Scientists propose new ultra-processed food classification to address criticism and consumer confusion

Researchers propose a new system to address criticism that the current widely adopted classification for foods’ processing levels, Nova, is too broad or vague. Through a more nuanced approach, the development team says the new system distinguishes ultra-processed foods that may contribute to a healthy diet, such as fortified foods. 

The alternative was developed by US-based WiseCode, a company that has developed an app to provide consumers with information on ingredients found in packaged foods. 

The proposed scoring system considers an assessment of the associated health risks of ingredients based on scientific understanding, calorie share from added sugars, and ingredients with known health concerns. 

“WiseCode’s approach is more nuanced and objective than previous classification systems, achieved by providing a more specific and actionable framework for evaluating processed foods,” says Richard Black, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at WiseCode and adjunct professor at the Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy, US. 

“For consumers, it can provide a clear method for assessing processed foods and selecting healthier options, even within heavily processed food categories. For manufacturers, this allows easy comparison of your food products with your competitors, based on ingredients used and potential health impact of those ingredients.”

The new code has been added to the WiseCode mobile app, allowing US-based consumers to scan products to assess if a food is ultra-processed. 

“Not all alike”

Amid growing evidence on ultra-processed foods’ adverse health impacts, research and experts indicate that not all foods in this category have the same negative effect on disease risks, such as bread and cereals or plant-based alternatives.

“We believe that there is most certainly a group of processed foods that may have a negative health impact over the long term, while there are other processed foods (which Nova would still classify as ultra-processed) that could contribute to a healthy diet,” says Black. 

Under Nova, a candy bar and whole-grain bread are classified as ultra-processed, while they have different health impacts.He notes that the current system’s “one-size-fits-all approach” doesn’t reflect the complexity of modern food formulations or the diversity of their health impacts. 

Nova classifies foods into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed (e.g., fresh fruit or vegetables), processed culinary ingredients (e.g., butter, salt), processed foods (e.g., cheese, home-baked bread), and ultra-processed foods (e.g., flavored yogurt, packaged bread, soft drinks). 

Meanwhile, the WiseCode team developed their new scoring system on a database of over 100,243 commercial foods and 5,041 food ingredients, classifying food processing as minimal, light, moderate, ultra, or super-ultra. 

While 95.1% of these foods were classified as ultra-processed under Nova, they were more evenly distributed across the WiseCode system (15.6–22.6% of foods per category). The developers note that their proposed system offers more differentiation among ultra-processed foods but less among lesser-processed foods. 

Health and policy implications

Researchers and nutrition experts agree that the Nova system’s limitations make it complicated to provide nutritional guidance and advice to consumers, as too many food products are classified as ultra-processed. For example, a candy bar and sugar-free whole-grain breakfast cereal are in the same category.

Professor Martin Warren, chief scientific officer and group leader at the UK Quadram Institute, says that refining the definition of processed food is key to improving scientific precision. He was not part of the research team. 

According to Warren, Nova categories are “too broad and vague, grouping diverse foods based on processing techniques rather than nutritional composition or health outcomes.” 

“More precise definitions would allow for more appropriate research on diet and health outcomes,” he continues. “This also has implications for policy and regulation, as governments and organizations use Nova to shape food labeling laws and dietary guidelines.”

The team says its new system adds nuance missing from the Nova classification, making it easier to provide nutritional guidance.Warren says there is a mismatch with nutrient profiling — adding that some foods classified as ultra-processed are nutritionally adequate or beneficial (e.g., some plant-based alternatives or fortified foods). “A refined system could integrate processing level and nutritional quality, enabling more balanced assessments.”

Another database released early this year, the GroceryDB database on the TrueFood website, also offers an alternative assessment of ultra-processed foods. It allows consumers to compare processed foods from US retailers based on ingredient lists, nutrition facts, and prices. 

Consumer benefits?

At the same time, Dr. Amanda Avery, an associate professor of Nutrition and Dietetics at the UK University of Nottingham, believes it is unlikely that there will ever be a perfect system accounting for all the nuances in the risks of processed food on health. She was not part of the research team.

“Food manufacturers continue to process food to develop products that are safe and appealing without always considering the wider health impact, and of course, the health impact is very dependent on how often and how many ultra-processed foods are included in an individual diet.” 

In addition, she highlights that while an app to assess foods’ processing levels may influence healthier food choices for some consumers, purchases are based on several factors. “Price for many has a huge influence on their food choices, and sadly ultra-processed foods often remain the cheaper option.” 

“One exception is that in-store brands can often have a better nutritional profile than the equivalent branded product, and such technology may provide consumers with a greater awareness of this — which is great.” 

Robust evaluation needed

Although nutrition experts welcome an update to the Nova system, they note there is little information available to assess the data and methods used in the system for quality or rigor. WiseCode presented its new system during the recent Nutrition 2025 annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition conference and has shared a research abstract. 

Experts welcome the new system, but call for more information to assess it and evaluate the app’s impact on consumer choices and health.“The abstract being presented is very much describing the app’s development,” comments Avery. “There does not seem to be any robust evaluation of the use of the app that demonstrates conclusive evidence of the app’s value in improving consumer food choice or the wider health benefits.”

“It would also be good to know if consumers’ ability to compare similar products changes food manufacturing practices to reduce the level of processing and use of artificial ingredients.”

Black from WiseCode notes that the approach represents ongoing progress. “Our system is designed to evolve with scientific knowledge.”

“As researchers discover more about specific ingredients and processing methods, we’ll continuously update our assessments to ensure consumers always have access to the most current, evidence-based information. We believe in celebrating progress in nutritional science while maintaining rigorous standards.”

In addition to ultra-processed foods, the WiseCode app includes other codes that consumers can use to assess how foods line up, for example, regarding their content of artificial preservatives, flavors, colors, sweeteners, allergens, and clean label ingredients. 

US consumers can also assess if foods match a “Make America Healthy Again” code, which bans ultra-processed foods, hidden harmful ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, processed seed oils, and artificial colors.