Who’s Shaping the Debate Over Ultra-Processed Foods?
A new scientific study finds that food industry ties are common among researchers who criticize how ultra-processed foods are classified.
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. Foods in NOVA’s ultra-processed category include many packaged snacks, candy, sweetened drinks, and ready-to-eat foods.
Researchers have also raised questions about NOVA, including how foods are classified and whether the system is useful for understanding health.
A new systematic review looked at who is criticizing NOVA – and whether they have ties to the food industry.
Researchers examined 69 academic articles published between 2009 and 2025 that criticized NOVA or described potential benefits of ultra-processed foods. They also looked at the financial and professional relationships of the 232 authors.
The findings were striking: 91.3% of the articles included at least one author with an identified food industry relationship. Overall, more than two-thirds of the authors (68.5%) had some type of industry tie.
Many of those industry relationships were not disclosed in the articles themselves. In fact, for 71.1% of authors with identified industry ties, those ties were found only through publicly available information.
The researchers also found that articles involving authors with industry relationships were more likely to defend or promote potential benefits of ultra-processed foods than articles with no identified industry ties.
A page from an old playbook?
The study authors say the findings raise concerns about tactics long used by the tobacco industry to shape scientific debate – funding research that supported industry positions, challenging evidence of harm, and creating doubt about product risks.
The researchers acknowledge that some criticisms of NOVA are valid and that industry ties do not automatically make a researcher’s work wrong. But they say the pattern they found raises a larger concern: similar strategies used by the tobacco industry to generate doubt about the risks of tobacco products may now be shaping the debate over ultra-processed foods, even as evidence linking high consumption with poor health continues to grow.
The takeaway: Scientific debate is important. So is knowing who may have a financial or professional stake in that debate. The researchers conclude that the widespread – and often undisclosed – ties they found raise concerns that the food industry may be borrowing tactics long used by tobacco companies to create doubt about evidence of harm.
