Industry expert cautions against “blanket policies” based on Nova UPF definition

The debate around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) continues to escalate as research links these foods to adverse health effects and regulators explore policies to limit UPF consumption. At the same time, experts warn that not all UPFs have the same poor nutritional value.

Rocco Renaldi, the secretary general of the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), tells Nutrition Insight that UPFs, defined by the Nova classification system, are not a valuable basis for policymaking. This model groups the majority of packaged foods in this category.

Instead, he calls for a more balanced approach that includes whole and processed foods in a healthy diet — emphasizing healthier reformulations and policy-driven consumer education toward better food choices.

Basing measures such as labeling, marketing restrictions, or fiscal measures on the Nova definition will create “blanket rules” that apply to almost all products in the supermarket, he underscores. 

“Consider labeling where advocates of measures against UPFs call for health warnings,” Renaldi suggests. “If you’re going to slap a health warning on effectively everything in the central aisle of the supermarket, what is the consumer going to do?”  

“At best, this would have no impact, as consumers would see warnings everywhere, which would diminish their significance,” he expects. 

But at worst, he says this could discourage manufacturers from innovating to improve nutritional content. “When you classify everything as ultra-processed, it removes the incentive for companies to make meaningful improvements, and you remove consumers’ ability to distinguish foods. This situation becomes counterproductive.”

Renaldi illustrates that Colombia has tried to implement regulations based on the Nova definition with a UPF tax, but that wasn’t successful. “Even fiscal authorities in Colombia struggled to apply the tax properly.”

“It’s an administrative nightmare to distinguish products based on the Nova definition, and as a result, the tax ended up targeting certain product categories, like sausages, burgers, or crisps, rather than being based on processing levels.” 

We recently interviewed Rocco Renaldi on the Nova system’s challenges and limitations.He says the tax didn’t address the problem because it imposed a tax on one category — deep-fried or oven-backed crisps with half the fat or reduced salt would be subject to the same tax. 

“Entirely ignores nutrition”

The dominant UPF definition is based on the Nova classification, which Renaldi explains originated in an academic paper published by Brazilian academics in 2009. It categorizes foods into unprocessed, minimally processed, processed, and ultra-processed, with ultra-processed as category four.

“However, it’s important to note that this classification is not scientific,” he warns. “It attempts to deviate from established nutrition science and provides a new way to classify foods, which is understandable.”

“But the main issue is that it entirely ignores nutrition. For instance, products A, B, and C could have completely different nutritional profiles, yet they would all be classified as ultra-processed.”

Renaldi says that no matter how processing may impact a food product, completely ignoring nutrition is unscientific and an “obvious shortcoming.” 

“Another problem is that the academic paper from 2009 includes other criteria for UPFs or category four — such as whether the product is packaged, heavily marketed, or made for profit — which are unscientific and ideologically driven.” 

As a result, around 70% of all processed foods are lumped into the category of UPFs, without any other distinction. 

Balance, not exclusion

Renaldi notes that a healthy diet is a balanced one, which includes many whole foods. 

Renaldi says a healthy, balanced diet with fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods can also include ultra-processed foods.“We’ve all been taught from a young age to eat more fruits and vegetables for a reason. However, this doesn’t mean a healthy diet excludes all processed foods. The key is balance, not exclusion.”

“To me, the answer is not an either-or, it’s an and-and — where does each of these components fit?” 

Instead of a question for any one company, industry, or stakeholder to solve, Renaldi says that ensuring people eat healthy is a societal question. “How do you build an economically and informationally empowered consumer base to lead a lifestyle that includes a balanced diet?” 

“It touches on so many aspects of the economy and society, because food is integral to that, and it touches on citizens’ ability to compose diets that are appropriate for them, while each of us is different.” 

He links ongoing diet-related health problems across the globe to issues in overall food system governance. 

Empowering consumers

Renaldi urges policymakers to empower and motivate consumers to build a balanced diet, instead of telling them what they can or cannot eat, taxing their food while they don’t understand why, or adding health warning labels that consumers don’t understand. 

“It’s also crucial to provide incentives for businesses to innovate and improve nutrition,” he adds. Bans won’t achieve the desired outcomes.” 

“If you want the food system to transform in a certain way, you need to guide that food system through policy leaders that include incentives to go that way.” 

In addition, he underscores the importance of a comprehensive food policy. For example, the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 aimed to transform global food systems into healthier, more sustainable, and fairer ones. 

Having a national, well-articulated, and comprehensive food policy can help governments build a healthier food system.Renaldi notes that while this summit pushed for more countries to create roadmaps or policy frameworks on food, few countries have a national, well-articulated, and comprehensive food policy. He stresses that having such a vision for the food system, with input from all stakeholders, can help governments drive it through. 

Nutritional improvements

The IFBA is an F&B member organization that aims to help consumers achieve balanced diets. It focuses on product innovation, improved access to nutrition information, responsible marketing practices, and healthy lifestyles. Renaldi says the IFBA has worked with its member companies on nutritional improvements for around 15 years. 

“In 2019, we committed to eliminating industrially produced trans fats globally. This was done in collaboration with Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Secretary-General of the WHO. Our member companies pledged to meet and exceed the WHO target for global phase out by 2023, and we achieved that ahead of target.” 

The initiative also provided guidance to small and medium enterprises on how to do this, especially when replacing partially hydrogenated oils with other ingredients.

“Another significant initiative is salt reduction,” adds Renaldi. “Companies have been working on this for years. In 2021, our companies made a new commitment at the Nutrition for Growth Summit in Tokyo to meet a common set of global sodium reduction targets across all product categories that mattered for our member companies. We met our 2025 targets and are now working toward 2030 targets.” 

However, he cautions that the answer to the problem is not all in global action — most reformulation and innovation initiatives have different dimensions across various markets. 

“Different countries have different consumer tastes, dietary habits, and expectations, so we can’t apply a one-size-fits-all approach,” he details. “We must consider consumer preferences to ensure the changes are accepted because these initiatives impact consumer palates. If we reduce salt too much, consumers may reject the product.”

At the same time, he says there has been an overall effort driven by leading companies in the sector for many years. “This is still underway; it’s open-ended.”