The authors compiled all additives approved in the UK, retrieved their technical functions, and coded each function as cosmetic (a marker of ultra-processing) or non-cosmetic, adding flavourings and the non-culinary food substances named in the Nova classification while excluding fortificants, herbs and spices. Two alternative ultra-processed food definitions were constructed to reflect overlap and ambiguity between additive functions. The resulting database is openly available to researchers.
What you could now answer: Nova-based UK estimates have depended on ad hoc additive lists, so a shared marker database makes ultra-processed food exposures comparable across studies, and the two definitions quantify how much classification choice matters.