These broad categories would change with a redefinition of the original group 3, ultra-processed foods. In its original form, 3 categories of foods were defined within the NOVA classification: group 1, unprocessed and minimally processed foods group 2, processed culinary or food-industry ingredients and group 3, ultra-processed foods. The definitions of this food category and its policy implications form the basis of this paper. It differs fundamentally from established advice on optimal dietary patterns in that it is based not on nutrient intake but on the degree of processing of foods. The term “ultra-processed food” was developed in a proposed new classification of foods known as the NOVA classification. Recently, a new public health nutrition strategy has evolved that advocates that foods defined as ultra-processed should be avoided ( 3). In general, the data on food patterns are secondary to data on the links between nutrient intake and risk of NCCD. Nonetheless, this advice to pursue a healthy dietary pattern is firmly based on data linking nutrient intakes with the prevention of NCCD. This strategy is clearly laid out in the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which advocates the pursuit of healthy dietary patterns and also defines the elements of such patterns ( 2). In recent years, the emphasis on nutrients (e.g., SFAs) or on single foods (low-fat spreads) has shifted to advice on overall dietary patterns ( 1).
#NOVA DEFINITION DRIVERS#
Individual nutrients and combinations of nutrients are the well-established drivers of risk factors for noncommunicable chronic disease (NCCD) and form the basis for the development of dietary guidelines. Ultra-processed foods, NOVA definitions of ultra-processed foods, food and nutrition policy, food processing, food coding Introduction
The paper concludes that constructive scholarly debate needs to be facilitated on many issues that would be affected by a policy to avoid ultra-processed foods. Moreover, 2 national surveys in the United Kingdom and France fail to show any link between body mass index and consumption of ultra-processed foods. The present manuscript demonstrates that the published data for the United States, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and Canada all show that across quintiles of intake of ultra-processed foods, nutritionally meaningful changes are seen for sugars and fiber but not for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. The public health nutrition advice of NOVA is that ultra-processed foods should be avoided to achieve improvements in nutrient intakes with an emphasis on fat, sugar, and salt. Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category. The present manuscript demonstrates that since the inception of the NOVA classification of foods, these examples of foods to which this category applies have varied considerably.
Because of the difficulty of interpretation of the primary definition, the NOVA group and others have set out lists of examples of foods that fall under the category of ultra-processed foods. The present paper explores the definition of ultra-processed foods since its inception and clearly shows that the definition of such foods has varied considerably. Of these, the category “ultra-processed foods” has been widely studied in relation both to diet quality and to risk factors for noncommunicable disease.
#NOVA DEFINITION DRIVER#
Four categories of foods are proposed in the NOVA food classification, which seeks to relate food processing as the primary driver of diet quality.
0 kommentar(er)
