What is ultra-processed food (NOVA)?

NOVA is a classification that groups foods not by their nutrients but by how much and how they are processed, into four groups. The term 'ultra-processed' describes the fourth group: long-shelf-life, ready-to-eat products made in factories with components mostly not found at home.

The term is much discussed lately and can drift to either extreme: on one side the exaggeration that 'anything processed is poison', on the other the denial that 'it is all marketing'. Both are wrong. Below I set out, in measured terms, what the classification is, what the evidence actually says, and how to use it in practice at the shop.

The four NOVA groups

NOVA starts from this observation: two products can have similar nutrition tables while one is a dish cooked in a kitchen and the other a product engineered in a factory. The classification tries to capture that difference.

The point to note is that group 3 is not 'bad'. Bread, cheese and canned chickpeas are processed foods and ordinary parts of a balanced diet. NOVA focuses only on group 4.

What makes a product 'ultra-processed'?

What decides is not calories or a single additive but how the product is engineered. Ultra-processed products typically show two things: industrial components not found at home (isolated protein, modified starch, hydrolysed protein, invert sugar syrup) and cosmetic additives added to make the product appealing (colourings, flavourings, thickeners, emulsifiers).

• The ingredient list is long and made up mostly of components you do not keep in your kitchen.
• There are cosmetic additives such as flavourings, colourings or sweeteners.
• The product is ready to eat and needs no cooking; it goes from packet to mouth.
• Its shelf life is far longer than the fresh version of the same food.
• It has no natural counterpart: the product is not a processed version of a whole food but a formula built from scratch.

Additive count alone is not a verdict; some additives (antioxidants, for example) keep the product from spoiling and are functional. But a long additive list is the most practical indicator of how engineered a product is. If you wonder what E-numbers mean, see our what is an E-number page.

What does the evidence say, and how should it be read?

There are many observational studies linking diets heavy in ultra-processed food with some health problems. Two things need separating here: association (correlation) and cause and effect. Observational studies show association and do not on their own prove causation, because people who eat mostly ultra-processed food may differ in other habits too.

Even so, researchers point to a few plausible mechanisms. These products are usually energy-dense and low in fibre, so more calories are taken in for the same fullness. Their soft texture means they are eaten faster and the satiety signal arrives late. The balance of taste, salt, sugar and fat is engineered in a way that invites overeating. These mechanisms suggest the issue may be the product as a whole rather than 'a single ingredient inside it'.

'Processed' and 'ultra-processed' are not the same

This distinction is where confusion is most common in practice. Frozen vegetables are processed, and their nutrition is often very close to fresh. Canned chickpeas are processed, and they are a cheap, practical source of protein and fibre. Pasteurised milk is processed, and that process provides safety. So reading the word 'processed' as negative on its own would be wrong, and NOVA does not say that either.

What about products with no label?

The hardest place to apply NOVA is products with no ingredient list: bread from the bakery, a dessert at the patisserie, a meal eaten out. With no list in your hand, the decision rests on general knowledge of what the product is. A simple compass helps: ask whether the product is something that could reasonably be made at home. A plain loaf baked in an oven fits that description; an item coated in coloured icing that keeps for a long time does not.

It has to be admitted that this approach is not precise; it is an estimate, not a measurement. But it works in practice, because most of the cases where you need to decide sit at the extremes anyway. The uncertain middle is not worth spending much energy on; the real gain comes from being consistent with the packaged products you buy regularly.

What do packaging claims say about NOVA?

There is no link between front-of-pack claims and processing of the kind people assume. None of 'natural', 'like homemade', 'from the farm', 'additive-free' or 'gluten-free' changes a product's NOVA group. A product can be gluten-free and at the same time engineered with modified starch, flavourings and emulsifiers; in fact many gluten-free products go through more processing than their counterparts, because the structure gluten provides has to be imitated.

The same holds for products labelled 'protein' and 'fitness'. A bar engineered with isolated protein, sweeteners and thickeners is a typical NOVA 4 product even if it looks good in the nutrition table. The conclusion here is not 'so they are all bad'; the conclusion is that the front is marketing and the back is information. Only the ingredient list tells you how a product was engineered.

Budget and practical reality

One condition of describing this topic honestly is not ignoring accessibility. Eating less processed food is not always more expensive; dried pulses, oats, seasonal vegetables, eggs and frozen vegetables are often cheaper than their packaged alternatives. But time and kitchen facilities are a cost too, and they are not the same for everyone.

What is realistic is to change the few points that make the most difference rather than setting an expectation of cooking everything from scratch: drinks, breakfast items and daytime snacks. These three categories carry most of the weight in the average person's total and are the easiest to change. For the rest, aiming at 'better' rather than 'perfect' serves you more in the long run.

Where the classification is criticised

Describing NOVA honestly means stating its criticisms too. The objection raised most often is that its boundaries are blurred: there have been cases where the same product was placed in different groups in different countries, because the definition of a 'component not found at home' varies from kitchen to kitchen. The second objection is that the classification ignores nutritional value entirely; that is by design, but it can mislead when used on its own.

The third objection, and the most important in practice, is that NOVA 4 is a very wide box. The same group holds sugary fizzy drinks and wholegrain bread containing additives. Putting those two in the same bag can make a decision harder rather than easier. It is therefore more accurate to treat NOVA not as a single measure but as a layer to be read alongside nutritional value and portion information.

Moving to less processed: practical swaps

The most useful side of this framework is not drawing up a banned list but finding a less processed counterpart that does the same job. Because swapping is more sustainable than restricting, it usually produces a longer-lasting change.

• Instead of flavoured yogurt, plain yogurt with fresh or frozen fruit on top.
• Instead of breakfast cereal, porridge oats, sweetened to your own measure if needed.
• Instead of ready-made juice, the fruit itself; the fibre structure is kept, so fullness comes with it.
• Instead of packaged cakes and bars, nuts or a slice of wholegrain bread with cheese.
• Instead of instant soup, a simple soup made with frozen vegetables, which count as minimally processed.
• Instead of sugary fizzy drinks, plain sparkling water, with a slice of lemon if you like.

Why is it discussed more in children's nutrition?

There are two concrete reasons the topic is handled separately for children. First, taste preferences are formed at this stage: early and frequent exposure to intense sweet and salty profiles can make plain flavours less appealing. Second, scale: because children's daily energy needs are lower than an adult's, the same packaged product takes up a much larger share of their daily budget.

The practical approach that follows is again about proportion rather than prohibition. Having minimally processed foods form the core of a child's diet, while packaged products stay tied to birthdays and similar occasions, is a widely accepted balance. Banning a product outright often makes it more appealing and can backfire.

The difference between NOVA and Nutri-Score

The two answer different questions and do not replace each other. Nutri-Score summarises a product's nutritional quality (through sugar, salt, saturated fat, fibre and protein) from A to E. NOVA does not look at nutrition at all and only tells you the degree of processing. That is why a product can earn a good Nutri-Score and still be ultra-processed; light and diet drinks are the typical example.

Looking at both together is a good compass. We explained how Nutri-Score is calculated on our what is Nutri-Score page.

A practical check at the shelf

• Look at the length of the ingredient list and how many components you do not recognise; this is the fastest indicator of processing.
• Look for cosmetic additives such as colourings, flavourings and sweeteners; these are markers of group 4.
• Check whether a less processed alternative exists in the same category: plain yogurt instead of flavoured, oats instead of cereal.
• Read Nutri-Score and the additive list together; one tells you nutritional quality, the other processing.
• Prioritise what you buy often; for something bought once a month this calculation makes little difference.

Common mistakes

• Generalising that 'processed equals harmful': bread, cheese, frozen vegetables and canned pulses are processed too, and they are fine.
• Focusing on a single product: one packet of crisps does not decide anything, your weekly pattern does.
• Trying to ban ultra-processed food entirely: restrictions that cannot be sustained usually turn into a rebound cycle.
• Treating Nutri-Score as a measure of processing: a product with an A grade can still be ultra-processed.
• Reading 'natural' or 'additive-free' as a NOVA group: most of these claims have no binding definition.

Who does it matter most to?

This framework helps most for people who get a large share of their daily calories from packaged, ready-to-eat products; there, small changes add up to a big difference. It also matters in children's nutrition, because taste preferences are being formed at that stage. By contrast, for someone already eating mostly home-cooked meals, NOVA stays background knowledge that does not change daily decisions much.

In short

NOVA is not a banned list but a point of view: it suggests looking at the product as a whole rather than judging a single additive. The practical rule is simple: make minimally processed foods routine and ultra-processed products occasional. If you want to see a product's additives and nutrition values together you can scan its barcode, and if you are curious about the wider picture on Turkish shelves see our shelf report.