TABLE 2.
Distribution (n; %) of NOVA food groups obtained in “classic method” according to “ingredient marker” and “food additive” methods in foods and beverages (n = 1,861).
| Methods | Ingredient marker | Food additive | ||||||
| Classic | Group 1. MPF | Group 2. PCI | Group 3. PF | Group 4. UPF | Group 1. MPF | Group 2. PCI | Group 3. PF | Group 4. UPF |
| Group 1. MPF (n = 469) | 430 (91.7) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (0.2) |
38 (8.1) |
360 (77.2) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (0.2) |
106 (22.6) |
| Group 2. PCI (n = 95) | 0 (0.0) |
90 (94.7) |
1 (1.1) |
4 (4.2) |
0 (0.0) |
65 (68.4) |
1 (1.1) |
29 (30.5) |
| Group 3. PF (n = 84) | 0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
69 (82.1) |
15 (17.9) | 0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
57 (67.9) |
27 (32.1) |
| Group 4. UPF (n = 1,213) | 7 (0.6) |
1 (0.1) |
16 (1.3) |
1.189 (98.0) |
6 (0.5) |
1 (0.1) |
16 (1.3) |
1.190 (98.1) |
MPF, minimally processed foods; PCI, processed culinary ingredients; PF, processed foods; UPF, ultra-processed foods. In “classic method,” UPF was identified by using food description; in “ingredient marker method,” by searching for substances not commonly used in traditional recipes and names of functional classes of “cosmetic” additives in the lists of ingredients; and in “food additive method” by searching for UPF ingredient markers, names of functional classes and all individual names of “cosmetic” additives. In bold, the combination of same NOVA group in different methods.