Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39929603›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science2025

Nova fails to appreciate the value of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives in the diet.

Mark Messina, Virgina Messina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark MessinaSoy Nutrition Institute Global, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6975-6354
Virgina MessinaNutrition Matters, Inc., Pittsfield, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7336-841X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Processed foods play an important role in achieving both food and nutrition security. However, in recent years, there has been increased concern about the health effects of food processing, in large part because of the emergence of the Nova food classification system. Nova classifies all foods into one of four groups purportedly based entirely on the extent to which they have been processed. Recommendations to limit intake of ultra-processed foods (UPF) (group 4) are based primarily on observational studies showing that their intake is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Nearly all plant milks and the entire new generation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs), which are made using concentrated sources of plant protein, are classified as UPFs. This classification may deter the public from consuming and health professionals from recommending these products even though they represent a convenient way to increase plant protein intake in high-income countries, which is recommended by health authorities. However, although total UPF intake is associated with adverse health outcomes, this is not the case for many subcategories of UPFs. Furthermore, in many instances, clinical research shows that PBMAs and plant milks have beneficial effects relative to their animal-based counterparts (Group 1). Collectively, the evidence leads to two conclusions. First, PBMAs represent a viable approach for lowering the dietary animal to plant protein ratio. Second, Nova paints with too broad a brush and is insufficiently nuanced to serve as a public guide for food purchasing decisions and may distract consumers from focusing on the importance of nutrient content.

Indexed as

Dairy ProductsDietMeatAnimalsFood HandlingHumansNutritive ValuePlant ProteinsPlant ProteinsNovaplant‐based meat alternativesplant milkssoyultra‐processed foods

Identifiers

PMID39929603
PMCPMC11810565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.