International Food and Beverage Alliance on UPF classification and limitations
14 Aug 2025 | International Food and Beverage Alliance
Rocco Renaldi, secretary general of the International Food and Beverage Alliance, discusses the challenges of the Nova classification system for ultra-processed foods (UPFs). He criticizes the system for ignoring nutritional value and categorizing a broad range of products under UPFs, which he says complicates policy-making and could hinder innovation. Renaldi emphasizes the need for policies that empower consumers and offer incentives for companies to improve nutritional value. He advocates for a holistic food policy through an incentivized food system and fostering a balanced diet that includes both whole foods and processed options.
This is Yolande von Haal from Nutrition Insights.
I am talking today about ultra processed foods, their classification, nutritional value, health impacts, and lots of other aspects with Rocco Rinaldi, who is the Secretary General of the International Food and Beverage Alliance.
Thank you for joining us today, Rocco.
And I wanted to just dive right in with the first question because there's, there's much to say about ultra-processed foods.
And one of the things there's a lot of talk about is the, the Nova model as a way to classify them.
And I'd love to hear more from you, about some of the limitations of this approach.
Hi, Yolanda, and first of all, thank you for having me.
You know, your question is very pertinent, I think, because there's a lot of conversation, let's say around the The subject of so-called anthrop processed foods and the nova classification is, I think, the dominant definition that is currently in use.
Now, I think what's important to to remind our listeners of is that Nova, the Nova classification is, came out in an academic paper published by a group of Brazilian academics some 15 years ago now, 16, 2009.
And it famously classifies foods into not processed, minimally processed, processed, and ultraprocessed, and ultra processed being , category 4.
Now, I think, the, what is, evident to me, but I think to many in the nutrition space is that this is not as such a scientific classification.
It is a classification that attempted a departure from established nutrition science and they tried to look at a new and different way of classifying foods.
Which is understandable, but I think, the first and fundamental shortcoming of the existing definition is that it ignores entirely, all things to do with nutrition.
So, product A, B, and C may have a completely different nutritional profile.
They may end up classified exactly the same, by Nova, so.
Whatever the impact of processing on a food, I think completely ignoring nutrition, is, unscientific and an obvious shortcoming.
The second one, is that, and this is something that most people probably do not pay attention to because you have to go and, you know, reread the, the academic paper from 2009, to realize, and that's the fact that there are other criteria in the novel classification.
Particularly related to Category 4 or so-called UPF, and that is whether a product, for instance, is packaged or whether it's heavily marketed or whether it's made for profit.
Now, these are criteria that are also obviously unscientific, but I would go a step further, are, ideologically driven.
And therefore, the result of the Nova classification results in its most important shortcoming overall is that it effectively throws about an estimated 70% or so of all processed foods into one bucket, which is UPF, and it's effectively.
3/4 of what you find in your average supermarket without any other distinction.
That's a really good point.
Yeah, and, and one thing, so.
With its its shortcomings that it has, this no from other, we know that it's, it's used a lot to, in research, but also more and more, I'm feeling that there are some Things looking at regulation, policies, etc.
And I'm also curious, can you talk a bit if regulators only target UPF just because of their processing levels, not really looking at nutritional value as you were talking about.
What could we lose in terms of public health progress?
Especially if we look at nutritionally improved, products which often are classified as UPFs.
Right, so the, the answer is in that 70% or whatever the, the figure is.
It depends a little bit on the context, but it's in the fact that the very vast majority of processed foods or convenience food, packaged foods if you like, will fall under the definition without any distinction.
And if you're going to base policy measures.
Let's say labeling schemes or marketing restrictions or fiscal measures, on that definition, you end up with a blanket almost imposition of these measures on the vast majority of products on the supermarket shelf.
So if you're talking labeling, for instance, advocates of , measures against, so-called rop processed foods, call for health warnings, for example.
So 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?
How are they going to react?
It will have at best no impact because the consumer will just say, everything here has a warning, so what does that mean?
And at worst it's going to discourage the uptake of the sort of innovations that we're talking about because you're, you're effectively taking away one from the consumer, the the ability to distinguish, and secondly, also most importantly, you're taking away from the food manufacturer the incentive to do anything about innovation for nutrition because , whatever you do, you're not.
And so that creates, I would say a counterproductive, situation.
Now that said, I will also say that , some countries, famously Colombia, is, I think the only country to date, that has attempted regulation based on the novel definition of UPF, and they introduced a, a UPF tax.
And what's interesting is that it's clearly not workable because even the authorities, the fiscal administration, they could not impose a tax on whatever you see on a supermarket shelf, and also there's an obvious obstacle in terms of using that definition, right, because what falls into it and what doesn't is an extremely complex exercise to do.
And so it's administ, it's, it's an administrative nightmare to try to do that.
So what did they do in Colombia?
It ended up being a tax that targets certain categories of products, right?
It'll say, we tax the sausages, we tax the burgers, we tax the crisps, whatever it is, because that's the only way that you're, that is going to be manageable from an administrative point of view.
Now that again is not a sensible way forward because you're going to put a blanket tax on the category and whether you have a deep fried crisp or an oven baked crisp which has got half the fat or one that has a reduced salt or whatever, whatever, they're going to be subject to the same tax.
So, whichever way you look at it, it isn't at present a a a a useful basis for policymaking in our view.
OK, and you already talked a little bit about companies about giving them incentives to improve nutritional value of UPFs or packaged foods in general.
How are some of the companies that you represent at the International Food and Beverage Alliance doing is improving nutritional value of foods without sacrificing affordability or taste?
So we've been working with the IPPA member companies for some 15 years now on these, in these areas, and product formulation and innovation has been a critical plank of action.
So I'll single out a couple of collective initiatives that our companies have taken and then speak a little bit about the individual ones.
On a collective basis, we've taken 22 of the most significant initiatives we've taken one, the, elimination of industrially produced trans fats.
That's been a common initiative of the company's launched in 2019 with Doctor Tedros, the head of the World Health Organization, where our companies pledged altogether to meet and exceed the WHO's target for global phase out by 2023.
And we achieved that ahead of target and then we also helped disseminate.
Guidance for SMEs in terms of how you do it, in particular with regard to the most difficult categories where you have to replace partially hydrogenated oils with, with other ingredients.
The second example I'd like to highlight is, , salt, reduction.
Now companies have been doing this for years and years.
In 2021, our companies got together and brought a new commitment to the, , the N4G, the Nutrition for Growth summit, which took place at that time, in Tokyo.
And we brought a a commitment which was to meet a common set of global targets for sodium reduction across all the categories that mattered for our member companies.
So we had 2025 targets which we've met and reported recently, and now we have 2030 targets that we are working towards.
So those are two big global initiatives with a big global impact.
However, the answer to the problem isn't all in global action because you can only go so far and each, each market is its own, you know, you're in the Netherlands, I'm in Belgium at the moment.
Even within these two countries that have a lot in common, consumer tastes do differ, diets do differ, habits are different.
And so consumers have different expectations and as companies, we, the, the, the one most fundamental thing we cannot do is ignore consumers.
We have to take consumers with us, particularly when it comes to this sort of initiative because it impacts, consumer palates and , if, you reduce salt, let's say, beyond what your, average consumer in this market, accepts, then you're simply going to use the consumer and your product is going to, fail.
So, for this reason, most of what companies do, in terms of reformulation and innovation initiatives has different dimensions in different markets, but it is, an overall effort that has been driven by leading companies in the sector for many years now and it's still underway, because it is not a, it is not a job with an end date.
It's certainly open ended.
Yeah, I can imagine there's, there's, there's so many different aspects of that also to, to dive into.
Another thing that I wanted to talk to you about as we opened our conservation conversation talking about research into ultra processed foods, there was a trial, recently, published in the UK that showed that people lost nearly twice as much weight while on a whole food diet compared to a UPF diet.
And I'm curious if you can talk a bit about what that trial says or doesn't say about the role of processing first incision in weight management, and how it might shape future policy.
Look, I, I, I can't comment on the study in, in, in its specifics, but I think that, it points to something really quite, sensible.
Which is that you must have a balanced, varied diet to have a healthy diet.
So, while I don't think that the existing concept or definition of ultra processed food is useful, I do agree, that, a balanced diet is one that has to include lots of whole foods.
We are taught, from an early age to eat our fruits and veg, and there's a very good reason for that.
We shouldn't eat just tinned fruit or, or, or or or or veg out of a tin, right?
We should eat a diet that includes plenty of fresh produce.
Now that does not mean, that a healthy diet is, is, is a diet that excludes anything.
The trick is a a diet that is balanced, right, and where different products have are in the right place.
And so that means snacks need to be treated as snacks and and meals need to be treated as meals.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
Within that, you need to have whole grain, you need to have fresh fruits, and so on and so forth.
So, the question to me is, it's a, it's a societal question, more than a question for a company or, an industry or any, any one stakeholder in particular.
And the societal question is how do you build a food culture, and also, I think that's very important, and empowered, and economically, as as, informationally empowered consumer base that is able to lead a lifestyle that includes that sort of diet.
And that is a very difficult question because it touches on so many aspects of the economy and of society, because food is integral to all of that and citizens' , ability, to compose those sorts of diets that are appropriate for them, and, and each of us is different.
Is, is not an easy thing and it's, I think something where in terms of overall food systems governance, we have probably as societies, not succeeded, which is why we have this intractable, diet-related health problem.
So the answer to that is not to me is not take out this or only have that, because we've been, we've been talking in those terms for so many years without any results.
The answer is it's not an either or, it's an and and, and where does each of these components fit?
OK.
Really interesting.
I wanted to have, I have one final question in an attempt to sort of wrap this all up and look into the future a little bit, cause I'm really curious if you can discuss a bit how you see, the way, UPFs are evaluated, regulated, evolving, as you've been talking about, should evolve.
As this focus, as there is maybe a focus more towards actual nutritional outcomes, at least in, in terms of research, we're seeing more of that.
What can you say about dads?
So I think research needs to take its course and we should also be guided by by the scientific evidence base as it evolves and solidifies and and and and becomes more consolidated.
In terms of, in the meantime, what do you do in terms of, policy?
So, a couple of fundamentals, from our perspective.
One is, consumers don't need to be told what to do.
Or the worst thing you can do is tell someone, don't do this.
That is exactly what they're going to do.
Consumers need to be empowered.
Now, how do you do that?
That will vary between one country and another, between one type of consumer and another, and we have to get a lot more sophisticated in terms of, not in terms of companies, in terms of companies are very good at marketing, right?
And so, they know their consumer base, but that sort of understanding.
Of how to motivate consumers needs to be translated onto a policy domain.
So that they are empowered and not either just told what to do or not to do or or their food is taxed and they don't understand why or they they face a health warning and they don't understand what to do with it.
The second, key plank, is, is about business and, the key word for me there is incentives.
So, you can , You can ban this and you can ban that, and you know what companies will adjust, but you will not achieve the outcome that you want.
The outcome that you, that you want will be more likely achieved through a series of incentives.
So if you want the food supply to be transforming or the food system to be transforming in this and this way.
Then you need to guide that food system through policy levers that include incentives to go that way.
Those two are, to me, the most fundamental things.
And the third one, which is sort of an overarching concept is, is actually, it's called a food policy.
Few countries today in the world have one.
I think the Netherlands, is a country that that does have one, and there's been a movement since the Food systems summit of 21 for more and more countries to have a national.
A roadmap, or a policy framework for that.
But the countries that actually have a articulated comprehensive food policy are still very few.
And that doesn't answer your question directly in terms of the UPF concept, but to me that UPF concept is, is almost irrelevant.
What matters is a vision for the food system that you, as a as a government with the input of stakeholders, you have to put your imprint on and then drive through.
