Recently, the term “processed foods” has become the focus of intense debate. The shift from traditional nutrient-centered approaches to processing-based classification for dietary recommendations has created significant confusion among consumers and even within the scientific community. This Fact Sheet aims to address common misconceptions about processed foods, with particular emphasis on “ultra-processed foods (UPFs)”.

The role of food in human health is highly complex. The food matrix influences texture, satiety, digestion, hormonal secretion, nutrient bioavailability and metabolic utilization, interaction of nutrients within the digestive system and gut microbiota, all of which contribute to health outcomes.

Nearly all foods undergo some form of processing for various reasons, including ensuring food safety, extending shelf life, improving convenience and enhancing favor, palatability, healthfulness and consumer appeal.

In 2010, the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), US Department of Health and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee defined processed food as “any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to procedures that alter the food from its natural state” (Fox, 2012). Thus, any raw food that is peeled, cut, cooked or otherwise modified is considered processed. The challenge lies in categorizing foods based on level of processing, whether by intensity, duration or the number of unit operations/steps or how these relate to changes in physical, chemical and biological properties that affect shelf life, safety, quality and nutrient bioavailability.

Several systems attempt to classify foods based on their “level of processing” to predict diet quality, assess health impacts and guide dietary recommendations and product development (Moubarac et al., 2014). However, no globally accepted food classification system currently exists. Critics argue that these systems often use ambiguous and inconsistent criteria undervaluing scientific evidence on nutrition and food processing effects which lead to confusion among both consumers and researchers (Sadler et al., 2021). The lack of consensus on defining processing levels, combined with a reliance on correlations rather than quantitative data, makes widespread acceptance of these classification systems challenging.

The concept of UPFs originates from the Brazilian NOVA classification system, one of the most debated models (Fardet, 2024). NOVA categorizes foods and ingredients into four groups:

1. Unprocessed/minimally processed foods
2. Processed culinary ingredients
3. Processed foods
4. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) which are defined as “products involving formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by a series of industrial techniques and processes.”

Industrial formulations with five or more ingredients are considered UPFs under NOVA. Examples include carbonated soft drinks; sweet, fatty, or salty packaged snacks; candies (confectionery); packaged bread and buns, cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes and cake mixes; margarine and other spreads; sweetened breakfast ‘cereals’ and fruit yogurt and ‘energy’ drinks; pre-pre-pared meat, cheese, pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and ‘sticks’; sausages, burgers, hot dogs and other reconstituted meat products; powdered and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts; baby formula.

Opponents of the NOVA system argue that equating all processed foods with poor nutritional quality is misleading. Nutritional quality depends not only on the number of ingredients, or intensity and complexity of processing or where the food has been processed, at home or at a large industrial plant, but primarily on ingredient quality and impact of processing. For example, breakfast cereals containing 60 % whole grain and formulated with minimal added sugar, vegetable oil, salt, natural colors and fortified with essential micronutrients may still be classified as UPFs due to extrusion technology that shapes and cooks the product under pressure during manufacturing (Louie, 2025). Such classifications risk misleading consumers about the nutrition-al value of the products.

While promoting whole and minimally processed foods is important, cultural, regional socioeconomic and environmental factors should not be overlooked. For example, while tofu sometimes classified as an UPF, it has been a protein rich staple in Asian cuisines for generations. Research shows that processed foods, many classified as UPFs, provide essential nutrients in the American diet: 55% of dietary fiber, 48% of calcium, 43% of potassium, and significant proportions of vitamins and minerals including vitamin D, iron, folate and vitamin B12 (Weaver et al., 2014). Considering that processed foods are cost-effective nutrient sources for economically disadvantaged populations, completely eliminating fortified processed foods could exacerbate nutrient deficiency.

Rather than labeling foods as processed or ultra-processed, a more effective strategy is to educate consumers to limit their nutrient-poor food intake. In the U.S., consumers benefit from strict regulations and monitoring systems that ensure food safety and transparency. Understanding how processing and fortification can work together is key to better nutrition.

Reading ingredient lists and nutrition labels is a simple, effective way to make informed food choices. Guidance from qualified professionals should shape food decisions, not social media posts from unqualified influencers.

References

Fardet, A. (2024). Ultra-processing should be understood as a holistic issue, from food matrix, to dietary patterns, food scoring, and food systems. Journal of Food Science, 89(7), 4563–4573. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17139

Fox, M. (2012). Defining Processed Foods for the Consumer. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(2), 214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2011.12.014

Louie, J. C. Y. (2025). Are all ultra-processed foods bad? A critical review of the NOVA classification system. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1–9. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665125100645

Moubarac, J.-C., Parra, D. C., Cannon, G., & Monteiro, C. A. (2014). Food Classification Systems Based on Food Processing: Significance and Implications for Policies and Actions: A Systematic Literature Review and Assessment. Current Obesity Reports, 3(2), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-014-0092-0

Sadler, C. R., Grassby, T., Hart, K., Raats, M., Sokolović, M., & Timotijevic, L. (2021). Processed food classification: Conceptualization and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 112, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.059

Weaver, C. M., Dwyer, J., Fulgoni III, V. L., King, J. C., Leveille, G. A., MacDonald, R. S., Ordovas, J., & Schnakenberg, D. (2014). Processed foods: Contributions to nutrition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(6), 1525–1542.