Talk:Nova classification

Merge proposal
I propose merging Ultra-processed food and Hyperpalatable food into Nova classification. There are no real competing definitions of "ultra-processed food" to the Nova classification's definition, so there isn't really a need for a separate article. "Hyperpalability" is also a concept generally not discussed outside of the concept of "ultra-processed food", but as it does have an independent definition I'm more willing to be convinced it should be kept as a separate article.

There are also POV issues with all three articles, but I want to leave discussing that until after the merge discussion is concluded. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't merge – There is no question that these articles would benefit from a rewrite by domain specialists. Merging all three of these pages is an interesting idea, but I do not think that it would accurately reflect the state of the field or provide space for communicating these ideas more clearly.
 * The idea of hyperpalatable food has been developed by a different group of researchers from those behind the Nova classification. The 2019 article that outlines the leading definition mentions ultra-processed food in passing as one example of its applicability, but it does not use or even name the Nova classification. Leaving it as an independent article would better reflect the published literature.
 * It is true that discussions of ultra-processed food most frequently draw on the Nova classification, but I think it would be more helpful to leave it as a separate article. The term 'ultra-processed food' predates 'Nova classification', and has taken on a life of its own. Even if Nova provides the most widely accepted conceptualization of it for now, there have been several other attempts, and the main criticism of ultra-processed food is indeed the lack of a measurable definition similar to that developed for hyperpalatable food. Yet researchers who disagree with Monteiro et al. are still willing to use the term. Merging these articles would inaccurately imply that the researchers behind Nova hold a monopoly over the idea of ultra-processed food.
 * There is likely a better way to present Wikipedia's articles on food processing, but merging Ultra-processed food and Hyperpalatable food into the Nova classification would not be a long-term solution. It is plausible to me that the idea of ultra-processed food could still be current in another decade, but I would be surprised if the Nova classification has not been superseded by that time. AndrewNJ (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some sources of researchers who use the concept of ultra-processed food but use a different definition to that of the Nova classification?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See the 2021 article Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges. Table 1 at the end gives an overview of different classification systems. I started to summarize these in the Wikipedia article several months ago but have never finished. AndrewNJ (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that article actually strengthens the case to merge Ultra-processed food into Nova classification, as the only other two classifications that use the term are both derivatives of Nova.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I largely agree with @AndrewNJ's argument. While all these articles have issues and deserve some work, hyper-palatable and ultra-processed food are two distinct concepts even if they are connected. I would already oppose merging them as is, but doing so into the Nova classification article makes even less sense to me. Choucas Bleu  (T·C) 16:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose -- This is going to be an increasingly public attention on the topic independent of the NOVA system. Ultra Processed food is going to be a separately searched term, that is becoming a matter of policy and law in different parts of the world, with emerging changes in the definition and meaning. Just in the last month, I have had 4 different podcasts using the concept completely seperate of academically defined classification systems. There has been a long history of different people leveling criticism at the articles because they don't conform to their worldview about nutrition or food processing, forcing them to be merged is counter factual to the public conversation. +1 to everything @AndrewNJ said Sadads (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of "ultra-processed food" being defined in law with non-NOVA-derived definitions?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not whether or not policy or law uses the NOVA definition, the concept has escaped the confines of academia and has started wandering around advise columns, general interest press, etc. The article is not just about the definition, but how it lives in the world beyond the science. By not providing a Wikipedia article under the name of the concept, we are doing no-one any good. (but there are examples of where different agencies will be creating definitions or interpretations) Sadads (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What would an article based around the colloquial definition of "ultra-processed food" even look like? That article you linked doesn't mention anything about creating a definition for "ultra-processed food", it just says the FDA wants to see more research into the topic.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - ultra-processed foods are a subcategory of NOVA. Having two separate articles on the same topic will likely result in confusion. Ggck2 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Best to further define each of these topics than mash 'em all together into one (then end up disambiguating them later once folks figure out how best to do so based upon their distinctions).  But keep the pressure on contributors to each, in order to refine those distinctions without having to create a melange first.2601:196:180:DC0:4882:EA68:A5A5:ADD8 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)