Characterization of the degree of food processing in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: Application of the Nova classification and validation using selected biomarkers of food processing.
EPIC
Nova
biomarkers
elaidic acid
food processing
syringol
Journal
Frontiers in nutrition
ISSN: 2296-861X
Titre abrégé: Front Nutr
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101642264
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
09
2022
accepted:
17
11
2022
entrez:
2
1
2023
pubmed:
3
1
2023
medline:
3
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between the degree of food processing in our diet and the risk of various chronic diseases. Much of this evidence is based on the international Nova classification system, which classifies food into four groups based on the type of processing: (1) Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, (2) Processed culinary ingredients, (3) Processed foods, and (4) "Ultra-processed" foods (UPF). The ability of the Nova classification to accurately characterise the degree of food processing across consumption patterns in various European populations has not been investigated so far. Therefore, we applied the Nova coding to data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) in order to characterize the degree of food processing in our diet across European populations with diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds and to validate this Nova classification through comparison with objective biomarker measurements. After grouping foods in the EPIC dataset according to the Nova classification, a total of 476,768 participants in the EPIC cohort (71.5% women; mean age 51 [standard deviation (SD) 9.93]; median age 52 [percentile (p)25-p75: 58-66] years) were included in the cross-sectional analysis that characterised consumption patterns based on the Nova classification. The consumption of food products classified as different Nova categories were compared to relevant circulating biomarkers denoting food processing, measured in various subsamples (N between 417 and 9,460) within the EPIC cohort via (partial) correlation analyses (unadjusted and adjusted by sex, age, BMI and country). These biomarkers included an industrial transfatty acid (ITFA) isomer (elaidic acid; exogenous fatty acid generated during oil hydrogenation and heating) and urinary 4 Contributions of UPF intake to the overall diet in % grams/day varied across countries from 7% (France) to 23% (Norway) and their contributions to overall % energy intake from 16% (Spain and Italy) to >45% (in the UK and Norway). Differences were also found between sociodemographic groups; participants in the highest fourth of UPF consumption tended to be younger, taller, less educated, current smokers, more physically active, have a higher reported intake of energy and lower reported intake of alcohol. The UPF pattern as defined based on the Nova classification (group 4;% kcal/day) was positively associated with blood levels of industrial elaidic acid ( These results, based on a large pan-European cohort, demonstrate sociodemographic and geographical differences in the consumption of UPF. Furthermore, these results suggest that the Nova classification can accurately capture consumption of UPF, reflected by stronger correlations with circulating levels of industrial elaidic acid and a syringol metabolite compared to diets high in minimally processed foods.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between the degree of food processing in our diet and the risk of various chronic diseases. Much of this evidence is based on the international Nova classification system, which classifies food into four groups based on the type of processing: (1) Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, (2) Processed culinary ingredients, (3) Processed foods, and (4) "Ultra-processed" foods (UPF). The ability of the Nova classification to accurately characterise the degree of food processing across consumption patterns in various European populations has not been investigated so far. Therefore, we applied the Nova coding to data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) in order to characterize the degree of food processing in our diet across European populations with diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds and to validate this Nova classification through comparison with objective biomarker measurements.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
After grouping foods in the EPIC dataset according to the Nova classification, a total of 476,768 participants in the EPIC cohort (71.5% women; mean age 51 [standard deviation (SD) 9.93]; median age 52 [percentile (p)25-p75: 58-66] years) were included in the cross-sectional analysis that characterised consumption patterns based on the Nova classification. The consumption of food products classified as different Nova categories were compared to relevant circulating biomarkers denoting food processing, measured in various subsamples (N between 417 and 9,460) within the EPIC cohort via (partial) correlation analyses (unadjusted and adjusted by sex, age, BMI and country). These biomarkers included an industrial transfatty acid (ITFA) isomer (elaidic acid; exogenous fatty acid generated during oil hydrogenation and heating) and urinary 4
Results
UNASSIGNED
Contributions of UPF intake to the overall diet in % grams/day varied across countries from 7% (France) to 23% (Norway) and their contributions to overall % energy intake from 16% (Spain and Italy) to >45% (in the UK and Norway). Differences were also found between sociodemographic groups; participants in the highest fourth of UPF consumption tended to be younger, taller, less educated, current smokers, more physically active, have a higher reported intake of energy and lower reported intake of alcohol. The UPF pattern as defined based on the Nova classification (group 4;% kcal/day) was positively associated with blood levels of industrial elaidic acid (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
These results, based on a large pan-European cohort, demonstrate sociodemographic and geographical differences in the consumption of UPF. Furthermore, these results suggest that the Nova classification can accurately capture consumption of UPF, reflected by stronger correlations with circulating levels of industrial elaidic acid and a syringol metabolite compared to diets high in minimally processed foods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36590209
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1035580
pmc: PMC9800919
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1035580Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N003284/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0401527
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G1000143
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 14136
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S019669/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Huybrechts, Rauber, Nicolas, Casagrande, Kliemann, Wedekind, Biessy, Scalbert, Touvier, Aleksandrova, Jakszyn, Skeie, Bajracharya, Boer, Borné, Chajes, Dahm, Dansero, Guevara, Heath, Ibsen, Papier, Katzke, Kyrø, Masala, Molina-Montes, Robinson, Santiuste de Pablos, Schulze, Simeon, Sonestedt, Tjønneland, Tumino, van der Schouw, Verschuren, Vozar, Winkvist, Gunter, Monteiro, Millett and Levy.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Nutr. 2022 Nov;41(11):2537-2548
pubmed: 36223715
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;92(4):912-21
pubmed: 20810975
Public Health Nutr. 2013 Dec;16(12):2240-8
pubmed: 23171687
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Nov;104(5):1433-1440
pubmed: 27733404
Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:38
pubmed: 26176747
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):94-102
pubmed: 28714425
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 28;9(8):e029544
pubmed: 31462476
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6B):1113-24
pubmed: 12639222
Popul Health Metr. 2017 Feb 14;15(1):6
pubmed: 28193285
Prev Med. 2015 Dec;81:9-15
pubmed: 26231112
Elife. 2022 Jan 25;11:
pubmed: 35076016
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Dec 18;12:160
pubmed: 26684833
Nutr Cancer. 2011 Nov;63(8):1235-50
pubmed: 22043987
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Apr;22(5):936-941
pubmed: 30744710
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 09;6(3):e009892
pubmed: 26962035
N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 13;354(15):1650-2
pubmed: 16611965
Eur J Nutr. 2020 Apr;59(3):953-963
pubmed: 30929068
PLoS Med. 2018 Sep 18;15(9):e1002651
pubmed: 30226842
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):125-133
pubmed: 28625223
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 31;15(7):e0236738
pubmed: 32735599
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Dec 1;110(6):1424-1433
pubmed: 31559413
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Feb 03;32:100747
pubmed: 33644723
Nutrients. 2017 Feb 28;9(3):
pubmed: 28264475
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e92752
pubmed: 24667658
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):172-180
pubmed: 28683844
Int J Cancer. 2020 Mar 1;146(5):1333-1345
pubmed: 31525258
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Apr;23(6):1076-1086
pubmed: 31619309
Curr Dev Nutr. 2018 Sep 14;3(2):nzy077
pubmed: 30820487
Can J Public Health. 2019 Feb;110(1):4-14
pubmed: 30238324
Appetite. 2017 Jan 1;108:512-520
pubmed: 27825941
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;63 Suppl 4:S206-25
pubmed: 19888275
Adv Food Nutr Res. 2018;85:79-129
pubmed: 29860978
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):18-26
pubmed: 28714422
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):27-37
pubmed: 28703085
Am J Hypertens. 2017 Apr 1;30(4):358-366
pubmed: 27927627
Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Dec 19;116(6):1482-1488
pubmed: 35670128
BMJ. 2018 Feb 14;360:k322
pubmed: 29444771
Public Health Nutr. 2003 Jun;6(4):407-13
pubmed: 12795830
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Jan;25(1):116-22
pubmed: 25240690
Nutrients. 2018 May 09;10(5):
pubmed: 29747447
Public Health Nutr. 2021 May;24(7):1698-1707
pubmed: 32338229
Br J Nutr. 2018 Jul;120(1):90-100
pubmed: 29729673
PLoS One. 2020 May 1;15(5):e0232676
pubmed: 32357191
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Jun;101(6):1251-62
pubmed: 25948666
Ugeskr Laeger. 2006 Apr 24;168(17):1654-7
pubmed: 16674878
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Dec;18(17):3096-107
pubmed: 25804833
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019 Nov;119(11):1852-1865
pubmed: 31262695
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 1;180(2):283-291
pubmed: 31841598
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6B):1125-45
pubmed: 12639223
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022 Sep;76(9):1245-1253
pubmed: 35314769
Ann Oncol. 2017 Nov 01;28(11):2836-2842
pubmed: 28950350
Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26 Suppl 1:S174-80
pubmed: 9126545
BMJ. 2019 May 29;365:l1451
pubmed: 31142457