Criticism of the NOVA classification: who are the protagonists?

Abstract

The NOVA classification is based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing of foods and beverages. It is increasingly used by health authorities as an effective proxy for the healthiness of these products. In particular, the consumption of ultra-processed food and beverage products (UPP) is associated with an increased risk of developing non-communicable diseases. NOVA has also been criticised. In this paper, our hypothesis was that this criticism came from individuals who had relationships with the UPP industry, one way or another. Between August and December 2018, we undertook a series of searches on PubMed, Google and Web of Science, to map the relationships between these individuals and the UPP industry. In total, we identified thirty-two materials criticising the NOVA classification, most of which were non-peer-reviewed. We identified 38 individuals as authors of these documents, among which we found 33 who had relationships with the UPP industry. Among the five individuals for whom we found no relationships with the industry, two were recent graduates and one had no known affiliation. During our analysis, we identified three types of relationships. The first one was when these individuals directly worked with the industry. The second type of relationship was conflicts of interest that individuals declared in their publications, or that they did not declare, but that we found online. The third type of relationship was when the organisations that hosted or presented the criticism of NOVA had relationships with the UPP industry. This study showed that there is currently a need for greater transparency in research and scientific reviews, as many of these relationships were not declared in the materials criticising NOVA.