A new study shows that eating mostly minimally processed foods, as defined by the NOVA classification system, does not automatically constitute a healthy diet, suggesting that the types of foods we eat may matter more than the level of processing used to make them.
Comparison of two menus reflecting a typical Western diet – ; one focusing on minimally processed foods and the other on ultra-processed foods, as classified by the NOVA classification system – ; researchers found that the least processed menu was more than twice as expensive and reached its expiration date three times faster without providing any additional nutritional value.
“This study indicates that it is possible to have a poor-quality diet even when choosing mostly minimally processed foods,” said Julie Hess, PhD, a research nutritionist at the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, who led the study. “It also shows that both more and less processed diets can be equally nutritious (or not nutritious), but that more processed diets may have a longer shelf life and be less expensive.”
Mark Messina, PhD, director of nutrition sciences and research at the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, will present the findings at NUTRITION 2024, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition being held June 29-July 2 in Chicago.
The new research builds on a study published by the team last year, which demonstrated that it was possible to create a high-quality menu that met dietary guidelines while getting most of its calories from classified foods. as ultra-transformed. For the new study, the researchers asked the opposite question: Is it possible to create a low-quality menu that gets most of its calories from “simple” foods?
To find out, they constructed a less processed menu, which got 20% of its calories from ultra-processed foods, and a more processed menu, which got 67% of its calories from ultra-processed foods. The level of processing involved in each menu was determined according to the NOVA classification system.
Both menus were calculated to have a Healthy Eating Index score of about 43 to 44 out of 100, a relatively low score that reflects poor adherence to dietary guidelines for Americans. The researchers estimated that the less processed menu would cost $34.87 per day per person, compared to $13.53 per day for the more processed menu. They also calculated that the median time to expiration for the less processed menu items was 35 days, compared to 120 days for the more processed menu items.
The study draws attention to the disconnect between food processing and its nutritional value. Hess noted that some nutrient-dense packaged foods can be classified as ultra-processed, such as unsweetened applesauce, ultrafiltered milk, liquid egg whites, and some brands of raisins and canned tomatoes.
The results of this study indicate that developing a nutritious diet involves more than simply considering food processing as defined by NOVA. The concepts of “ultra-processed” and “less processed” foods need to be better characterized by the nutrition research community.”
Julie Hess, PhD, nutrition researcher at the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks
Messina will present this research from 12:45 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. CDT on Sunday, June 30, during the Food Choice, Markets, and Policy poster session at McCormick Place (abstract; presentation details).
