items like cheese or bacon, and unfairly penalizes products such as flavored yogurt or whole-grain bread. Those objections are shaping stalled U.S. policy efforts and regional disputes in Latin America despite growing independent evidence linking ultraprocessed foods to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Researchers say some methodological criticisms are valid and NOVA can evolve, but the prevalence of undisclosed industry ties calls for greater transparency and caution when weighing critiques used to block public-health measures; regulators could still operationalize NOVA using ingredient-label-based rules.