| dc.description.abstract | Summary
Background
There has been increased attention on ultra-processed food (UPF) and its association with poor health. The widely used, classification system Nova, has faced criticism. Nova has been criticized for being imprecise, categorizing “healthy” and unhealthy foods as "ultra-processed". This highlights the need for alternative classification systems to provide a clearer definition of ultra-processed food (UPF).
Aim/objective
To identify existing classification systems for UPF, and evaluate the definitions of UPF used, and compare them with Nova system.
Method
A systematic literature review was conducted on December 18, 2023. The literature search was performed in three databases Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, and resulted in 828 articles, in which 18 articles were included.
Results
Five classification systems of UPF were identified: International Food Information Council (IARC), International Food Policy Research Institute, (IFPRI), Siga, University of North Carolina, (UNC), and The Unprocessed Pantry Project (UP3). The classification systems emphasize different aspects such processing methods, additives, and nutritional content. IFPRI and UNC appear similar to Nova with their holistic approach focusing on broad categories, while IARC, UP3, and SIGA have subcategories and a reductionist approach.
Conclusion
There´s a lack of consistency between the identified classification systems and Nova. Siga addresses the criticism Nova has received and appears to be a better alternative to Nova by clarifying the definition of UPF, processing methods, and considering the nutritional content in the UPF. Siga has a detailed classification and may be too demanding for general use.
Key Words: Ultra-processed food, classification system, systematic review, Nova | |