CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFood Nutrient Composition and Product DevelopmentGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are all ‘ultra-processed’ foods nutritional demons? A commentary and nutritional profiling analysis.

Derbyshire, E.·2019·Trends in Food Science & Technology
DOI 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.08.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There has been a growing body of literature published on ultra-processed foods (UPF). This has been driven by an ambiguous definition that can be easily applied to observational work. Nutritionally, UPF have been given the umbrella label of being “energy-dense, high in unhealthy types of fat, free sugars and salt, and poor sources of protein, dietary fibre and micronutrients” (Monteiro et al., 2018). Unfortunately, such overarching statements are imprecise and not necessarily reflective of all modern food products.This commentary evaluates the NOVA classification system and includes an analysis of 50 foods falling under its definition of being ‘ultra-processed’ yet classified as ‘healthy’ according to the UK Nutrient Profiling Model. Nutritional profiles were also compared against European Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 Nutrition Claims.No statistically significant correlations were found between the number of ingredients and energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium, AOAC fibre and protein. The majority of UPFs identified were low in saturated fat (84 percent), low in sugar (80 percent) and a source of fibre (60 percent). Thirty eight percent were low salt and 30 percent a source of protein.Based on the findings of this commentary it is suggested that rigorous nutritional analyses should be conducted alongside ‘processing loads’. Overarching and tautological definitions could lead to the public avoiding all UPFs and have unintended consequences such as fibre and micronutrient shortfalls.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.08.023

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. EFSA, 2006, REGULATION (EC) No 1924/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, Official Journal of the European Union
  2. Monteiro, 2016, Food classification, Public Health Nova. The Star Shines Bright, 7, 28

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Derbyshire, E.
Corresponding author
Derbyshire, E.
ORCID
Derbyshire, E.
Venue
Trends in Food Science & Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
94
Pages
98-104
ISSN
0924-2244 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tifs.2019.08.023
OpenAlex
W2972045972
Cited by
39
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Trends in Food Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Nutrient Composition and Product Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Keywords
ultra-processed foods, NOVA classification, nutrient profiling, saturated fat, free sugars, sodium, dietary fiber, proteins, micronutrients, food processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review