Reconstruction
The NOVA classification emerged from an attempt to explain dietary change that conventional nutrient categories did not fully describe. In a 2009 invited commentary, University of São Paulo epidemiologist Carlos Augusto Monteiro proposed grouping foods by the type, intensity, and purpose of their processing. The initial three-group scheme distinguished minimally processed foods, extracted or refined ingredients, and “ultra-processed foods”: ready-to-consume formulations assembled largely from refined substances and additives. This was a conceptual proposal rather than a laboratory discovery, and Monteiro explicitly acknowledged that it would contain problems and exceptions.
A 2010 paper by Monteiro, Renata Levy, Rafael Claro, Inês de Castro, and Geoffrey Cannon developed the classification and applied it to Brazil’s 2002–2003 Household Budget Survey. Among 48,470 sampled households, products then assigned to the ultra-processed group supplied about 20 percent of available calories nationally and nearly one-third among higher-income households. Examples included industrial breads, biscuits, sweets, soft drinks, and sausages. The analysis connected the category to observable changes in purchasing, allowing researchers to study industrial formulation as a feature of diets rather than treating every product chiefly as a carrier of fat, carbohydrate, protein, or vitamins.
The framework subsequently evolved. Its mature form divided foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; and ultra-processed foods. Group 4 was defined not simply by the number of factory operations but by the formulation’s nature and purpose. Characteristic products were made largely from fractionated or modified food substances—such as refined sugars, oils, modified starches, and protein isolates—often combined with flavors, colors, emulsifiers, sweeteners, or other additives serving cosmetic or sensory functions. Products could therefore change category when their formulations changed.
NOVA moved from research into policy through Brazil’s second national dietary guidelines, issued in 2014. Rather than prescribing only nutrient targets and portions, the guide advised making fresh or minimally processed foods the basis of eating, using culinary ingredients to prepare meals, limiting processed foods, and avoiding ultra-processed products. By 2016, publications from the São Paulo research group were consistently presenting the named NOVA system in its four-group form, completing the emergence represented by this card.
Its significance lies in reframing industrial food systems as objects of nutritional study. NOVA made soft drinks, instant noodles, reconstituted meats, packaged snacks, and many ready meals comparable as commercial formulations designed for convenience, durability, branding, and immediate consumption. It remains influential in dietary surveys, epidemiology, and public-health guidance. Nevertheless, it is a classification framework, not a nutrient score or chemical test. Researchers have documented uncertainty when ingredient lists are incomplete, while critics dispute the heterogeneity of Group 4 and whether processing independently explains health outcomes. Those debates do not erase NOVA’s historical impact: it supplied a widely used vocabulary for asking how industrial design changes both food and eating.
Historical context
Brazil was a predominantly urban country undergoing rapid dietary and retail change. The 2010 census counted about 190.7 million residents, roughly 84 percent of them urban; São Paulo was the country’s largest municipality, with approximately 11 million inhabitants. Supermarkets, multinational brands, packaged convenience foods, and meals eaten away from home were increasingly important parts of the food environment. At the same time, Brazilian public health was shifting attention from longstanding undernutrition toward rising obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, creating a practical setting for a classification focused on food-system transformation.
Evidence
Written sources
StrongThe framework's development is documented directly in dated publications from 2009, 2010, and 2016 and in Brazil's official 2014 dietary guidelines.
Dating
StrongThe 2009 commentary introduced the ultra-processed category, the 2010 paper operationalized the initial classification, and the named four-group NOVA framework was clearly presented by 2016.
Geographic attribution
StrongThe principal research program was based at the University of São Paulo's Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health, although collaborators also held affiliations elsewhere in Brazil and abroad.
Food identification
ModeratePublications provide definitions and examples, but the classification of an individual commercial product can depend on its exact ingredient list, formulation, and available documentation.
Historical interpretation
ModerateNOVA's influence on Brazilian guidance is directly documented. Broader claims about its independent explanatory power for health outcomes remain scientifically debated and should not be treated as settled by the framework's emergence alone.
Sources
- 1.Carlos A. Monteiro (2009). Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public Health Nutrition 12(5): 729–731. doi:10.1017/S1368980009005291Scientific literature
- 2.Carlos Augusto Monteiro; Renata Bertazzi Levy; Rafael Moreira Claro; Inês Rugani Ribeiro de Castro; Geoffrey Cannon (2010). A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 26(11): 2039–2049. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2010001100005Scientific literature
- 3.Ministry of Health of Brazil (2014). Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population. Ministry of Health of Brazil, 2nd edition. bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guideHistorical primary source
- 4.Carlos A. Monteiro; Geoffrey Cannon; Renata B. Levy; Jean-Claude Moubarac; Patrícia C. Jaime; Ana Paula B. Martins; Daniela S. Canella; Maria Laura C. Louzada; Diana C. Parra (2016). NOVA. The star shines bright: Food classification. Public health. World Nutrition 7(1–3): 28–38. worldnutritionjournal.org/wn/article/view/5Scientific literature
- 5.Carlos A. Monteiro; Geoffrey Cannon; Renata B. Levy; Jean-Claude Moubarac; Maria L. C. Louzada; Fernanda Rauber; Neha Khandpur; Gustavo Cediel; Daniela Neri; Euridice Martinez-Steele; Larissa G. Baraldi; Patricia C. Jaime (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition 22(5): 936–941. doi:10.1017/S1368980018003762Scientific literature
- 6.Michael J. Gibney; Ciarán G. Forde; Deirdre Mullally; Eileen R. Gibney (2017). Ultra-processed foods in human health: a critical appraisal. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 106(3): 717–724. doi:10.3945/ajcn.117.160440Scientific literature
- 7.Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) (2011). IBGE releases municipal population estimates in 2011. IBGE News Agency. agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/en/agencia-press-rModern synthesis
