-- Shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Dr. Matt Teegarden likes to compare apples to apples . Or, at the very least, he wants studies on ultra-processed foods to compare apples to applesauce—not just apples to orange juice.
That distinction, he argued in a Wednesday seminar hosted by the Institute of Food Technologists , is crucial in parsing the nutritional complexity of modern food processing. As it stands, many of the most-cited studies on the topic conflate categories in ways that obscure rather than illuminate the role of processing in nutrition. The conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has accelerated in recent years, with public health advocates and consumers alike turning to the NOVA classification system to decode the complexities of modern food production.
But Teegarden, a food scientist and chemist, alongside Dr. Susanne Bügel, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, suggests that the system is oversimplified, failing to account for the nuances of nutrition, formulation and processing methods. Related RFK Jr.
claims ultra-processed foods are “poison.” What does he plan to do about it? The NOVA system — which was developed in the early 2000s by researchers at the University of São Paulo, led by Brazilian nutritionist Carlos Monteiro — classifies foods into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like fresh fruit and vegetables; processed culinary ingredients, like oils and sugars; processed foods, such as canned veg.