PurposeTo describe the Nestlé Nutritional Profiling System (NNPS) developed to guide the reformulation of Nestlé products, and the results of its application in the USA and France.DesignThe NNPS is a category-specific system that calculates nutrient targets per serving as consumed, based on age-adjusted dietary guidelines. Products are aggregated into 32 food categories. The NNPS ensures that excessive amounts of nutrients to limit cannot be compensated for by adding nutrients to encourage. A study was conducted to measure changes in nutrient profiles of the most widely purchased Nestlé products from eight food categories (n = 99) in the USA and France. A comparison was made between the 2009–2010 and 2014–2015 products.ResultsThe application of the NNPS between 2009–2010 and 2014–2015 was associated with an overall downwards trend for all nutrients to limit. Sodium and total sugars contents were reduced by up to 22 and 31 %, respectively. Saturated Fatty Acids and total fat reductions were less homogeneous across categories, with children products having larger reductions. Energy per serving was reduced by <10 % in most categories, while serving sizes remained unchanged.ConclusionsThe NNPS sets feasible and yet challenging targets for public health-oriented reformulation of a varied product portfolio; its application was associated with improved nutrient density in eight major food categories in the USA and France. Confirmatory analyses are needed in other countries and food categories; the impact of such a large-scale reformulation on dietary intake and health remains to be investigated.

Nutrient profiling systems, initially designed to promote healthy food choices at the point of sale, can also provide the scientific basis for innovation and product reformulation by the food industry. This work presents a new profiling system to help define feasible nutrient targets for reformulation of packaged foods. The focus is on five key nutrients for which the World Health Organisation (WHO) has set population-level goals: sugar, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, and protein. The methodology uses Mintel’s Global New Products Database of packaged foods to (1) identify nutrients relevant to each food category (2) sort products into sub-categories defined by a unique nutritional signature, and (3) develop standards for “best of class” products. For instance, if targeted to be amongst the best 15% of the global food supply, pizza must have less than 4.0 g/100 g saturated fat, less than 520 mg/100 g total sodium and more than 9.8 g/100 g protein. Fiber and sugar are not identified as relevant nutrients for the pizza category and no targets are provided.

No abstract

BackgroundSnacking patterns and increased consumption of high fat/sugar food items (HFS) have been proposed as components of an adverse food environment; yet again no clear guidance is available to define their 'optimal' intake. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify existing recommendations on the consumption of HFS food items and snacks as well as reports documenting the actual consumption patterns in various countries worldwide. Nutritionists from 10 countries were also contacted to provide with a translation of recommendations published in languages other than English. Results: Overall, recommendations on snacking and HFS food items were available in 30 countries. Advice on the consumption of snacks was available in 9 countries suggesting they provide 10‐30% of energy intake (EI). Epidemiological data, on the other hand, shows that currently the percentage of energy obtained from snacks differs substantially between countries and is in the majority of the cases higher than recommended (17.4‐39.8%). Energy contribution of snacks Country Recommendation Target population Reported intake Population Spain 10‐15% EI General Sweden 20% EI General United Kingdom 20% EI General 17.4‐22.7% EI (15.7‐29.6% EI) Adults (Children) Brazil 15% EI General 21% EI General Chile 20% EI Adults USA 10% EI Children 18.4‐20.3% EI (17.0‐23.8% EI) Adults (Children) Italy 10‐14% EI Children Mexico 30% EI Children Canada ‐ ‐ 16.6‐26.5% EI (26.2‐29.6%EI) Adults (Children) Australia ‐ ‐ 28%EI Adults Belgium ‐ ‐ 20‐24% EI General Estonia ‐ ‐ 7% EI Children Finland ‐ ‐ 36.1‐39.8% EI Adults HFS food items were referred to in 25 recommendations but were rarely expressed quantitatively and if so they were highly variable. Consumption patterns are highly different among countries (7‐30.3%) with inconsistencies in the definition of HFS food items being one of the sources of heterogeneity. Energy contribution of HFS food items Country Recommendation Target population Reported intake Population Spain &9occasionally&9 General ‐ ‐ Sweden 13‐14% EI Adults ‐ ‐ United Kingdom &9small amounts&9 General 12.8‐16.2% EI Children Brazil &9avoid&9 General 7% EI General* USA 120‐330Kcal (100‐500 Kcal) General (Children) 11% EI Children Italy &9limit&9 General ‐ ‐ Mexico &9limit General 5.8% EI Adults Canada &9avoid&9 General 18.2‐22.5% EI Children Ireland ‐ ‐ 17.9% EI Children Netherlands &9reduce&9 Adults 15% EI General Australia &9limited&9 Adults 11.1‐15.8% EI General Iran ‐ ‐ 30.3% EI Children* Lebanon ‐ ‐ 6% EI Adults* France &9reduce&9 General ‐ ‐ Denmark &9limit&9 General ‐ ‐ Austria one serving/d General ‐ ‐ Switzerland one serving/day Adults ‐ ‐ Germany &9sparingly&9 General ‐ ‐ Belgium &9occasionally&9 General ‐ ‐ New Zealand &9limit&9 (once/week) General (Children) ‐ ‐ South Africa &9special occasions&9 General ‐ ‐ India &9limit&9 General ‐ ‐ Japan &9moderate General ‐ ‐ Vietnam &9limited&9 General ‐ ‐ Philippines &9limit&9 General ‐ ‐ Saudi Arabia &9limit&9 General ‐ ‐ Singapore added sugars &amp;lt;10% EI General ‐ ‐ South Korea 185‐225 kcal General ‐ ‐ Discussion: Current advice on snacking and the consumption of HFS food items is limited and inconclusive. Based on the recommendations available and the relevant consumption data, reducing energy intake from snacks to 蠄20% EI and limiting HFS food items could improve dietary habits while being aligned with current advice from various bodies.

BackgroundNutrient profiling (NP) has been mainly used for regulation or food labeling purposes; few systems have been proposed to track food reformulation across a wide range of manufactured foodsObjectiveTo present a category‐specific NP model, the NF score, which aim is to facilitate the tracking of nutritional characteristics of foods; and to show examples of NF score implementationMethodsThe NF score is calculated as an unweighted average of common (energy, added sugars, fructose, sodium, and total, saturated, and trans fats) and category‐specific (e.g. calcium for dairy products, fiber for breads) nutrient ratios (R) calculated per serving: NF score=Average R. For nutrients to limit, R=content/criteria; for nutrients to encourage R=criteria/content. The criteria are category‐specific and linked to public health recommendations, target population (children or adults), and to the role of the food category in the diet. If the food content for one nutrient does not reach the criteria (i.e. R>1), then all Rs蠄1 are set to 1, to ensure that a nutritional weakness cannot be compensated for. Any score above 2 is capped at 2. The final NF score, ranging from 0 to 2, is reversed for a more intuitive reading; any score below 1 indicates that the food has at least one nutritional weakness.ResultsThe NF score was used to assess the evolution of nutritional characteristics of reformulated foods. For all the examples but one, there was an improvement of the NF score (Figure). Improvements for the Cereal bar, Sugar candies, and Pepperoni pizza were also linked to a reduced serving size.imageConclusionsThe NF score allows for a sensitive tracking of food reformulation. Testing the NF score in standard food composition databases should highlight how effective the NF score could be in improving the food environment.