Two Dimensions of Nutritional Value: Nutri-Score and NOVA

Abstract

Front-of-pack labels can improve the ability of consumers to identify which foods are healthier, making them a useful public health tool. Nutri-Score is a front-of-pack labelling system adopted by several European countries. This system ranks foods according to their nutritional quality, but does not consider other dimensions such as the degree of food processing. The aim of this study is to compare the nutritional quality (as assessed by Nutri-Score) and the ultra-processing (as assessed by the NOVA classification) of foods in the Open Food Facts database. A simple correspondence analysis was carried out to study the relationship between the two systems. Ultra-processed foods (NOVA 4) were found in all Nutri-Score categories, ranging from 26.08% in nutritional category A, 51.48% in category B, 59.09% in category C, 67.39% in category D to up to 83.69% in nutritional category E. Given the negative effect that the consumption of ultra-processed foods has on different aspects of health, front-of-pack labelling with Nutri-Score should at least be accompanied by complementary labelling indicating the level of processing, such as the NOVA classification.

Plant-Based Alternative Products: Are They Healthy Alternatives? Micro- and Macronutrients and Nutritional Scoring

“…However, it is not able to reflect the degree to which the products are processed. As shown by Romero Ferreiro et al [ 61 ], there were ultra-processed foods in each Nutri-Score category (A–E), oriented according to the NOVA classification. According to their results, in category B, more than half (51.5%) of the products were highly processed foods.…”

A Comparative Analysis of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives Part 1: Composition, Sensory, and Nutritional Value

“…In a study by Romero Ferreiro et al [71], it was clarified that the Nutri-Score classifies foods according to their nutritional quality but does not consider aspects such as degree of processing. Thus, the authors could find UPFs in all Nutri-Score categories, for example, 26% with a Nutri-Score A and 51% with a Nutri-Score B.…”

The Role of Diet Quality in Mediating the Association between Ultra-Processed Food Intake, Obesity and Health-Related Outcomes: A Review of Prospective Cohort Studies

“…Studies demonstrate that UPFs tend to relate with existing nutrient profile indices, based on saturated fat, added sugar and sodium content [ 73 ]. In comparison with the Nutri-Score (ranking foods from class A to E, where A is high and E is low nutritional quality) used across several European countries, the majority of UPFs are class C, D or E, whereas the majority of unprocessed or minimally processed foods are class A or B [ 74 ]. However, 26% of class A foods are UPFs, largely being UPF ready meals or dairy products.…”

“…Indeed, a range of UPFs have been identified as being ‘healthy’, based on nutrient profiling [ 65 ]. ‘Healthy’ UPFs are often reformulations and plant-based alternatives [ 65 , 74 ], which carry nutritional claims such as ‘fat free’, ‘reduced salt’, ‘low sugars or ‘added fibre’ according to European Food Safety Authority guidelines [ 75 ]. Other ‘healthy’ UPFs such as fortified bread have been suggested to be important sources of vitamins and minerals [ 64 , 65 , 76 ], and avoidance of such UPFs may result in micronutrient deficiencies [ 77 ].…”

“…In summary, there is agreement that energy dense foods high in saturated fat, sodium and added sugar are harmful to health and should be limited. Such foods also tend to be ultra-processed, but not all are [ 73 , 74 ]. Despite the mounting evidence showing the adverse impacts of UPFs, the argument between nutrients and ultra-processing, and therefore between reformulation or avoidance of UPFs, is ongoing [ 24 , 81 , 82 ].…”