Understanding the world's most widely used food classification system -- how it groups all foods based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing.
NOVA is a food classification system developed by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, led by Professor Carlos Monteiro and colleagues. First proposed in 2009 and refined through a series of landmark publications culminating in 2016, NOVA has become the most widely used framework for categorizing foods based on the extent and purpose of their industrial processing.
Unlike traditional nutrition labeling, which focuses on what a food contains (calories, fat, vitamins), NOVA focuses on what has been done to the food. It asks a fundamentally different question: how far has this product been transformed from its original state, and what industrial techniques and substances were used in that transformation?
NOVA divides all foods and beverages into four groups based on increasing degrees of processing. The system does not rank foods by nutritional quality -- it classifies them by the nature and intensity of the industrial processes applied to them.
Definition: Foods obtained directly from plants or animals that have undergone no processing or only minimal processing. Minimal processing includes removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, crushing, grinding, pasteurization, refrigeration, freezing, vacuum-packing, and non-alcoholic fermentation -- provided no substances are added.
The purpose of minimal processing is to preserve natural foods, make them suitable for storage, or make them safe or edible. These processes do not add salt, sugar, oils, fats, or any other substance to the original food.
Processing allowed: pasteurization, refrigeration, freezing, vacuum-packing, fermentation without added substances, and simple physical processes like shelling, peeling, and portioning.
Definition: Substances extracted and purified from Group 1 foods or from nature through industrial processes such as pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and spray-drying. These are not meant to be consumed on their own -- they are ingredients used in the preparation, seasoning, and cooking of Group 1 foods.
The distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 is important: a whole olive is Group 1, while olive oil (extracted by pressing) is Group 2. A sugar cane stalk is Group 1, while table sugar (refined and crystallized) is Group 2. These culinary ingredients are the building blocks of traditional home cooking and have been used for centuries across all food cultures.
Key point: Group 2 items are rarely consumed alone. They become part of meals when combined with Group 1 foods. A dish of rice (Group 1) cooked with olive oil (Group 2) and salt (Group 2) is still considered a minimally processed meal under NOVA, not a processed food.
Definition: Products made by combining Group 1 foods with Group 2 ingredients through relatively simple methods -- canning, bottling, non-alcoholic fermentation, and similar preservation techniques. The essential characteristic is that processed foods are recognizable as modified versions of the original Group 1 food.
Group 3 foods typically contain two or three ingredients. You can look at canned beans in salted water and immediately recognize them as beans. You can look at cheese and identify it as a product made from milk. The original food remains the star; the added ingredients serve preservation or flavor purposes, not transformation.
Key distinction: The line between Group 3 and Group 4 is drawn at the point where industrial additives enter the picture. A bread made from flour, water, salt, and yeast is Group 3. A bread containing emulsifiers, dough conditioners, high-fructose corn syrup, and preservatives like calcium propionate is Group 4.
Definition: Industrial formulations typically made from five or more ingredients, including substances not commonly used in home kitchens. These products contain little or no intact Group 1 food. They are designed to be hyper-palatable, convenient, attractive, and highly profitable -- often replacing freshly prepared meals and dishes made from the previous three groups.
The hallmark of ultra-processed foods is the presence of ingredients you would not find in a residential kitchen. These include high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, protein isolates (soy protein isolate, whey protein concentrate), emulsifiers (soy lecithin, carrageenan, mono- and diglycerides), flavor enhancers (monosodium glutamate, artificial flavors), colorings (Red 40, Yellow 5, caramel color), and non-sugar sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium).
From our database: Of 1.98 million products analyzed, approximately 41% are classified as ultra-processed (Level 4 in our scoring system). These products tend to have longer ingredient lists, more additives, and higher processing scores, reflecting the industrial formulation patterns that define NOVA Group 4.
While NOVA provides a valuable categorical framework, our Processing Score system was designed to address some of the granularity limitations inherent in a four-group classification. Here is how the two systems compare:
| Aspect | NOVA | Our Processing Score |
|---|---|---|
| Scale | 4 groups | 1–32+ continuous scale |
| Granularity | Categorical (4 buckets) | Numerical (precise scores) |
| Within-group distinction | No -- all Group 4 foods are treated equally | Yes -- distinguishes between a PS of 8.5 and 15.0 within ultra-processed |
| Nutrition consideration | No -- processing only | Separate Nutrition Score (0–10) |
| Basis | Academic classification by research teams | Ingredient analysis + additive detection algorithm |
For a complete explanation of our scoring methodology, see our Processing Score Guide and Methodology page.
No classification system is perfect, and NOVA has received substantive criticism from food scientists, nutritionists, and industry researchers. Understanding these limitations helps put the system in proper context.
A protein bar with added vitamins and a can of soda are both classified as ultra-processed, despite vastly different nutritional profiles. Grouping them together can mislead consumers into treating all ultra-processed foods as equally problematic.
A fortified breakfast cereal (Group 4) may provide meaningful amounts of iron, B vitamins, and fiber, while plain white bread (Group 3) provides relatively few micronutrients. NOVA does not account for this difference.
The sharp boundary between Group 3 and Group 4 can create an "all ultra-processed is bad" narrative that oversimplifies dietary choices. In reality, the degree of processing exists on a spectrum rather than in discrete categories.
Some traditional foods in non-Western cuisines -- such as tofu (which involves coagulation agents), tempeh, or miso -- may be classified differently depending on interpretation. The system was originally developed in a Brazilian dietary context.
Large-scale cohort studies consistently link higher intake of NOVA Group 4 foods to increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and all-cause mortality. The NutriNet-Sante study, the UK Biobank, and the PREDIMED-Plus trial have all found significant associations.
NOVA was never intended to be a complete dietary framework. It is a screening tool that helps identify the types of foods most strongly associated with poor health outcomes at the population level. It works best when used alongside other nutritional information.
By moving beyond "nutrient profiling" alone, NOVA highlights the role of industrial processing techniques and non-nutritive additives in shaping the modern food supply. This perspective has influenced food policy in ways that purely nutrient-based systems could not.
The four-group system is easy for consumers, policymakers, and educators to understand and apply. Complexity can be an obstacle to adoption -- NOVA's simplicity is by design.
Our approach addresses some of these limitations. By using a continuous Processing Score (1–32+) alongside a separate Nutrition Score (0–10), we can distinguish between a protein bar (PS 8.5, NS 7.0) and a can of soda (PS 9.0, NS 0.5) even though both would fall into NOVA Group 4. This dual-score system provides the granularity that NOVA intentionally trades for simplicity.
NOVA was developed by Professor Carlos Monteiro and his research team at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. First proposed in 2009, the system has been refined through multiple publications, with the most widely cited version published in 2016. Monteiro's work emerged from observing dietary shifts in Brazil and other countries toward industrially manufactured food products and the concurrent rise in obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.
Yes. NOVA has been adopted or referenced by numerous governmental and international bodies. Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Peru incorporate NOVA principles into their official dietary guidelines. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations use NOVA in their nutritional profiles and policy recommendations. France's national nutrition program references NOVA concepts, and researchers in Canada, Australia, and the UK use it extensively in public health studies.
Under NOVA, a food is classified as ultra-processed (Group 4) when it is an industrial formulation typically made from five or more ingredients. The defining feature is the presence of substances not commonly used in home cooking, such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, protein isolates, emulsifiers like soy lecithin or carrageenan, humectants, flavor enhancers like monosodium glutamate, artificial colorings, and non-sugar sweeteners. These products are designed to be hyper-palatable, convenient, and shelf-stable.
Yes, and this is one of the most common criticisms of NOVA. A fortified breakfast cereal may contain added vitamins, minerals, and fiber, yet it falls into Group 4 because of its industrial additives and manufacturing process. Similarly, some protein bars provide meaningful amounts of protein and micronutrients but qualify as ultra-processed due to ingredients like protein isolates, emulsifiers, and artificial sweeteners. NOVA classifies based on processing, not nutritional content, which is why our system pairs a Processing Score with a separate Nutrition Score.
NOVA and Nutri-Score measure fundamentally different things. Nutri-Score (used primarily in Europe) rates the overall nutritional quality of a product on a scale from A (best) to E (worst), based on nutrient content like calories, sugar, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, and protein. NOVA, by contrast, classifies foods based on the degree of industrial processing regardless of nutrient content. A product could receive a favorable Nutri-Score A rating while still being classified as ultra-processed under NOVA Group 4. The two systems are complementary rather than competing.
Disclaimer: All tools and data visualizations are provided for educational and informational purposes only. They are not intended as health, medical, or dietary advice. Product formulations change frequently — always check the actual label for current ingredients and nutrition facts before making purchasing decisions. Consult healthcare professionals for personalized dietary guidance.