Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-22 standard review
What are ultra-processed foods?
Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.
Overview
Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2019 · PMID 30744710 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980018003762
NOVA's authors explain that products with industrial ingredients or cosmetic additives (e.g., emulsifiers, flavours, emulsifying salts) are ultra-processed.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
How to define and identify UPF.
- How was the study done?
Commentary/guide to the NOVA classification.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
Defines UPF processes and a practical rule: at least one ingredient characteristic of NOVA group 4 (substances rarely used in kitchens such as HFCS, hydrogenated oils, hydrolysed proteins; or cosmetic additives such as flavours, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, gelling and glazing agents).
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A practical label test.
- What are the study's limitations?
Commentary; reliability not tested here
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports definitional part of C-UPF-01; used to classify allowed items (C-UPF-12) and sugar (C-SUG-05).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the category is precise.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, Moubarac JC, Louzada ML, Rauber F, Khandpur N, Cediel G, Neri D, Martinez-Steele E, Baraldi LG, Jaime PC
- Journal
- Public Health Nutr
- Year
- 2019
- Identifier
- PMID 30744710 DOI 10.1017/S1368980018003762 · PMC10260459
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement
2. Research question
How to define and identify UPF.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Commentary/guide to the NOVA classification.
- Population
Not applicable
- Country
Brazil (authors)
- Period
2019
- Sample size
Not applicable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not applicable
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Not applicable
- Comparator
Not applicable
- Endpoints
Not applicable
- Statistical methods
Not applicable
5. Actual results
- Results
Defines UPF processes and a practical rule: at least one ingredient characteristic of NOVA group 4 (substances rarely used in kitchens such as HFCS, hydrogenated oils, hydrolysed proteins; or cosmetic additives such as flavours, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, gelling and glazing agents).
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Practical identification via ingredient list.
6. Strengths
- Authoritative definition by NOVA developers
7. Weaknesses
- Commentary; reliability not tested here
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Not applicable.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports definitional part of C-UPF-01; used to classify allowed items (C-UPF-12) and sugar (C-SUG-05).
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Defines the archive's own yardstick.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | correctly reported |
14. Open questions
Reliability.
15. Linked fact checks
- 'Ultra-processed food' is a precise scientific category (NOVA group 4); a product is ultra-processed if its label lists any ingredient you would not have in your kitchen. – Studies supporting the claim
- Implicit in the archive's rule: following the Tayyibat food lists protects against ultra-processed foods. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- White sugar is not an industrial/manufactured product but an extract of plants, so it does not belong with processed foods. – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
(Narrative) UPF is NOVA group 4; if the label lists anything you would never have in your kitchen, it is ultra-processed.
- A. What was actually studied?
UPF definition.
- B. What did the authors find?
As above.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As above.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Presents NOVA as a precise category.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
The practical rule is correctly paraphrased; 'precise' is not supported (I-UPF-02).
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- correctly reported