Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tifs

The NOVA classification system: A critical perspective in food science

Rodrigo Rodrigues Petrus a, *, Paulo José do Amaral Sobral a, c, Carmen Cecília Tadini b, c,
Cintia Bernardo Gonçalves a, 1
a
Universidade de Sao Paulo Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil
b
Universidade de Sao Paulo Escola Politécnica, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
c
Food Research Center, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords Background: Although the consumer enjoys many benefits provided by the current food processing technology,
Ultra-processed foods some health professionals and digital influencers suggest that there is little benefit and serious harm that could be
Processed foods due to poor nutrition, which was caused by the consumption of processed foods (PF). A new classification, known
Minimally processed foods
as NOVA, which classified foods into four groups, according to the level of processing was proposed. However,
Food classification
this classification does not accurately categorize food products by the level of the processing. In contrast, it
considers the quantity of ingredients contained in the food. Therefore, the NOVA classification can lead to a
negative perception by many consumers, because it neglects well-established science concepts from the food
science domain. NOVA is based on the erroneous assumption that all commercially manufactured foods have low
nutritional value, promote weight gain and chronic diseases to consumers because they contain sugar, salt and
additives. It dismisses the proven benefits of diets chosen with the right mix of foods at all levels of processing.
Disagreeing with some scientific studies, the NOVA classification suggests with inadequate data, that food
prepared from basic ingredients at home has superior nutritional qualities to those produced by processors. Thus,
some concepts have emerged in the public health field with special highlights to the term “ultra-processed” foods
(UPF).
Scope and approach: This commentary addresses the NOVA classification system from the perspective of food
science, which is responsible for the safety and reliability of virtually all the foods we eat. NOVA has classified
food into four groups based on the type of processing: 1) Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, 2) Pro­
cessed culinary ingredients, 3) Processed foods, and 4) “Ultra-processed” foods.
Key findings and conclusions: The NOVA system is confusing and controversial. Knowledge of food engineering
and/or science must be taken into consideration if food processing is the key for food classification. NOVA could
be acceptable if it were based only on health concerns, but this was not the case.

1. Introduction
Any food that is cooked, seasoned, preserved, or combined with
other foods, or is altered from its raw state has technically been pro­
cessed. Processed food (PF) have been part of the human diet since
ancient times (Carretero et al., 2020). The anthropologist-biologist
Richard Wrangham from Harvard University reported that food pro­
cessing was created around 2 million years ago by ancestors’ early
hominoids, who discovered cooking, the most original processing
technique (Floros et al., 2010). Later and still on prehistoric, other food
processing methods emerged, such as fermentation, drying and salting.
These allowed groups and communities to form and survive. Humans
first learned to cook, and then to transform, preserve, and store food­
stuffs safely. In ancient Greece, the three most important foods were
bread, olive oil and wine (all processed). Processing transformed many
perishable raw materials, which were hardly edible into nutritious, safe,
stable and palatable foods (Floros et al., 2010). A variety of crops
abundantly grown around the globe could not be consumed if they were
not processed, such as soy, coffee, cocoa, barley, wheat, olives, among
others.
A growing mindset that the cost to public health is very high renders
a negative perception about industrialized PF, although many

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rpetrus@usp.br, rpetrus2009@gmail.com (R.R. Petrus).
1
Cintia B. Gonçalves passed away before the publication of this work was completed.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.08.010
Received 10 September 2020; Received in revised form 29 July 2021; Accepted 13 August 2021
Available online 17 August 2021
0924-2244/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.R. Petrus et al.
consumers realize the immense benefits from processing (Lazzarides
et al., 2012; Sadler et al., 2021). These impressions can be explained by
several factors, as follows: i) limitation in the level of technical and
scientific knowledge by consumers, ii) some difficulties in understand­
ing labels, iii) potential of misleading advertising and other claims, iv)
recommendations by public health officials, v) and spreading of frequent
fake news and/or marketing presentations that take advantage of con­
troversies related to the use of food additives and ingredients and other
aspects of PF.
Lazarides (2012) reported that millions of people are killing them­
selves by overeating or misusing food, leading to obesity or
nutrition-related illnesses. There are valid health concerns related to
specific ingredients (particularly salt and sugar), that contribute to the
spread of diseases caused by malnutrition (Floros et al., 2010). Food
Science, Technology and Engineering (FSTE) recognizes these facts.
Nevertheless, those ingredients are important to food preservation and
safety (Floros et al., 2010; Dietrich & Augustin, 2021; Sadler et al.,
2021). Even experts on gastronomy agree with this statement. The
addition of food additives, as noted by Gomes et al. (2020), allows
manufacturers to overcome problems of the limited supply of natural
ingredients, increase the shelf life of food, and simplify the complex
procedures involved in cooking tasks for consumers and contribute to
waste reduction and, thus, to the sustainability of food supply for the
global population.
Over the past decade, the consumption of PF has been systematically
criticized, as if all PF were nutrient-poor and as if everything homemade
were nutritionally rich and safe for consumption. This is not only
misleading but also untrue considering that, according to Floros et al.
(2010), PF have positive nutrient benefits beyond those of the raw or
home-prepared product. Moreover, homemade food is often the source
of foodborne disease.
Monteiro (2009) created a definition that some industrialized foods
can be considered as “ultra-processed foods” (UPF). However, this im­
plies that these foods have a negative connotation. This definition was
created in the NOVA classification which divided foods into four groups
(Monteiro et al., 2010), initially into three groups (Monteiro, 2009),
ostensibly based on the extent and purpose of food processing, according
to Monteiro, Cannon, Levy, et al. (2019).
From the perspective of food science, the definition of UPF is inap­
propriate. The origin of the term “ultra-processed” was first incorpo­
rated by some nutritionists and then adopted by the conventional press
media (e.g. newspapers, magazines, radio and TV news) and social
media (e.g. blogs, Facebook and Instagram) (Knorr & Watzke, 2019),
always with a highly negative sense. The use of the jargon “ultra-­
processed” in public networking has been rapidly spreading out,
creating immense confusion among consumers and even in the indus­
trial sector, where its interpretation is controversial (Carretero et al.,
2020). Knorr and Watzke (2019) stated that terms like UPF are more
misleading than explanatory. “Ultra” generally means very extreme or
radical, and it may add either a good or bad connotation. Ultra-good or
ultra-exciting are positive terms; ultra-bad or ultra-boring are negative.
In NOVA classification the term UPF has a negative connotation. The
prefix “ultra” refers to what is extreme or excessive, which would not in
itself necessarily be a problem. However, despite its origin, this term
applied in the NOVA classification refers to formulations that often have
more than five ingredients (Monteiro, Cannon, Lawrence, et al., 2019,b),
which is quite common, not only in the industry but also in many home
recipes and artisanal production (Sacchi et al., 2019) and gastronomy
(Gomes et al., 2020). More than five ingredients also include nutrients of
enrichment and fortification added to the finished food products and are
recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in particular
regions.
Food classification systems based on the degree of processing exist in
several countries, such as IARC-EPIC (European), IFIC and UNC systems
(United States), NIPH (Mexico), IFPRI (Guatemala), NOVA (Brazil) and
SIGA (France). NOVA and SIGA classify a group of foods as UP
604
Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608
(Carretero et al., 2020). However, some classification criteria used are
ambiguous, inconsistent and often give less weight to existing scientific
evidence on nutrition and food processing effects; critical analysis of
these criteria provokes conflict amongst researchers (Sadler et al.,
2021).
Several studies and debates about what diets, foods, and/or in­
gredients are good or bad have often led the general public to points of
confusion, as discussed by Jones (2019), in a lecture (“Nutrient-nutrient
interaction”) during the Nutrition Society Scottish Section Meeting
(2018). “Ultra-processed” is another potentially misleading catchword.
Of course, it sounds logically simple, although it is little more than an
ill-defined expression in terms of practicality. The manuscript herein
aims at providing a critical analysis of NOVA classification in the light of
FSTE regarding the classification of foods by their processing level.
Although well-intentioned in its design, NOVA is not accurate and is
somehow imprecise. It is not the focus of this article discussing nutri­
tional nor health concerns regarding it.
2. Definition of processed foods (PF)
Originally, processing was developed for solving the problems of
long-time storage and transport of foods. More recently, processing has
also targeted the palatability and production of indulgent products
(Knorr & Watzke, 2019). Food palatability has always been a goal for
food producers. If a preserved food is not palatable, it will not be eaten,
and it will thus not offer nutrients to consumers. The hyper palatability
of all foods, including PF and/or UPF, is a true challenge not only for the
food industry. Good cooks and chefs hope that their food is highly
palatable, and because of that, they are always searching for new in­
gredients that provide new sensations to different food products (Atala,
2012).
Fellows (2004) defines food processing as any modification food is
subjected to alter its sensory quality or shelf life. It involves the appli­
cation of science and technology to preserve quality, diversify products
for serving consumers with different ethnicities and nutritional needs,
and reduces waste. PF are defined by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA - United States Department of Agriculture, 2016) as
any raw material subjected to a sequence of unit operations (cleaning,
cutting, grinding, heating, cooling, packaging etc.) that modify the food
in relation to its natural state. This association of food processing with
unit operations is also used by Carretero et al. (2020), which states that
“a process can be defined as the set of steps that lead us to obtain a
product from raw materials, and each of the steps it comprises is called a
basic operation”. It is well known that these operations involve physical
change or chemical transformation (Carretero et al., 2020).
From the perspective of the European Food Information Council
(EUFIC), processing consists of any method used to transform fresh food
into a product, involving one or more steps. It includes adding compo­
nents to the food to extend the shelf life or adding vitamins and minerals
to increase the nutritional quality. The main unit operations employed
by the Food Industry are described in the article “Feeding the world
today and tomorrow: the importance of Food Science and Technology”
(Floros et al., 2010), which states that processing operations are con­
ducted under controlled conditions to achieve their goals effectively and
efficiently.
3. The NOVA classification
Basing dietary recommendations at processing levels can be
haphazard advice that does not properly consider essential nutritional
values. “Avoid UPF” can simply become a convenient mantra for dietary
information that overlooks the basics of healthy eating. The NOVA
classification complicates and overlooks the simple and basic health
factors regarding food decisions and choices. A fact worth highlighting is
that the nutritional quality and safety of food prepared at home can be
better or worse than those PF that NOVA recommends avoiding. Studies
R.R. Petrus et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608

correlating NOVA classification-based foods with poor health outcomes from the point of view of these authors, powdered milk cannot be
show more about diets comprised of inadequate foods. If the PF and UPF classified as being MPF because its processing involves a many unit
are those recommended by guidance patterns such as MyPlate good diets operations in addition to requiring huge energy consumption (Fig. 2).
can be constructed with wise choices (Jones, 2019). Among those, none represents either unPF or MPF; they all are pro­
This commentary proposes a critical and brief analysis of the NOVA cessed. Pasteurized milk, long-life milk and pasteurized fruit juices are
classification from the standpoint of FSTE. NOVA grouped food into the usually heat-treated, whose intensity varies from 72 to 145 ◦ C, and dried
following four categories, based on the type of industrial processing fruits are produced by dehydration technologies (Floros et al., 2010).
(Table 1). MPF are predominantly plant-based, such as fruits and vegetables,
Although the NOVA classification (Monteiro, Cannon, Lawrence, subjected to minimal and mild interventions, mostly physical, such as
et al., 2019) has been published by the Food and Agriculture Organi­ sorting, grading, sanitation, peeling, slicing, centrifuging and pack­
zation (FAO), it claims that “the views expressed in this information aging, often in a modified atmosphere packaging system (with different
product are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views compositions of O2, CO2 and N2 optimized for each product), providing
or policies of FAO, nor do they constitute a validation of the NOVA remarkable convenience to consumers (Alzamora et al., 2016).
classification system.” Groups 1, 3 and 4, which exhibit major in­ The ultimate goal of minimal processing is to preserve the freshness
consistencies and mistakes, are herein discussed. of raw material, which is kept “alive”; its vital functions are preserved.
Group 1 might represent a concerning issue because it could poten­ Depending on the characteristics of the raw material and the intended
tially encourage consumers to seek unPF (e.g., raw milk) or process food shelf life, chemical methods may be used in minimal processing, such as
at home, without sufficient safety control (Sadler et al., 2021). The dipping into acidulant, antioxidant and antimicrobial solution. Fruits
NOVA states that MPF (Table 1) are natural foods altered by processes, and vegetables subjected to mechanical injuries, as occurs in minimal
such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, crushing, processing (peeling, cutting etc.), deteriorate more quickly compared to
grinding, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, pasteurization, refrig­ food in its original condition. For this reason, to achieve an extended
eration, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging, or nonal­ shelf life compatible with market expectations, the use of chemical
coholic fermentation. None of these processes adds substances such as preservation methods is frequently necessary (Alzamora et al., 2016).
salt, sugar, oils, or fats to the original food (Monteiro, Cannon, Law­ Thus, MPF may contain multiple ingredients and additives, in contrast to
rence, et al., 2019,b). Nevertheless, in the FSTE domain, the concept of NOVA that claims there is no addition of other substances to MPF. MPF
MPF, that existed before the NOVA classification, is linked to the pres­ may be as safe or nutritious as some PF or UPF if the consumer handles
ervation of food based on the principle of “the least possible treatment, them correctly.
but as much as necessary”, that is, the minimum food processing in­ Naming these MPF simply “Processed foods” (PF) is more accurate
cludes a series of technologies, mainly non-thermal, applied at sublethal and related to food preparation techniques and requirements. Or in
levels for microorganisms, helping to retain nutritional and sensory other words, using the NOVA classification, an MPF can be considered as
quality, and guaranteeing product safety (Alzamora et al., 2016). Jones PF, or an UPF would be the PF with the same physical treatments, but
(2019) holds that MPF are defined by the USDA as those that retain most with more ingredients added. The term MPF used in NOVA is highly
of their physical, chemical, sensory and nutritional properties. prone to impart misleading facts about foods. It potentially creates more
Examples of food classified inappropriately in Group 1 (Table 1) complexity about the nature of foods, rather than offer accurate and
encompass pasteurized milk, ultra-high temperature milk (UHT), comprehensive guidelines about their real nature and quality for con­
powdered milk, pasteurized fruit or vegetable juices etc (Fig. 1). Thus, sumption. Many other definitions and descriptions of food processing
were published by Jones (2019). The benefits of emerging food pro­
Table 1
cessing technologies for producing safe and nutritious foods have been
Definitions of the NOVA classification (Monteiro, Cannon, Lawrence, et al., described by Knorr and Augustin (2021).
2019). According to Monteiro, Cannon, Lawrence et al. (2019), the products
classified in the Group 3 are made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other
Definitions Products
substances from Group 2 to Group 1 (Table 1) and their consumption
Group 1 – Unprocessed (unPF) and Edible parts of plants (seeds, fruits,
should be limited. Processes include various preservation or cooking
Minimally Processed Foods (MPF) leaves, stems, roots) or animals (muscle,
Products that salt, sugar, oils, fats, or offal, eggs, milk), and fungi, algae and
methods. Clearly, not all PF, such as whole fruit and vegetable
other substances are not added to the water, after separation from nature. pasteurized juices, pasteurized or long-life milk, are sugar added.
original food. Consequently, the “limited consumption” recommendation seems
Group 2 - Processed culinary Processed culinary ingredients include alarming and inappropriate. Of particular relevance is the fact that
ingredients oils, butter, lard, sugar and salt.
Brazilian Food Industry has gradually reduced the levels of salt and
Products derived from group 1 or else
from nature by processes such as sugar in PF over the years. A thought-provoking issue is whether the
pressing, refining, grinding, milling, excessive consumption of salt and sugar in most diets comes from what is
and drying. added to industrialized foods or whether it comes from abusive house­
Group 3 - Processed Foods (PF) Bottled vegetables or legumes (pulses) holds or personal use. Souza et al. (2016) reported that the reduction of
Products manufactured by the preserved in brine and vinegar, fruits in
industry, which essentially adds salt, syrup, meat products and canned fish,
sodium in PF has little impact on the average sodium consumption in
sugar, or another substance to unPF to smoked fish, freshly baked bread, and Brazil. The salt consumed by Brazilians comes mainly from the addition
make them stable and more palatable. simple cheeses to which salt is added. of this ingredient to food by consumer during preparation and con­
Group 4 - Ultra-processed Foods (UPF) Carbonated soft drinks; sweet, fatty, or sumption (Tiné, 2020). Similarly, a large proportion of sugar con­
Products involving formulations of salty packaged snacks; candies
sumption by Brazilians is due to the table sugar, on a domestic scale
ingredients, most of exclusive (confectionery); packaged bread and
industrial use, typically created by a buns, cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes (Levy et al., 2012).
series of industrial techniques and and cake mixes; margarine and other The NOVA also points out that the ingredients and methods used in
processes. spreads; sweetened breakfast ‘cereals’ processing adversely affect the nutritional composition of the foods they
and fruit yogurt and ‘energy’ drinks; pre- are derived from. This issue is not accurately addressed by NOVA. FSTE
prepared meat, cheese, pasta and pizza
dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
recognizes that depending on the type of food, the intensity of treatment,
‘sticks’; sausages, burgers, hot dogs and and processing technology, a decrease in food product quality may
other reconstituted meat products; occur. Notwithstanding, nutrients are substantially preserved during
powdered and packaged ‘instant’ soups, processing, notably when nonthermal methods are employed. House­
noodles and desserts; baby formula.
hold handling, i.e. domestic-scale processing, frequently has a more

605
R.R. Petrus et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608

Fig. 1. Examples of products classified according to NOVA (Monteiro, Cannon, Lawrence, et al., 2019). Arrows show the correct classification of some products
according to the knowledge of FSTE.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of milk powder processing line indicating required energy sources (Adapted from Moejes & van Boxtel, 2017; and Scott et al., 2007).

negative impact on the nutritional value of food compared to industrial-
scale processing, such as boiling milk. Furthermore, there are many
greater food safety issues in the home due to improper handling
(Al-Sakkaf, 2013; Farias et al., 2020; Langiano et al., 2012). Langiano
et al. (2012) investigated food-safety knowledge and risk perception of
foodborne diseases in the private home and characterized their behavior
during food purchase, storage and preparation. Their findings confirmed
that the home environment represents an important site for the spread of
pathogens responsible for foodborne diseases.
The NOVA still states that the purpose of industrial processing is to
extend the shelf life of foods and make them more palatable. The targets
of processing actually go far beyond this. Food processing provides
consumer safety by destroying or reducing potentially harmful patho­
gens to safe levels; preserves functional, nutritional and sensory quality
through the inactivation of spoilage microorganisms and enzymes; of­
fers convenience; increases the digestibility; inactivates anti-nutritional
factors; allows regular supply to consumer market during the off-season
and adverse climate conditions; reduces wasting; guarantees supply to

606
R.R. Petrus et al.
remote regions; reduces transportation costs; diversifies and adds value
to the product, among others.
Regarding Group 4, besides the concepts described in Table 1, UPF
were also defined by NOVA as low-cost and highly profitable formula­
tions in sophisticated packaging, made by a series of industrial pro­
cesses, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology, with a
sensory and commercial appeal to “seduce” the consumer. Their pro­
duction involves several processing steps and techniques and many in­
gredients, including salt, sugar, oils and fats and substances exclusive for
industrial use.
In a recent publication, Monteiro, Cannon, Levy, et al. (2019)
explained how to identify an UPF: “to check to see if its list of ingredients
contains at least one item characteristic of the NOVA UPF group, which
is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as
high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hy­
drolyzed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final
product palatable or more appealing (such as flavors, flavor enhancers,
colors, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and
anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing
agents)”. This means that this classification is based on the food in­
gredients, and not on the necessary unit operations for their processing,
confirming its ambiguity. One example regarding this ambiguity is the
chocolate, classified as UPF, which is processed (Fig. 3) with a similar
number of unit operations that those of the milk powder, classified as
MPF (Fig. 2). Furthermore, different types of chocolate, such as milk,
dark, and white chocolate are produced by varying the quantities of the
different ingredients (Shafi et al., 2018).
According to Knorr and Augustin (2021), it is a mistake correlating
the prefix “ultra” with the number of ingredients that make up the
finished product, independently of its purpose. A food product may be
MPF or conventionally PF and contain multiple ingredients (five or
more), such as mixed fruit and vegetable juices, fruit salads and vita­
mins, mixes of edible seeds and whole grains, and baby foods, just to
name a few. Studies reported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (2015)
also show that not all foods in this group are necessarily incorrect
nutritional choices, corroborating Jones (2019). Some consistency in the
“ultra-processed” concept might be found (with some effort) if long-life
Fig. 3. Simplified schema of chocolate processing (Based on Zumbé et al.,
2001). Concentrations of ingredients are presented for a dark chocolate
formulation proposed by Milagres et al. (2020).
607
Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608
milk (UHT) was classified as “ultra-processed”, since the temperature
used in its processing reaches approximately 145 ◦ C.
Regarding the number of ingredients, one must clarify that food
additives, such as emulsifiers, antioxidants, acidulants, preservatives
etc. are added to food formulations to perform technological functions,
not to deceive, lure or confuse consumers (Gomes et al., 2020). The
compounds used as food additives (many of them from food sources) are
subjected to rigorous toxicological investigations, coordinated by in­
ternational agencies, such as the Joint Expert Committee on Food Ad­
ditives (JECFA), that is administered jointly by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Orga­
nization (WHO). In this way, the additives, at very low concentrations in
foodstuffs; e.g. 0.4 g/100 g of lecithin, an natural emulsifier extracted
from soybean, in dark chocolate, according to Milagres et al. (2020)
(Fig. 3), are safe for their intended purpose. Furthermore, chemical
additives used in food products are systematically reevaluated to guar­
antee food safety.
The use of additives in food processing may also rely on the need to
standardize the quality of the finished product. The composition of raw
materials is highly variable, posing a challenge to the processor who
aims at maintaining the quality standard of the product. Additionally,
the use of chemicals is sometimes needed due to safety concerns, such as
the addition of citric acid to canned hearts of palm to prevent Clostridium
botulinum endospores to grow and, most importantly, preventing the
production of neurotoxins, which are lethal to consumers (Gomes et al.,
2006). Also, acidification allows the commercial sterility of the product
to be achieved by applying a mild heat treatment (<100 ◦ C) because the
final equilibrium pH is less than 4.5.
As do the authors of this article, Carretero et al. (2020) and Jones
(2019) criticized the concepts and criteria adopted in NOVA. Carretero
et al. (2020) stated that it is a mistake to link UPF with low nutritional
quality since it depends not only on the intensity and complexity of the
process but also on the composition of the food. Still classifying a food
based on the impact of its packaging on the consumer’s choice involves
marketing strategies, not technological ones. Jones (2019) held that the
NOVA classification shows limited congruence concerning the definition
and categorization in that proposal. It also points out a set of in­
consistencies, claiming that instead of labeling foods as processed
and/or “ultra-processed”, advice to decrease the consumption of
nutrient-poor foods, rather than foods labeled as processed or “ultra-­
processed” would be clearer and have fewer unintended consequences.
Jones (2019) also reported that there are no studies demonstrating that
consumers can use NOVA to match energy intake with energy needs and
can replace foods with added sugar and fat with recommended ones, and
concluded that NOVA is inconsistent with legal definitions and FSTE.
Recently, others authors published manuscripts with criticism to the
NOVA classification (Gibney et al., 2017; Gibney, 2019; Knorr &
Augustin, 2021, Knorr & Watzke, 2019), or even proposing other clas­
sifications (Sadler et al., 2021). In the latter case, the classification of
foods must consider a number of dimensions, as the extent of change
from the natural state, the nature of the change, by traditional or
modern/industrial methods, and the purpose or value of food
processing.
NOVA claims that the consumption of UPF should be avoided. Ac­
cording to Monteiro, Cannon, Levy, et al. (2019), UPF are not “real
food”. Is not “cheese”, a very traditional and ancient food in several
cultures, real food? There is no chronic disease in humans associated
with cheese consumption.
4. Final comments
Consumers need to be correctly informed that healthiness has no
direct or absolute correlation either with the number of ingredients,
intensity, or number of processes or with the fact that the food has been
processed in households or a large industrial plant. In sum, the NOVA
system is not an accurate way to define foods. Some foods classified as
R.R. Petrus et al.
MPF, such as pasteurized milk or powdered milk are heavily processed;
natural yogurt is classified as MPF while sweetened is considered UPF.
Yet both products are processed using the same unit operations; spices
are considered PF but they are not consumed alone, and should thus be
considered ingredients; soft drinks are processed only by mixing a syrup
with carbonated water, which cannot be considered an ultra-processing,
are only some examples of confusion on NOVA concepts.
In addition to providing nutrients and functional components, un­
processed or PF should also provide pleasure and joy, either are pre­
pared at home or in restaurants by chefs. Finally, a fact that must receive
special attention is the need to shelter-in-place and shop less frequently
during events such as COVID, which points us to another reason to look
to food processing as a way to extend the food supply and promote good
health.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and wrote
this commentary article of their own free will. All authors are Food
Engineers and Research Professors at the University of São Paulo in
Brazil.
References
Al-Sakkaf, A. (2013). Domestic food preparation practices: A review of the reasons for
poor home hygiene practices. Health Promotion International, 30(3), 427–437.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dat051. Oxford University Press (OUP).
Alzamora, S. M., López-Malo, A., Tapia, M. S., & Welti-Chanes, J. (2016). Minimally
processed foods. Encyclopedia of Food and Health, 767–771. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00470-0
Atala, A. (2012). A new ingredient: The introduction of priprioca in gastronomy.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 1(1), 61–63. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijgfs.2011.11.001
Carretero, C., Clotet, R., Colomer, Y., Fernando, G. G. De, Frías, J., Guamis, B., & Abel, V.
(2020). Food classification report: The concept "Ultra-processed". Retrieved from
http://www.triptolemos.org/en/portfolio_page/food-clasification-report-ultrapr
ocessed-concept/ Accessed: 2020-09-07.
EUFIC - The European Food Information Council. (2019). Processed food: What is the
purpose of food processing?, 4 https://www.eufic.org/en/food-production/article/
processed-food-qa Accessed: 2020-09-07.
Farias, A. S., Akutsu, R. C. C. A., Botelho, R. B. A., Araújo, W. M. C., Silva, I. C.,
Sávio, K. E., & Zandonadi, R. P. (2020). Food safety conditions in home-kitchens: A
cross-sectional study in the federal district/Brazil. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17134897
Fellows, P., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Agricultural Support Systems
Division. (2004). Processed foods for improved livelihoods. In Diversification booklet.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/y5113e/y5113e00.htm#Contents Accessed:
2020-09-07.
Floros, J. D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V., Chen, H., Dunne, C. P., &
Ziegler, G. R. (2010). Feeding the world today and tomorrow: The importance of
food science and technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
9(5), 572–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x
Gibney, M. J. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: Definitions and policy issues. Current
Developments in Nutrition, 3(2), nzy077. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzy077
Gibney, M. J., Forde, C. G., Mullally, D., & Gibney, E. R. (2017). Ultra-processed foods in
human health: A critical appraisal. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 106(3),
717–724. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.160440
Gomes, L. R., Simões, C. D., & Silva, C. (2020). Demystifying thickener classes food
additives through molecular gastronomy. International Journal of Gastronomy and
Food Science, 22, 100262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100262. e.
Gomes, M., Valle, J., Raupp, D. S., Chaimsohn, F. P., & Borsato, A. V. (2006).
Processamento de conservas de palmito caulinar de pupunha contendo diferentes
graus de acidez. Ciencia E Agrotecnologia, 30(3), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S1413-70542006000300025
608
Trends in Food Science & Technology 116 (2021) 603–608
Jones, J. M. (2019). Food processing: Criteria for dietary guidance and public health?
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 78(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0029665118002513
Knorr, D., & Augustin, M. A. (2021). Food processing needs, advantages and
misconceptions. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 108, 103–110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2020.11.026
Knorr, D., & Watzke, H. (2019). Food processing at a crossroad. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00085. Article 85.
Langiano, E., Ferrara, M., Lanni, L., Viscard, V., Abbatecola, A. M., & De Vito, E. (2012).
Food safety at home: Knowledge and practices of consumers. Journal of Public Health,
20, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-011-0437-z
Lazarides, H. N. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for the community of food sciences
to contribute towards a society of healthier consumers and a better world.
International Journal of Food Studies, 1, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/
1.1.2012.a10
Levy, R. B., Claro, R. M., Bandoni, D. H., Mondini, L., & Monteiro, C. A. (2012).
Availability of added sugars in Brazil: Distribution, food sources and time trends.
Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 15(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-
790X2012000100001
Milagres, M. P., Silva, D. M., Pereira, I. O., Senhorinho, L. M., Sant’Ana, A. E. G., &
Matos, T. B. (2020). Health benefits of chocolate consumption with high
concentration of cocoa incorporated from triterpenic acids, isolated from Mansoa
Hirsuta DC. Food Science Technology, 40(1), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1590/
fst.10519
Ministry of Health of Brazil. (2015). Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian population. https://
bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf.
Moejes, S. N., & van Boxtel, A. J. B. (2017). Energy saving potential of emerging
technologies in milk powder production. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 60,
31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.023
Monteiro, C. A. (2009). Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so
much as processing. Public Health Nutrition, 12(5), 729–731. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1368980009005291
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Louzada, M. L. C., & Machado, P. P. (2019a).
Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system.
Rome: FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
Accessed: 2020-09-07.
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G. M., Levy, R. B., Moubarac, J.-C., Louzada, M. L. C.,
Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L. G., &
Jaime, P. C. (2019b). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them.
Public Health Nutrition, 22, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762
Monteiro, C. A., Levy, R. B., Moreira, C. R., Castro, I. R. R., & Cannon, G. (2010). A new
classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cadernos
de Saúde Pública, 26, 2039–2049. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-
311X2010001100005
Sacchi, R., Caporaso, N., Squadrilli, G. A., Paduano, A., Ambrosino, M. L., Cavella, S., &
Genovese, A. (2019). Sensory profile, biophenolic and volatile compounds of an
artisanal ice cream (’gelato’) functionalised using extra virgin olive oil. International
Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 18, Article e100173. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijgfs.2019.100173
Sadler, C. R., Grassby, T., Hart, K., Raats, M., Sokolović, M., & Timotijevic, L. (2021).
Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 112, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.059
Scott, S. A., Brooks, J. D., Rakonjac, J., Walker, K. M. R., & Flint, S. H. (2007). The
formation of thermophilic spores during the manufacture of whole milk powder.
International Journal of Dairy Technology, 60(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-0307.2007.00309.x
Shafi, F., Reshi, M., & Bashir, A. I. (2018). Chocolate processing. International Journal of
Advanced Biological Research, 8(3), 408–419. Retrieved in http://scienceandnature.
org/IJABR/IJABR_Vol8(3)2018/IJABR_V8(3)18-22CS2.pdf.
Souza, M. A., Souza, B. S. N., Bezerra, I. N., & Sichieri, R. (2016). The impact of the
reduction of sodium content in processed foods in salt intake in Brazil. Cadernos de
Saúde Pública, 32(2), Article e00064615. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-
311x00064615
Tiné, L. (2020). Brasileiro consome muito sal, mas não tem consciência da quantidade
excessiva. Retrieved from Ministry of Health of Brazil. website http://www.blog.sa
ude.gov.br/index.php/promocao-da-saude/54101-brasileiro-consume-muito-sal-ma
s-nao-tem-consciencia-da-quantidade-excessiva Accessed: 2020-09-07.
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture. (2016). Processed foods are excluded
from COOL requirements. How is a processed food defined?. Retrieved from https
://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FAQs%20for%20Consumers%
20-%20English.pdf Accessed: 2020-09-07.
Zumbé, A., Lee, A., & Storey, D. (2001). Polyols in confectionery: The route to sugar-free,
reduced sugar and reduced calorie confectionery. British Journal of Nutrition, 85(1),
S31–S45. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN2000260