Abstract
Processed foods play an important role in achieving both food and nutrition security. However, in recent years, there has been increased concern about the health effects of food processing, in large part because of the emergence of the Nova food classification system. Nova classifies all foods into one of four groups purportedly based entirely on the extent to which they have been processed. Recommendations to limit intake of ultra-processed foods (UPF) (group 4) are based primarily on observational studies showing that their intake is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Nearly all plant milks and the entire new generation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs), which are made using concentrated sources of plant protein, are classified as UPFs. This classification may deter the public from consuming and health professionals from recommending these products even though they represent a convenient way to increase plant protein intake in high-income countries, which is recommended by health authorities. However, although total UPF intake is associated with adverse health outcomes, this is not the case for many subcategories of UPFs. Furthermore, in many instances, clinical research shows that PBMAs and plant milks have beneficial effects relative to their animal-based counterparts (Group 1). Collectively, the evidence leads to two conclusions. First, PBMAs represent a viable approach for lowering the dietary animal to plant protein ratio. Second, Nova paints with too broad a brush and is insufficiently nuanced to serve as a public guide for food purchasing decisions and may distract consumers from focusing on the importance of nutrient content.