The argument over what counts as ultra-processed food is partly scientific and partly about money, a new analysis suggests. Reviewing papers that challenge the accepted definition of the term, researchers found that nine in ten had connections to the food industry, a pattern they say readers and policymakers should keep in mind when weighing the evidence.
Our recent reporting explored another research story where careful reading of methods, authorship and declared interests mattered at least as much as the headline result itself for readers trying to judge the claims.
The NOVA Classification Explained
Most of the debate revolves around NOVA, a classification system developed by researchers in Brazil that sorts foods into four groups according to the extent and purpose of processing. Group one covers unprocessed or minimally processed foods such as vegetables, eggs and plain milk. Group four, the ultra-processed category, includes soft drinks, packaged snacks, instant noodles and many ready meals, typically made from refined substances and additives with little intact whole food.
Critics of NOVA argue that processing alone is a blunt tool: a fortified wholemeal bread and a sugary drink can land in the same group, while some nutrient-poor home cooking escapes the label entirely. Supporters respond that the category captures real patterns in modern diets and correlates, at population level, with outcomes public health agencies care about. Guidance from bodies such as the World Health Organization informs how governments approach these questions.
Why Disclosure Patterns Matter
According to the analysis, the papers challenging the definition were far more likely to carry industry links than is typical across nutrition science. Connections ranged from authors employed by food manufacturers to studies supported by trade groups. None of this proves the arguments are made in bad faith, and several raise legitimate questions about how NOVA handles foods like plant-based alternatives or fortified cereals.
The issue, the study’s authors argue, is balance and visibility. Policymakers scanning a literature that appears divided may not realise how much of the division is commercially connected. Clearer disclosure, registered study designs and more public funding for independent nutrition research are among the fixes proposed in the wider literature reviewed by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and similar institutions.
Lessons From Previous Debates
Public health history offers a template for what happens next. When similar analyses documented industry involvement in sugar research in the twentieth century, the result was not the exclusion of industry scientists but a lasting change in how their work was read and cited. Something comparable may now occur with ultra-processed foods, as systematic reviewers increasingly record funding sources alongside results and guideline committees publish their members’ interests as a matter of course. The shift also creates an opportunity for food companies themselves: manufacturers that fund research through genuinely independent mechanisms, with results published regardless of outcome, can distinguish their science from advocacy. Whether the industry takes that route, or continues to contest the definition through connected channels, will shape how much credibility its contributions carry in the next round of labelling decisions.
Transparency as Common Ground
Interestingly, the study may offer ground on which both sides can meet. Few researchers, including those with industry experience, defend weak disclosure, and several trade bodies have endorsed clearer declarations in recent years. If this analysis accelerates that trend, future papers on the ultra-processed definition, critical or supportive, will arrive with their connections plainly stated, and readers can spend less time guessing at context and more time weighing methods and data. That outcome would strengthen the debate whichever way the scientific consensus eventually settles.
Guidance for Consumers Now
For shoppers, the study is less a shopping list than a reminder about sources. Health claims attached to products, and scientific-sounding challenges to public health categories, are worth checking against independent guidance from public agencies and universities before changing habits.
The broad consensus among dietitians has not shifted: diets built around vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and minimally processed proteins are consistently associated with better outcomes, while diets dominated by packaged convenience products are not. Classifications like NOVA are tools to describe that pattern, not magic formulas, and individual products matter less than the pattern as a whole.
