ReviewJournal of food science2025
Nova fails to appreciate the value of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives in the diet.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultra-processed Foods and Athletes: Current Insights on Classification, Use, Awareness, and Impact-A Narrative Review.Sports medicine - open · 2026Review
- Novel Plant and fungi-based Alternatives Support Nutritional Adequacy of Diets and Reduce Their Environmental Impacts.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- The Future of Food Processing-A Food Science and Technology Perspective. Proceedings of a Roundtable Event.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- Informatics for Food Processing.ArXiv · 2025Article
- Nova fails to appreciate the value of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives in the diet.Journal of food science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.