By Jennifer Rigby and Maggie Fick
LONDON (Reuters) -The Novo Nordisk Foundation and University of Copenhagen researchers have backtracked over a project to redefine how the world understands ultra-processed foods, after more than 90 independent food scientists warned of confusion and conflicts of interest.
Professor Carlos Monteiro and colleagues in Brazil first coined the term UPF around 15 years ago and it has since been used by governments, the United Nations and consumers seeking healthier diets as part of a wider classification system called Nova.
But some scientists and the food industry have said Nova is too simple.
The Foundation announced the project in February, saying in a post on its website that has since been edited that it was time for a more nuanced version of the system, which it dubbed “Nova 2.0”.
The project, led by University of Copenhagen researcher Susanne Bügel, did not include Monteiro and his team or have links with their research.
At the end of February, Monteiro released an open letter questioning the project and sparking a response from other scientists, who warned of the confusion a similarly-named system could cause, as well as the risk of implying that the established classification, and researchers from the Global South, had been discredited.
“What is happening in this case is not an effort to refine Nova from within, but rather an attempt by a group with no connection to its development to create a parallel classification under the misleading pretence of being a… ‘next generation’ of Nova – a Nova 2.0,” Monteiro told Reuters on Friday.
Bügel told Reuters this week that her research team had agreed to Monteiro’s wishes and removed the reference to the Nova classification, and UPFs, from their project.
“Besides that the overall aim has not been changed,” she said via email, adding that the purpose of the project was to bring together researchers to examine the science of a food classification system involving processing and nutrient content.
Monteiro and the other scientists also said that the funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which is the owner of the controlling shareholder in the Danish drugmaker that has recently made huge windfalls from popular obesity drugs as well as diabetes products, represented a potential conflict of interest. They also noted links between some of the people involved in the project and the food industry.
The Novo Nordisk Foundation said in a statement to Reuters that it did not see a conflict of interest.
“We are supporting a public research project that hopefully can create new knowledge on food and health and enable consumers to make healthy choices,” a spokersperson said, adding that its grant decisions were entirely separate from the drugmaker.
Bügel told Reuters a small part of previous, separate work had been funded by the food industry, but the work had always been independent, and she had declared her interests on the project website.
Monteiro said he would not be joining the project.
Monteiro and Arne Astrup, the Foundation’s head of nutrition, have previously clashed over UPFs in a leading journal, with Astrup arguing that the term risked demonising healthy foods and added little to existing guidelines.
Monteiro says many studies have shown that consuming UPFs is linked with poor-quality diets as well as increased illness and death, adding that the exact and interlinked mechanisms for this needed more research.
The Foundation declined Reuters’ request to interview Astrup.
A blog post on the Foundation’s website had removed references to Nova 2.0 when it was reviewed by Reuters this week. The British Medical Journal, which had been approached to moderate a workshop as part of the project, said it was not participating.
(Reporting by Jennifer Rigby and Maggie Fick; Editing by Kate Mayberry)
Comments