Euroviews. Ultra-processed foods should unite the food movement — not divide us

As much as ultra-processed food has become a hot topic,  in our wing of the food movement — groups focused on driving a shift towards plant-rich diets — the escalating public debate around UPFs is not always welcomed.

The NOVA classification system, used to categorise foods based on different levels of processing, typically places meat and dairy analogues into the UPF category, which many health advocates say should be avoided.

This is problematic since it’s unlikely we can shift diets sufficiently to reduce food emissions without offering meat and dairy alternatives.  

Those who question the NOVA framework and the building clamour against UPFs say that the NOVA system was always a sociopolitical categorisation (capturing foods produced by large conglomerates rather than in the home) and is too dismissive of nutrition, focussed on levels of processing instead.

Various studies have shown that many plant-based alternatives perform better than their meat equivalents when assessed on a nutritional basis, such as fibre, fat, or salt content. However, this holds no sway with the blunt NOVA system. 

The food industry, especially Big Meat, loves this growing schism between food advocates. I’m now used to scanning articles about UPFs to find the line where meat and dairy alternatives are thrown under the UPF bus.

It's as if veggie burgers are the villains destroying our children's health and creating a time bomb of diet-related illness. Forget about the sugar-laden biscuits and reconstituted potato snacks. It feels like our focus is slightly off. 

But as someone who is interested in creating a food system that is both nourishing for human and planetary health, I don’t believe the NOVA classification and conversation about UPFs