Who's shaping the debate over ultra-processed foods—widespread food industry ties
A growing body of research links higher consumption of ultra-processed foods with poorer health. Much of that research relies on a food classification system called Nova, which categorizes foods by the degree and purpose of industrial processing.
A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has revealed a troubling trend in the debate over ultra-processed foods. Oregon Research Institute (ORI) research scientist Erica M. LaFata and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 69 academic articles published between 2009 and 2025 that either criticized the Nova food classification system or claimed potential benefits of ultra-processed foods.
Shockingly, 91.3% of these articles included at least one author with ties to the food industry, with 68.5% of the authors having some type of industry relationship. Many of these industry connections were not disclosed within the articles themselves, with 71.1% of the industry-linked authors' ties only revealed through publicly available information.
The study's findings highlight the importance of transparency in nutrition research, as articles involving authors with industry relationships were more likely to defend or promote potential benefits of ultra-processed foods, rather than presenting critical perspectives. LaFata emphasized that the study does not question the legitimacy of criticizing the Nova system, but rather stresses the need for better disclosure of food industry affiliations to ensure transparency in the debate and for readers, journals, and policymakers to consider these relationships when evaluating the evidence and subsequent policies.
Written by urgent.news from Medical Xpress's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
