The strengths of Nutri-score are often outweighed by the system’s deficiencies, according to leading scientists who have criticised the system after it suffered a potentially destructive setback this month.
After years of trying to roll a mandatory Nutri-score food nutrition traffic light system out across all 27 European Union Member States, the European Commission (EC) earlier this month all but signalled its abandonment by failing to confirm its future.
The move is a win for critics and some scientists who believe the system risks public health. Though Nutri-score has strengths, it also suffers from significant challenges, the top being it scores calories as a negative factor, says director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, Dr Dariush Mozaffarian.
“Beyond the scientific flaw of calories being harmful, this means energy density is scored negatively, which rewards foods with higher water and lower fat,” he says.
Why Nutri-score doesn’t score well with science
Such an approach creates “many absurdities” in scoring, he explains. For example, a soda can score high against olive oils scoring low. Instead, healthfulness of foods should be scored per calories, he advocates.
“Other major attributes, like saturated fat, are based on outdated 1980’s nutrition priorities,” explains Dr Mozaffarian. “It also omits other factors that are relevant for health, in particular harms of refined grains, flours, and starches.”
The harms of ultra-processing, as well as the benefits of things like polyphenols and other bioactives, are also omitted, as well as the benefits of fish or seafood, yogurt or other fermented foods, he explains.
Nutri-score’s existing setup also emphasizes the positives of proteins, but without considering the food source, “despite different protein-rich foods having very different relationships with health outcomes”, he adds.
There are positives, however. “Despite its limitations, Nutri-score works fairly well for many products, and can be calculated using a few nutrients and ingredients,“ Dr Mozaffarian says, but caveats that ”it does not work well for many other products”.
How Nutri-score can be improved
Progressing Nutri-score to a more useful future would entail reviewing its strengths and limitations, he advises, saying his department has developed and validated Food Compass, what he calls “a next-generation food profiling system”.
“Food Compass scores foods per calorie, scores attributes based on updated science – for example, scoring ratios of dietary fats, carb versus fibre, and sodium versus potassium – and includes nine domains, including food processing,“ he explains, claiming it provides a more holistic measure of the nourishing value of different foods and beverages.
Work will soon be published that shows Food Compass can be calculated using available nutrient, ingredient and other information on the package, reveals Dr Mozaffarian.
Ultimately, Nutri-score should not be rolled out on a mandatory basis as it stands, he believes.
“A more holistic, updated system is needed,” adds Dr Mozaffarian. “Food profiling systems represent a roadmap for consumers, for industry formulations and for policy makers. If the roadmap is not accurate, we will not be happy with our final destination.”
