2025年10月16日和30日，一场汇聚了营养学和食品科学专家的圆桌会议吸引了来自78个国家的1000多名与会者。此次会议由国际食品科学技术联盟（IUFoST）和联合国工业发展组织（UNIDO）共同主办，由国际营养科学联盟（IUNS）主席和IUFoST主席共同主持，就加工食品背后的科学产生了新的见解。
89%的专家和从业者认为，如果经过重新配方并以营养学为科学指导，超加工食品可以成为健康饮食的一部分。他们还指出，食品科学家和营养学家之间的合作有限。大多数人（93%）已经认识到将“配方”和“加工”作为影响营养的不同因素加以区分的重要性。最后，只有少数国家（16%）在食品政策中采用了当前的NOVA分类。
“不加区分地使用当前的NOVA分类将对公共健康产生重大影响，特别是对低中等收入国家（LMIC）的居民，这将影响食品营养强化以及开发低成本高营养价值食品以提升营养。”——Jeyakumar Henry教授评论道。 主要讨论洞见 1. 区分加工与超加工：专家们一致认为，“加工”并不等同于“超加工”。Erich Windhab将加工描述为一个提高食品安全性和适口性的科学工具箱。Jeyakumar Henry强调应区分加工过程本身与最终产品。 2. 合作缺口：仅25%专家和从业者认为食品技术专家和营养科学家之间合作充分。Hyun Sook Kim强调应将营养学融入食品技术开发和政策制定中。 3. 循证框架：Samuel Godefroy警告称，不科学的分类系统可能会误导消费者并削弱信任。他呼吁建立与食品法典原则一致的、稳健的数据驱动方法。 4. 超越NOVA：IUFoST的NOURISH模型将安全性、适口性、可持续性、可负担性和便利性与营养并列，以实现可量化、均衡的分类。 特别关注的问题 1. 人工智能和数字工具如何加速功能性和可持续食品的设计？ 2. 消化率和生物利用度是否可以在同一框架内衡量？ 3. 如何在全球框架内尊重食品加工的文化多样性？ 4. 如果分类缺乏坚实的科学基础，**的风险是什么？最多回答是：误导消费者信息和信任丧失。 与会者反思 “这次讨论真是启发人心！将配方和加工指标（如ΔNRF）整合到循证食品政策中，将 ‘ 改变游戏规则 ’ 。” “我们不能没有加工。我们需要的是一个清晰、科学定义的框架，以评估其对健康的影响。” 下一步行动 IUFoST、IUNS和UNIDO将继续合作，为食品法典的审议和公众理解加工在全球营养和可持续性中的作用提供信息支持。
A roundtable bringing together experts from nutrition and food science attracted over 1000 attendees from 78 Nations on 16 and 30 October 2025. Organized by the International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and co-chaired by the President of the International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS) and IUFoST President, new insights were generated on the science behind processed foods.89% responded that ultra-processed foods can be part of a healthy diet if reformulated and guided by nutrition science. They also commented on the limited collaboration (25%) between Food Scientists and Nutritionists. The importance of separating ‘formulation' and 'processing’ as distinct factors affecting nutrition was recognized by the majority (93%). Finally, few countries (16%) have adopted the current NOVA in food policy. "Indiscriminate use of the Current NOVA classification will be of major consequence to public health, notably in those living in LMIC, by impacting on food fortification and the development of low cost high nutritive value foods for enhanced nutrition"
- commented Prof Jeyakumar Henry. Key Discussion InsightsDefining Processing vs. Ultra-Processing - Experts agreed that 'processing' is not synonymous with 'ultra-processed.' Erich Windhab described processing as a scientific toolbox that improves safety and palatability. Jeyakumar Henry stressed distinguishing between the process itself and the final product. Collaboration Gap - Only 25% of respondents felt that food technologists and nutrition scientists collaborate sufficiently. Hyun Sook Kim emphasized integrating nutrition into food technology design and policymaking. Evidence-Based Frameworks - Samuel Godefroy warned that unscientific classification systems could mislead consumers and weaken trust. He called for robust, data-driven methodologies aligned with Codex principles. Beyond NOVA - The IUFoST NOURISH model incorporates safety, palatability, sustainability, affordability, and convenience alongside nutrition to enable quantifiable, balanced classification.
Questions of Particular InterestHow can AI and digital tools accelerate functional and sustainable food design? Can digestibility and bioavailability be measured in the same framework? How can cultural diversity in food processing be respected within global frameworks? What is the greatest risk if classification lacks a solid scientific base? Top responses: misleading consumer information and loss of trust.
Participant Reflections“Such an enlightening discussion! The integration of formulation and processing metrics like ΔNRF is a game changer for evidence-based food policy.” “We cannot do without processing. What we need is a clear, scientifically defined framework for its impact on health.” Next StepsIUFoST, IUNS, and UNIDO will continue to work together to inform Codex deliberations and public understanding of the role of processing in global nutrition and sustainability. |
| 
