In many non-Asian countries, soy is consumed via soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, in addition to the traditional Asian soyfoods, such as tofu and miso. Meat alternatives are typically made using concentrated sources of soy protein, such as soy protein isolate (SPI) and soy protein concentrate (SPC). Therefore, these products are classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs, Group 4) according to NOVA (not an acronym), an increasingly widely used food classification system that classifies all foods into one of four groups according to the processing they undergo. Furthermore, most soymilks, even those made from whole soybeans, are also classified as UPFs because of the addition of sugars and emulsifiers. Increasingly, recommendations are being made to restrict the consumption of UPFs because their intake is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Critics of UPFs argue these foods are unhealthful for a wide assortment of reasons. Explanations for the proposed adverse effects of UPFs include their high energy density, high glycemic index (GI), hyper-palatability, and low satiety potential. Claims have also been made that UPFs are not sustainably produced. However, this perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared to their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow's milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

No abstract

No abstract

We read with interest the invited commentary by Dr Mark Lawrence supporting the utility of the NOVA food classification system (1) . However, we take issue with his perspective on our recently published article in which we make two fundamental points (2) . First, the common criticisms of ultra-processed foods (UPF) do not apply to soya-based meat and dairy alternatives more so than they do to their animal-based counterparts, meat and cows' milk, despite the former being classified as UPF and the latter as unprocessed/minimally processed foods. Second, NOVA is overly simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soya. Simply put, soya burgers are not Twinkies, even though NOVA similarly classifies these products. Rather than focusing on the crux of our argument, Dr Lawrence notes the association of several authors with the soyafood industry, that is, classic ad hominem reasoning. Dr Lawrence also criticises us for not considering the ' : : : broader public health, environmental and social implications of such innovations (e.g., soy burgers) relative to food processing innovations to promote existing non-UPF nutritious plant-source protein foods such as minimally processed legumes and nuts'. We fully support greater consumption of legumes and nuts and efforts to promote their intake. However, the products in question are designed to replace meat and dairy products not legumes and nuts. Therefore, the critical comparisons are between hamburgers and soya burgers and cows' milk and soyamilk. We therefore standby our opinion that NOVA does a disservice to the public by suggesting that because soya burgers and soyamilk are NOVA-classified as UPF, they should be avoided. These foods can aid in the transition to and maintenance of plant-based diets.This article has been co-published with permission in British Journal of Nutrition and in Public Health Nutrition.