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)

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)