From the OP's first citation:

>The NOVA food classification system with its identification and definition of ultra-processed foods is the one that by far has been most applied in the scientific literature

Seems like the NOVA food classification it's good enough for the actual experts in the field. I suspect _they_ find it quite useful and meaningful.

Probably so, but it seems too broad to be useful to me. It seems to include quite a lot of stuff that doesn't seem bad. This means any warning messages based on it aren't useful to me.

Of course, I may just be too ignorant of the subject to properly understand, in which case such warning labels should also come with some sort of educational effort.

Please read Table 1 from the FAO definition. There is a world of difference between Group 1 and Group 4.

Personally, I can go around labeling my own food intake, and I estimate that at least 80-90% of my calories are not from ultraprocessed sources.

Broad enough to drive legislation and lawsuits right through it