But are HFSS reforms enough in a world increasingly focused on UPFs? And how will the food industry juggle public concerns over UPFs while staying HFSS compliant?
Framing Foods: NOVA Classification vs Nutritional Profile Model (NPM)
Are these two ways of looking at foods at odds with one another?
The NOVA classification categorises foods into four groups based on their level of processing, ranging from Group 1—unprocessed or minimally processed foods like fresh vegetables—to Group 4, which includes ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that undergo extensive industrial processing and often contain additives like emulsifiers, artificial flavours, and preservatives. While it’s gained traction for raising awareness about the health risks of highly processed foods, the NOVA system has faced criticism for focusing solely on the degree of processing, rather than nutritional content.
On the other hand, the Nutritional Profile Model (NPM) focusses on the nutrient content of foods rather than the extent of processing. By considering both positive and negative nutritional attributes, the NPM claims to allow for a balanced evaluation of a food’s overall healthfulness. By emphasising nutrient density over processing level, providing a clearer picture of a food’s true nutritional value.
However, the ongoing debate around UPFs, poses a challenge to reformulation efforts. While HFSS regulations are contested, the NPM provides a black/white framework from which clear, measurable criteria is set for manufacturers.
Yet, in the eyes of consumers, is a product that meets HFSS standard, but is labelled as ‘ultra-processed’, healthy overall?
This conflict could create confusion among consumers and could undermine the impact of HFSS reforms by stigmatising foods based solely on processing levels, even when they are nutritionally improved.
A More Nuanced Approach: Beyond NOVA’s Simplistic View
While the NOVA classification raises important points, it doesn’t fully account for the complexities of modern food production.
Many processed foods are designed with specific goals in mind—whether it’s prolonging shelf life, improving taste, or making food more accessible in regions with limited resources. Although it’s easy to criticise industrial techniques, these processes play a vital role in large-scale food distribution, reducing food waste, and ensuring nutritional stability during supply chain disruptions.
Simply vilifying UPFs without understanding their full context can be counterproductive. A more nuanced classification system could strike a balance between processing and a food’s overall health profile, recognising the benefits that certain processing methods can offer.
