Latest from Food Politics: Most studies criticizing the Nova classification of ultra-processed foods are funded by food companies

Jerry Mande of Nourish Science sent me this item from The Examination: Junk food researcher finds hidden hand in ultraprocessed foods debate. This, in turn, referred to Nine in ten research papers disputing definition of ultraprocessed foods have ...

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

By Marion Nestle October 20 2026 Most studies criticizing the Nova classification of ultra-processed foods are funded by food companies Jerry Mande of Nourish Science sent me this item from The Examination: Junk food researcher finds hidden hand in ultraprocessed foods debate. This, in turn, referred to Nine in ten research papers disputing definition of ultraprocessed foods have industry ties, study finds. This, in further turn, referred to a study in the American Journal of Public Health: Characterizing Food Industry Affiliations Among Critics of the Nova Food Classification System: A Systematic Review. Am J Public Health. 2026 Nov;116(11):1790-1799. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2026.308691. Epub 2026 Sep 17. Results Of 69 articles from 2009 to 2025 criticizing the Nova classification system for ultra-processed foods or defending ultra-processed foods: 91.3% involved at least 1 industry-affiliated author 68.5% of 232 total authors had food industry ties 65.2% of articles were published in journals associated with nutrition societies with disclosed industry partnerships. Arguments defending or promoting ultraprocessed foods appeared in 39.7% of articles with direct industry ties 60.0% with organizational or governmental industry ties 16.7% of articles with no identified ties. Conclusion Given the tobacco industry’s well-documented strategy of manufacturing academic doubt about its products’ harms, these findings raise concern that the food industry may be following a similar playbook as evidence for the health risks of ultraprocessed foods continues to grow. Comment These results certainly do raise concern.  They confirm what I’ve long suspected.  The food industry does not like the concept of ultra-processed food.  Defining it makes research possible.  This research shows diets high in ultra-processed foods to be bad for health.  If people eat less of them, sales and profits will decline (and this is already happening).  The main opposition to defining ultra-processed foods and advice to eat less of them comes from the food industry (other opposition comes from nutrition researchers who object to the focus on processing rather than nutrient content).  This study provides further evidence for the bias introduced by industry funding of research. The bottom line: not eating too much ultra-processed junk food is likely to improve health. The post Most studies criticizing the Nova classification of ultra-processed foods are funded by food companies appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle      Related Posts Industry-funded study of the week: artificially sweetened drinks vs. water Industry-funded study of the week: the American Beverage Association at work Industry-funded study of the week: dairy trans fats   Now Available: What to Eat Now My new book, What to Eat Now, is officially out! It's both a field guide to food shopping in America and a reflection on how to eat well—and deliciously. For more information and to order, click here. You can explore the full archive of this (almost) daily blog at foodpolitics.com, where you'll also find information about my books, articles, media interviews, upcoming lectures, favorite resources, and FAQs. Visit the Site » ​​​​​​​ Marion Nestle Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, Emerita © Marion Nestle. You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from us. If you'd prefer not to receive updates, you can unsubscribe. Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy

---

Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz® • 650 E. Palisade Avenue Ste 2, PO Box 173 • Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Newly Released White Paper: The State of Concierge and Consumer Medicine, 2026

Four Forces Pulling Capital Into the Category by Vector Medical Group and Baker Donelson  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Home | 2026 Conference | Industry news | Get tickets | Research Briefs | Annual Reports | Weekly Podcast | National Stats | Physician Job Board | Sponsors Key Takeaways from Newly Released White Paper:  The State of Concierge and Consumer Medicine, 2026   Guest Article Contributors (October 12, 2026) - Prepared jointly by Vector Medical Group and Baker Donelson, with commentary from Dana Jacoby, CEO & Founder of Vector Medical Group; Gary W. Herschman, Shareholder and Co-Chair of Baker Donelson's Health Care Transactions Group; and Timothy C. McHale, Associate in Baker Donelson's Health Care Transactions Group.   The new white paper explains why membership-based primary care, direct primary care (DPC), and adjacent consumer-health businesses -- such as longevity clinics, biomarker testing, hormone optimization, and medical weight management -- are drawing sustained attention from private equity firms, family offices, insurers, and consumer-health strategics.    For physician-owners, the paper is a practical guide to protecting and building value, whether or not they intend to transact. Read Full Story | Download White Paper, Oct 2026 Content is for educational and informational purposes only and is not medical, legal, tax or financial advice. © 2007-2026 Concierge Medicine Today, LLC. CMT is an independent publication, not owned or controlled by any health system, hospital network, vendor, or membership association. Publication of guest contributor content is not considered an endorsement. Please do your own due diligence.  Don't want these emails anymore? You can Unsubscribe or Manage Preferences. 4080 McGinnis Ferry Road, Bldg 800, Ste 801 Alpharetta, GA 30005, USA

Latest from Food Politics: Industry-funded study of the week: artificially sweetened drinks vs. water

Phil Baker sent me this one: The Study: Effect of non-nutritive sweetened beverages v. water on body weight: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.    Joanne A. Harrold , Scott Hill, Cristina Radu, Paul Thomas, Paula Thorp, Charlotte A. ...

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

By Marion Nestle October 19 2026 Industry-funded study of the week: artificially sweetened drinks vs. water Phil Baker sent me this one: The Study: Effect of non-nutritive sweetened beverages v. water on body weight: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.   Joanne A. Harrold , Scott Hill, Cristina Radu, Paul Thomas, Paula Thorp, Charlotte A. Hardman, Paul Christiansen, Una Masic, Lauren McGale, Dan J. Cuthbertson and Jason C.G. Halford. . British Journal of Nutrition 136: 482–493. doi: 10.1017/ S0007114526108150 Purpose: The aim of this study was to provide robust evidence on the long-term use of non-nutritive sweetened (NNS) beverages on weight management. Method: Compare NNS beverages to water during 1 year of assisted weight management followed by a voluntary, unassisted 1-year extension. Results: Participants consuming water maintained a weight loss of 3·7 kg over 104weeks, compared with 4·8 kg with NNS beverages (not statistically significant). Conclusion: Our findings suggest people can lose weight and maintain it for 2 years, when drinking either NNS beverages or water and taking part in weight-management programmes. Financial support. This trial was funded by the American Beverage Association. The American Beverage Association was not involved in the design, conduct, analysis of data or interpretation of this trial; a representative from the American Beverage Association was provided with the opportunity to review the manuscript. Final decisions regarding the content were made by the authors. The manuscript was developed with the assistance of a medical writer, funded by the American Beverage Association, under the direction of the authors. A third-party organisation (Biofortis) audited data at the clinical site to check for the accuracy and integrity of the data. Competing interests. Joanne A. Harrold reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, she reports a grant from the European Commission for the Horizon 2020 project SWEET. Scott Hill reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Cristina Radu reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study and funding from Coca Cola for a PhD studentship outside of the submitted work. Paul Thomas reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Paula Thorp reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Charlotte A. Hardman reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, she reports honoraria from the International Sweeteners Association, International Food Information Council and Mars Global Nutrition Advisory Council (paid to the University of Liverpool); grants from the European Commission for the Horizon 2020 project SWEET, the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council (paid to the University of Liverpool); primary supervisor on a PhD studentship funded by Coca Cola (awarded to CR); personal fees for her role on the Food Standards Agency Advisory Committee on Social Sciences and an unpaid role as a trustee of Feeding Liverpool. Paul Christiansen reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, he reports grants from the European Commission for the Horizon 2020 project SWEET, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Home Office UK and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and personal fees from Kaplan and Crohn’sandColitisUK. Una Masic reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Lauren McGale reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, she reports funding (paid to the University ofLiverpool) fromtheWHO,andfunding(paid to the University of Wollongong) from the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Aged Care. Daniel J. Cuthbertson reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, he reports funding from Novo Nordisk and AstraZeneca for investigator-initiated research and consultancy (paid to the University of Liverpool) and educational grants from Perspectum. Jason C.G. Halford reports funding (paid to the University of Liverpool) from the American Beverage Association for the present study. Outside of the submitted work, he reports a grant from the European Commission for the Horizon 2020 project SWEET; consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Dupont and Mars (all paid to the University of Leeds); honoraria from Novo Nordisk (paid to the University of Leeds); support for attending meetings from Novo Nordisk; financial support for participation in an advisory board for Dupont (paid to the University of Leeds); unpaid participation in an advisory board for the Sweet Tooth Project and unpaid board membership of the European Coalition of People Living with Obesity. He is treasurer of the World Obesity Federation. Comment: This study was commissioned by, paid for, and reviewed  by the American Beverage Association.  The authors were paid by the ABA to do the study (the University of Leeds must be a hotbed of research funded by the soda industry).  Why do this?  People consuming artificially sweetened drinks sometimes are shown to gain weight on them.  This study aimed to demonstrate—and did—that artificially sweetened drinks are as good as water during weight loss.  The ABA got what it paid for. The post Industry-funded study of the week: artificially sweetened drinks vs. water appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle      Related Posts Industry-funded study of the week: the American Beverage Association at work Industry-funded study of the week: dairy trans fats Industry-funded study of the week: avocados again   Now Available: What to Eat Now My new book, What to Eat Now, is officially out! It's both a field guide to food shopping in America and a reflection on how to eat well—and deliciously. For more information and to order, click here. You can explore the full archive of this (almost) daily blog at foodpolitics.com, where you'll also find information about my books, articles, media interviews, upcoming lectures, favorite resources, and FAQs. Visit the Site » ​​​​​​​ Marion Nestle Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, Emerita © Marion Nestle. You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from us. If you'd prefer not to receive updates, you can unsubscribe. Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy

---

Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz® • 650 E. Palisade Avenue Ste 2, PO Box 173 • Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632