News

Plant-based UPFs ‘need more nuanced evaluation’

Plant-based food systems developer Planteneers has raised doubts about how the food sector currently evaluates plant-based ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

The company’s white paper Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs): Examining Health Implications and the Rise of Plant-Based Alternatives, which explored the use of the NOVA classification system in the context of plant-based foods, identified challenges and limitations regarding the system’s ability to evaluate their nutritional profile and compositional integrity.

The authors argued that plant-based products present unique considerations that are not adequately captured by the current framework.

“The white paper highlights that the NOVA system often fails to differentiate between nutritionally beneficial plant-based alternatives and other UPFs, leading to potential misinterpretations by consumers and regulators,” co-author Rebecca Bohlmann, product manager at Planteneers, told Ingredients Network.

She added: “[The white paper] emphasises that plant-based UPFs like meat alternatives typically offer advantages such as higher fibre and lower saturated fat, and thus do not align with the negative health impacts often associated with UPFs.”

NOVA system: Not applicable for plant-based foods?

The NOVA classification system is the current and longstanding framework used to categorise UPFs, developed in 2010 by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.

Defined as industrially produced foods that contain multiple ingredients and processing steps, UPFs are classified under the NOVA system based on a foodstuff’s degree of processing rather than its nutritional quality.

Formulated to replicate the organoleptic properties of animal protein, like taste and texture, plant-based ingredients are often classified as UPFs due to their level of processing.

In its study of plant-based alternatives, Planteneers found that animal-based products and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages were most closely associated with UPF risk, while foods including plant-based options, along with ultra-processed breads and cereals, were not.

It is now calling on the global food sector and regulatory bodies to implement more refined and accurate classification systems to better reflect the complex nature of modern food items, particularly plant-based alternatives.

Consider nutritional and sustainable value in UPF classification

Adopting more precise categorisation appropriate for plant-based foods can provide clearer consumer guidance and help inform their purchasing decisions.

“Formulations should focus on improving nutritional profiles, using whole foods, and increasing transparency to address consumer concerns about processing,” said Bohlmann.

“In terms of regulation and marketing, a more nuanced system is needed that evaluates products not solely by processing level, but by their actual nutritional value and role in sustainable diets.”

Does NOVA system need an overhaul?

Planteneers also suggested an overhaul of the current NOVA system was needed to enhance its relevancy, especially in the context of plant-based foods.

First, it recommended refining the categorisation framework to centre around nutritional values and evidence-based health outcomes rather than the degree of a food product’s processing.

It stated that the framework needs to perform a comprehensive re-evaluation of processing techniques, such as fortification and fermentation, which can enhance both food safety and nutritional content.

To improve the system’s relevance, the food sector needs to undertake a targeted evaluation of individual additives, it suggested.

Planteneers’ research also emphasised the importance of understanding food processing’s functional effects on overall dietary patterns – particularly important with plant-based alternatives, as these may serve as beneficial substitutes for animal products or replace whole foods.

According to the authors, “these refinements would create a more sophisticated framework that better aligns with real-world health outcomes and provides clearer, evidence-based guidance for consumers and policymakers”.