Food Industry Ties Found in Most Nova Critics, Study Shows

A new review looked at who criticizes the Nova food classification system. The system groups foods by how much they are processed. Researchers checked papers from 2009 to 2025. They found a pattern that is hard to ignore. Most of the critics have links to the food industry.

Out of 69 studies, over 90 percent had at least one author with industry ties. That means money or connections to food companies. Nearly 70 percent of all 232 authors had some link. Even the journals matter. About 65 percent of the papers appeared in journals tied to nutrition groups that take industry funding.

The arguments change depending on the ties. Papers with direct industry links defended ultraprocessed foods almost 40 percent of the time. When the ties were through organizations or governments, that number jumped to 60 percent. But papers with no known ties only made those arguments about 17 percent of the time.

This looks familiar. The tobacco industry used the same playbook decades ago. They funded research to create doubt about smoking risks. Now the food industry may be doing the same as evidence grows against ultraprocessed foods. People should ask who pays for the science they read.

Trust in nutrition advice depends on independence. When critics are connected to the products they defend, the public deserves to know. Transparency is not optional. It is essential for health decisions.