Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:22:18.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrient profiling: comparison and critical analysis of existing systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

V Azaïs-Braesco ,
C Goffi  and
E Labouze
V Azaïs-Braesco*
Affiliation:
CRNH-Auvergne, BP 321, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
C Goffi
Affiliation:
Bio Intelligence Service, 1 rue Berthelot, F-94200 Ivry/Seine, France
E Labouze
Affiliation:
Bio Intelligence Service, 1 rue Berthelot, F-94200 Ivry/Seine, France
*
*Corresponding author: Email braesco@clermont.inra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background

Nutrient profiling systems aim at positioning foodstuffs relative to each other according to their contribution to a balanced diet. The accuracy and performance of methodologies are still debated. We present here a critical analysis of the structure and efficiency of the current schemes.

Methods

The literature survey detected only four systems addressing the issue on an ‘across the board’ approach and with enough detail to enable analysis. The building principles of these systems were compared and their performance was estimated via their classification of a series of 125 foodstuffs on the basis of nutritional composition. These classifications were compared with one another and with an empirical classification by expert nutritionists.

Results

All systems gave a similar overview, with fruits and vegetables ranked as the most favourable foods and fatty and sugary foods as the least favourable ones, but numerous discrepancies existed in every system, mainly related to their choice of nutrients and thresholds. The FSA scoring system seemed the most consistent approach, although it still generated some questionable rankings. Expert classification did not clearly validate any scheme, and cannot be considered as a true reference.

Conclusion

Nutrient profiling systems are confirmed to be powerful tools to translate nutritional information related to the whole diet into the level of individual foods. However, the performance of the existing schemes remains moderate. Alternative approaches, such as considering food categories or introducing more stringent validation steps by a panel of expert nutritionists, could be ways to reach more efficient and consensual tools.

Keywords

Nutrient profilesNutritional qualityFood CategorisationNutritional balance

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , August 2006 , pp. 613 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

References

1Peto, R, Doll, R, Buckley, JD, Sporn, MB. Can dietary β-carotene materially reduce human cancer rates? Nature 1981; 290: 201–8.Google Scholar
2 World Health Organization (WHO). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/Food and Agriculture Organization Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva: WHO, 2003.Google Scholar
3Olshansky, SJ, Passaro, DJ, Hershow, RC, Layden, J, Carnes, BA, Brosy, J, A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352: 1138–45.Google Scholar
4Mejborn, H, Dragsted, LO, Dyerberg, J, Koch, B, Poulsen, M, Trolle, E, Guidelines and conditions for use of health claims in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 2001; 45: 35–9.Google Scholar
5Couet, C, Krempf, M, Lairon, D, Rapport sur les acides gras de la famille oméga 3 et système cardiovasculaire: intérêt nutritionnel et allegations. Paris: Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, 2003.Google Scholar
6Kant, AK. Indexes of overall diet quality: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1996; 96: 785–91.Google Scholar
7Gibney, M, Sandström, BM. A framework for food-based dietary guidelines in the European Union. Public Health Nutrition 2001; 4: 293–305.Google Scholar
8Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Williams, C. The origin of guideline daily amount and the food standards agency's guidance on what counts as ‘a lot’ and ‘a little’. Public Health Nutrition 2004; 7: 549–56.Google Scholar
9McKinney, JM. Challenges to rebuilding the US food pyramid. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 2005; 8: 1–7.Google Scholar
10Hansen, RG. An index of food quality. Nutrition Reviews 1973; 31: 1–7.Google Scholar
11Sorenson, AW, Wyse, BW, Wittwer, AJ, Hansen, RG. An index of nutritional quality for a balanced diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1976; 68: 236–42.Google Scholar
12Zelman, K, Kennedy, A. Naturally nutrient rich … putting more power on Americans' plates. Nutrition Today 2005; 40: 60–8.Google Scholar
13Lachance, PA, Fischer, MC. Educational and technological innovations required to enhance the selection of desirable nutrients. Clinical Nutrition 1986; 5: 257–67.Google Scholar
14Gazibarich, B, Ricci, PF. Towards better food choices: the nutritious food index. Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 1998; 55: 10–20.Google Scholar
15Scheidt, DM, Daniel, E. Composite index for aggregating nutrient density using food labels: ratio of recommended to restricted food components. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2004; 36: 35–41.Google Scholar
16Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Stockley, L. Nutrient Profiles; Options for Definitions for Use in Relation to Food Promotion and Children's Diets. Final Report [online], 2004. Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutrientprofilingfullreport.pdf/. Accessed July 2005.Google Scholar
17Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Stockley, L, Boxer, A. Nutrient Profiles: Further Refinement and Testing of Model SSCg3d. Final Report [online], 2005. Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/npreportsept05.pdf/. Accessed November 2005.Google Scholar
18Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Boxer, A, Stockley, L. Nutrient Profiles: Development of Final Model. Final Report [online], 2005. Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf/. Accessed May 2006.Google Scholar
19Williams, C, Wiseman, M, Buttriss, J. Food-based dietary guidelines – a staged approach. British Journal of Nutrition 1999; 81(Suppl. 2): S29–153.Google Scholar
20Roe, M, Finglas, P, Church, S. McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods. 6th summary ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2003.Google Scholar
21 Souci–Fachmann–Kraut. Food Composition Tables. 6th ed. Stuggart: Medpharm Scientific Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
22Favier, JC, Ireland-Ripert, J, Toque, C, Feinberg, M. Répertoire général des aliments. Table de composition. 2nd ed. Paris: Tec&Doc Lavoisier, 1995.Google Scholar
23Mennen, LI, Bertrais, S, Galan, P, Arnault, N, Potier de Courcy, G, Hercberg, S. The use of computerised 24-h dietary recalls in the French SU-VI-MAX study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002; 56: 659–65.Google Scholar