Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 14;11(6):1344.
doi: 10.3390/nu11061344.

Robustness of Food Processing Classification Systems

Affiliations

Robustness of Food Processing Classification Systems

Rachel Bleiweiss-Sande et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Discrepancies exist among food processing classification systems and in the relationship between processed food intake and dietary quality of children. This study compared inter-rater reliability, food processing category, and the relationship between processing category and nutrient concentration among three systems (Nova, International Food Information Council (IFIC), and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)). Processing categories for the top 100 most commonly consumed foods children consume (NHANES 2013-2014) were independently coded and compared using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Relative ability of nutrient concentration to predict processing category was investigated using linear discriminant analysis and multinomial logistic regression and compared between systems using Cohen's kappa coefficient. UNC had the highest inter-rater reliability (ρ = 0.97), followed by IFIC (ρ = 0.78) and Nova (ρ = 0.76). UNC and Nova had the highest agreement (80%). Lower potassium was predictive of IFIC's classification of foods as moderately compared to minimally processed (p = 0.01); lower vitamin D was predictive of UNC's classification of foods as highly compared to minimally processed (p = 0.04). Sodium and added sugars were predictive of all systems' classification of highly compared to minimally processed foods (p < 0.05). Current classification systems may not sufficiently identify foods with high nutrient quality commonly consumed by children in the U.S.

Keywords: children; classification; diet; micronutrients; nova; processing; ultra-processed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. [51], [52]

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Original and final category assignment for foods as classified by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), Nova, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) systems.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A). Linear Discriminant plot, Nova system. (B). Linear Discriminant plot, IFIC * system. (C). Linear Discriminant plot, UNC ** system. The top 100 foods consumed by children 6–12 years old (NHANES 2013–2014) by processing category, plotted within the first two linear discriminants for the * International Food Information Council (IFIC), Nova and ** University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) systems according to predicted classification category. Percentage of variance explained by the first and second linear discriminant is included in each figure.

Comment in

References

    1. Ogden C.L., Lamb M.M., Carroll M.D., Flegal K.M. Obesity and socioeconomic status in children and adolescents: United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief. 2010;51:1–8. - PubMed
    1. Singh G.K., Siahpush M., Kogan M.D. Rising social inequalities in US childhood obesity, 2003–2007. Ann. Epidemiol. 2010;20:40–52. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frederick C.B., Snellman K., Putnam R.D. Increasing socioeconomic disparities in adolescent obesity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:1338–1342. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321355110. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hales C., Carroll M.D., Fryar C.D., Ogden C.L. Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;288:1–8. - PubMed
    1. Nielsen S., Popkin B. Changes in beverage intake between 1977 and 2001. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004;27:205–210. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.05.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources