The Battle Over Food Classification: A Clash of Interests and Science
March 7, 2025, 9:51 pm
Location: United States, New York, Town of Harrison
Employees: 10001+
Founded date: 1998
Total raised: $600K
In the world of nutrition, a storm is brewing. The latest clash centers around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and a controversial initiative funded by Novo Nordisk, the pharmaceutical giant known for its diabetes and obesity medications. This initiative aims to redefine the classification of UPFs, a move that has sparked outrage among over 90 nutrition scientists. They argue that the project is tainted by conflicts of interest and threatens to undermine years of rigorous research.
The Nova classification system, developed in 2009 by a team led by Professor Carlos Monteiro at the University of São Paulo, categorizes foods based on their level of processing. It divides foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and finally, UPFs. The last category includes items like sugary cereals, packaged snacks, and reconstituted meats—foods often linked to poor health outcomes.
The scientists' open letter expresses deep concern over Novo Nordisk's financial interests in diet-related diseases. They argue that a corporation profiting from obesity treatments should not influence the classification of foods that contribute to these very conditions. The letter calls the initiative “deeply problematic,” highlighting the potential for bias in research outcomes.
As the debate intensifies, Monteiro has publicly distanced himself from the Novo Nordisk project, urging them not to use the Nova name. He insists that the original classification system is a product of independent research and should not be co-opted for corporate gain. This pushback reflects a broader concern among health experts about the integrity of food science in the face of corporate influence.
The timing of this controversy is significant. With the recent appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the U.S. health secretary, there is a renewed focus on food policy. Kennedy has promised to ban UPFs in schools and promote a less processed food system. California is also taking steps to regulate these products, indicating a shift in public sentiment toward healthier eating.
In response to the growing scrutiny of UPFs, the Consumer Brands Association has launched a website aimed at clarifying the classification of these foods. This move suggests that the food industry is feeling the pressure and is eager to reshape the narrative around UPFs. Meanwhile, the Non-GMO Project has introduced a new label for foods that do not fall into the UPF category, further complicating the landscape for consumers.
Novo Nordisk's initiative, dubbed “Nova 2.0,” aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of food processing. The project plans to explore the nutritional content of foods rather than solely focusing on their production methods. Proponents argue that not all UPFs are harmful; some, like whole-grain breads, can be nutritious despite their processing. This perspective highlights the complexity of food science, where blanket classifications may not capture the full picture.
However, critics remain skeptical. They argue that the attempt to redefine UPFs could dilute the significance of the original Nova classification, which has been adopted by organizations like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization as a key indicator of diet quality. The scientists' letter warns that this new initiative could create confusion among policymakers and the public, ultimately benefiting the industries that profit from UPFs.
The debate over UPFs is not just academic; it has real-world implications. With more than 200,000 cows supplying dairy for major brands like M&M’s and Snickers, the dairy industry is a significant contributor to carbon emissions. Companies like Mars are investing millions to incentivize farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. Their Farmer Forward Program, in partnership with dairy co-operative Fonterra, aims to reduce emissions by over 150,000 metric tons by 2030. This initiative reflects a growing recognition that food production must evolve to meet environmental challenges.
As the food industry grapples with sustainability, the classification of foods becomes increasingly critical. The Nova classification system serves as a tool for understanding the health implications of our diets. However, as the lines blur between corporate interests and scientific integrity, the future of food classification hangs in the balance.
In conclusion, the battle over UPFs is emblematic of a larger struggle within the food industry. It raises questions about who gets to define food quality and how those definitions are influenced by financial interests. As consumers become more aware of the health impacts of their food choices, the demand for transparency and integrity in food science will only grow. The outcome of this debate could shape the future of nutrition policy and public health for years to come. In a world where food is both sustenance and a source of profit, the stakes have never been higher.
The Nova classification system, developed in 2009 by a team led by Professor Carlos Monteiro at the University of São Paulo, categorizes foods based on their level of processing. It divides foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and finally, UPFs. The last category includes items like sugary cereals, packaged snacks, and reconstituted meats—foods often linked to poor health outcomes.
The scientists' open letter expresses deep concern over Novo Nordisk's financial interests in diet-related diseases. They argue that a corporation profiting from obesity treatments should not influence the classification of foods that contribute to these very conditions. The letter calls the initiative “deeply problematic,” highlighting the potential for bias in research outcomes.
As the debate intensifies, Monteiro has publicly distanced himself from the Novo Nordisk project, urging them not to use the Nova name. He insists that the original classification system is a product of independent research and should not be co-opted for corporate gain. This pushback reflects a broader concern among health experts about the integrity of food science in the face of corporate influence.
The timing of this controversy is significant. With the recent appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the U.S. health secretary, there is a renewed focus on food policy. Kennedy has promised to ban UPFs in schools and promote a less processed food system. California is also taking steps to regulate these products, indicating a shift in public sentiment toward healthier eating.
In response to the growing scrutiny of UPFs, the Consumer Brands Association has launched a website aimed at clarifying the classification of these foods. This move suggests that the food industry is feeling the pressure and is eager to reshape the narrative around UPFs. Meanwhile, the Non-GMO Project has introduced a new label for foods that do not fall into the UPF category, further complicating the landscape for consumers.
Novo Nordisk's initiative, dubbed “Nova 2.0,” aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of food processing. The project plans to explore the nutritional content of foods rather than solely focusing on their production methods. Proponents argue that not all UPFs are harmful; some, like whole-grain breads, can be nutritious despite their processing. This perspective highlights the complexity of food science, where blanket classifications may not capture the full picture.
However, critics remain skeptical. They argue that the attempt to redefine UPFs could dilute the significance of the original Nova classification, which has been adopted by organizations like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization as a key indicator of diet quality. The scientists' letter warns that this new initiative could create confusion among policymakers and the public, ultimately benefiting the industries that profit from UPFs.
The debate over UPFs is not just academic; it has real-world implications. With more than 200,000 cows supplying dairy for major brands like M&M’s and Snickers, the dairy industry is a significant contributor to carbon emissions. Companies like Mars are investing millions to incentivize farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. Their Farmer Forward Program, in partnership with dairy co-operative Fonterra, aims to reduce emissions by over 150,000 metric tons by 2030. This initiative reflects a growing recognition that food production must evolve to meet environmental challenges.
As the food industry grapples with sustainability, the classification of foods becomes increasingly critical. The Nova classification system serves as a tool for understanding the health implications of our diets. However, as the lines blur between corporate interests and scientific integrity, the future of food classification hangs in the balance.
In conclusion, the battle over UPFs is emblematic of a larger struggle within the food industry. It raises questions about who gets to define food quality and how those definitions are influenced by financial interests. As consumers become more aware of the health impacts of their food choices, the demand for transparency and integrity in food science will only grow. The outcome of this debate could shape the future of nutrition policy and public health for years to come. In a world where food is both sustenance and a source of profit, the stakes have never been higher.