Study: Most Critics of the Nova UPF System Had Industry Ties

A systematic review published online on September 17, 2026, in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) reports that 68.5% of 232 authors who published academic work criticizing the Nova food classification system, or promoting the benefits of ultra-processed foods, had food-industry ties. Of the 69 articles included, 91.3% had at least one industry-affiliated author. The review maps conflicts of interest; it does not test whether the critics' scientific arguments are right or wrong.

Key takeaways:

• A preregistered systematic review found that 68.5% of 232 authors criticizing Nova or defending ultra-processed foods had industry connections.
• Of the 69 articles, 91.3% involved at least one industry-affiliated author, and 65.2% were published in journals associated with nutrition societies that have disclosed industry partnerships.
• Arguments defending or promoting ultra-processed foods appeared in 39.7% of articles with direct industry ties and 60.0% of those with organizational or governmental industry ties, compared with 16.7% of articles with no identified ties.
• Industry ties do not by themselves make an argument false; the review did not assess whether the critiques were scientifically correct.

What happened

On September 17, 2026, the American Journal of Public Health published ahead of print a systematic review titled "Characterizing Food Industry Affiliations Among Critics of the Nova Food Classification System: A Systematic Review." The study authors include E. M. LaFata, H. C. McCausland, A. G. Goodin, and R. Shannon, affiliated with the Center for Weight, Eating, and Lifestyle Science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. At the time of the study, LaFata was also affiliated with the Oregon Research Institute, and Shannon with the Villanova School of Business.

The review looked at food-industry relationships among authors who published academic work criticizing the Nova classification system or defended ultra-processed foods between 2009 and 2025. The research protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO under registration record CRD42024539022. The bibliographic record for the review is indexed in PubMed and Europe PMC.

The authors noted that their objective was "To evaluate the extent and nature of food-industry relationships among authors ... building on evidence that some Nova critiques stem from industry-linked actors." The full text is paywalled, and the review's own funding and conflict-of-interest statements were not available to us.

What changed

Nova is the food-classification system that defines the "ultra-processed" group most nutrition research uses. The review mapped both disclosed and nondisclosed food-industry relationships among authors in the debate.

The abstract reports that the authors looked at disclosed relationships and at nondisclosed ones "uncovered by public online source." In total, they included 69 articles by 232 authors, published between 2009 and 2025.

The abstract reports: "Of 69 included articles, 91.3% involved at least 1 industry-affiliated author, 68.5% of 232 total authors had food industry ties, and 65.2% of articles were published in journals associated with nutrition societies with disclosed industry partnerships."

The review also compared the arguments made in articles with and without industry ties. According to the abstract: "Arguments defending or promoting ultraprocessed foods appeared in 39.7% of articles with direct industry ties and 60.0% with organizational or governmental industry ties, compared with 16.7% of articles with no identified ties."

The authors then offered their own interpretation: "Given the tobacco industry's well-documented strategy of manufacturing academic doubt about its products' harms, these findings raise concern that the food industry may be following a similar playbook as evidence for the health risks of ultraprocessed foods continues to grow." That comparison is the authors' framing, not a finding the review tested.

Who is affected

The review is aimed at nutrition scientists, journal editors and regulators, but it touches anyone who follows dietary advice about ultra-processed foods. For one example of the research in this area, see Ultra-Processed Food, Sleep and Type 2 Diabetes Risk.

In the review's sample, most articles critical of Nova had at least one author with food-industry ties. The abstract does not name specific authors, articles, companies or journals.

The review maps relationships; it does not test whether any specific criticism of Nova was right or wrong. An industry affiliation does not by itself make an argument false, and the abstract does not accuse any individual researcher of bias.

What it means for shoppers

For shoppers, the question matters because the definition of "ultra-processed" is now a US policy question: the FDA and USDA are working on a uniform definition (see the background below).

For a look at what controlled trials do and do not show, see Ultra-Processed Food Trials: Weight Gain Clear, Cause Less So.

Whatever definition regulators settle on, the ingredient list and the Nutrition Facts panel are where you can see what is actually in a product, including additives such as stabilizers and emulsifiers.

A clear limitation: the AJPH review does not assess the scientific merits of the critiques themselves, and it cannot tell shoppers whether processing drives health outcomes independently of nutrient content. The abstract also does not give the detailed definition of "ties," how relationships were weighted, or how many of the 69 articles had no identified ties.

The background

Nova groups foods into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods. Ultra-processed foods are generally described as industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods, plus additives.

Studies have linked high consumption of ultra-processed foods to worse health outcomes, while critics have questioned how consistently Nova can be applied.

The definition is now a live policy question in the United States. According to the FDA's Ultra-Processed Foods page, content current as of September 18, 2025, "The FDA is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of a joint effort to develop a uniform definition of UPFs." The page also says: "On July 24, 2025, the FDA and USDA issued a Request for Information to gather information and data from the public on a range of topics related to UPFs, including what factors and criteria should be included in a uniform definition of UPFs."

For where the federal process stood in our earlier reporting, see US ultra-processed food definition OMB review.

What to watch next

The main thing to watch is the FDA and USDA's uniform definition of ultra-processed foods and how the agencies handle the public input gathered under the July 2025 Request for Information.

Also watch for published responses from authors whose work was included in the review; we did not find any.