Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals

Abstract

Objective: To compare nutrient profile models with a standard ranking of 120 foods. Design: Over 700 nutrition professionals were asked to categorise 120 foods into one of six positions on the basis of their healthiness. These categorisations were used to produce a standard ranking of the 120 foods. The standard ranking was compared with the results of applying eight different nutrient profile models to the 120 foods: Models SSCg3d and WXYfm developed for the UK Food Standards Agency, the Nutritious Food Index, the Ratio of Recommended to Restricted nutrients, the Naturally Nutrient Rich score, the Australian Heart Foundation's Tick scheme, the American Heart Association's heart-check mark and the Netherlands tripartite classification model for foods. Rank correlation was assessed for continuous models, and dependence was assessed for categorical models. Results: The continuous models each showed good correlation with the standard ranking (Spearman's r ¼ 0.6-0.8). The categorical models achieved high x 2 results, indicating a high level of dependence between the nutrition professionals' and the models' categorisations (P , 0.001). Models SSCg3d and WXYfm achieved higher scores than the other models, implying a greater agreement with the standard ranking of foods. Conclusions:The results suggest that Models SSCg3d and WXYfm rank and categorise foods in accordance with the views of nutrition professionals. Keywords Nutrition Nutrition assessment Nutritional requirements Food Food analysis LegislationNutrient profiling can be defined as 'the science of categorising foods according to their nutritional composition' 1 . It can be used in a range of different circumstances including the regulation of food labelling, food advertising and vending of foods. Nutrient profile models can categorise foods in a variety of ways. One way is to divide foods into two or more groups and to categorise groups as healthier than others on the basis of one or more nutritional characteristics of the foods. This 'categorical' approach has been used by food retailers, food manufacturers and others for designating ranges of products as, for example, 'low-fat' or 'healthy'.Another approach is to rank foods from the most healthy to least healthy, again using one or more nutritional characteristics of the food. Each food is given a score based on those characteristics. We have used this approach to develop various nutrient profile models for the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) 2 -4 . Continuous models can be converted to categorical models by designating foods below a certain score as, for example, 'low-fat' or 'healthy'.Nutrient profiling has, however, been hampered by a lack of validity testing. The method most commonly used is to examine different foods to assess whether the nutrient profile model classifies them appropriately. This assessment is generally done purely subjectively by the team developing the model. Generally the approach taken is to identify 'anomalies' that are generated by the model, and if there are too many of th...

Asymmetric Demand Patterns for Products with Added Nutritional Benefits and Products without Nutritional Benefits

“…Food categories that do not satisfy this definition are seen as relatively unhealthy. This general definition is consistent with the survey findings of Scarborough et al (2007), which categorises 120 foods in one of six positions ranging from relatively unhealthy to relatively healthy. For example, the healthiness score of yoghurt ranges from 4.37 to 4.76 (relatively healthy) and that of packaged potato chips ranges from 1.47 to 2.36 (relatively unhealthy).…”

“…yoghurt) and non-processed (e.g. broccoli) healthy products are perceived as healthy food in the existing literature (Martikainen et al, 2003;Scarborough et al, 2007). Following impulsive demand theory, we propose that because the palatability of processed healthy food (e.g.…”

“…Moreover, it is important to know that processed healthy products (e.g. yoghurt) are considered as belonging to the healthy food category in the existing literature (Scarborough et al, 2007). Therefore, we propose that our hypotheses are based on more nuanced classifications by further dividing the processed healthy and unhealthy categories into four distinct subcategories: processed healthy NB and NNB and unhealthy NB and NNB.…”

Defining and labelling ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ food

“…Other single-score schemes have also been proposed, such as the Belgian supermarket company Delhaize Guiding Stars rating scheme (21,22) and others, examined by Scarborough et al (23) , such as the Australian-developed Nutritious Food Index, the Ratio of Recommended to Restricted nutrients, the US-based Naturally Nutrient Rich score, the Australian Heart Foundation's Tick scheme, the American Heart Association's heart-check mark and the Netherlands tripartite model defining 'preferable', 'middle course' and 'exceptional' foods within food groups.…”

Popular Music Celebrity Endorsements in Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing

“…The NPM was selected because it has been used in food marketing research studies and is used as the standard for child-targeted food marketing in United Kingdom. [33][34][35] The NPM provides a score that represents the healthfulness of each food product based on nutrient content. Foods gain points for nutrients that should be limited (calories, saturated fat, sodium, or sugar) and lose points for nutrients that are encouraged (fruits, vegetables, nuts, fiber, and protein).…”