Discrepancy between Food Classification Systems: Evaluation of Nutri-Score, NOVA Classification and Chilean Front-of-Package Food Warning Labels

Abstract

Background: Currently, there are different food classification systems in order to inform the population of the best alternatives for consumption, considering all the diseases associated with the consumption of products of low nutritional quality. Reports indicate that these forms of labelling warnings correspond to a laudable strategy for populations that do not have the knowledge to discriminate between the wide range of products offered by the food industry. However, recent publications indicate that there may be inconsistencies between the different classification guidelines, and the guidelines that nations should adopt in their food guides are still a matter of debate. In view of this, the present study aimed to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative differences that exist between the NOVA, Nutri-Score and Chilean Front-of-package (FoP) food warning label according to the Chilean basic food basket list. Method: An analytical study was carried out to classify a list of 736 foods according to three different systems, evaluating the distributions according to their methods of classifying the products. Quantitative differences were contrasted for each system, as well as between them, together with an analysis of the dimensions of each system. Results: According to the Nutri-Score classification, the most frequent category was A with 27% (high nutritional quality), followed by D with 22% (low nutritional quality) of the total. On the other hand, the NOVA classification showed that the most frequent categorization was ultra-processed food (NOVA 4) with 54%, followed by unprocessed (NOVA 1) with 19%. Regarding the FoP warning labels, 57% of the foods were categorized as free warning labels, followed by the category of foods with 3 warning labels (23%). Regarding the results of the principal component analysis, the Nutri-Score and FoP warning labels present a degree of similarity in their classification guidelines, being different than the dimension pointed out by NOVA. Conclusion: The present work managed to demonstrate that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between the classification and recommendation guidelines of the Nutri-Score, NOVA and FoP warning labels, finding concrete discrepancies between them.

Characterizing Meat- and Milk/Dairy-like Vegetarian Foods and Their Counterparts Based on Nutrient Profiling and Food Labels

“…A call to pay attention to the need to incorporate this information should be made to guide consumer’s choices of the healthier and less processed PB foods on the market. Several studies have even requested that Nutri-Score should be accompanied by the NOVA category to provide this information [ 38 , 60 ]. At the same time, efforts should be made to enhance people´s understanding of these food label systems, since this knowledge is limited in some sectors of the population [ 61 ].…”

A systematic assessment of the revised Nutri‐Score algorithm: Potentials for the implementation of front‐of‐package nutrition labeling across Europe

“…Critics also argue that NS penalizes traditional foods, posing challenges for companies preserving traditional diets due to the difficulty of reformulation, based on regulated recipes (Valenzuela et al., 2022). Although the NS2023 algorithm did not specifically address this criticism, the revision improved the profiling of some traditional foods, which represent an important part of a healthy diet, such as olive oil and cheeses with a lower salt content (Scientific Committee of the Nutri‐Score, 2022).…”

“…Our literature review captured 30 papers: 24 original research (Angelino et al, 2023;Braesco et al, 2022;Bryngelsson et al, 2022;Cutroneo et al, 2022;de las Heras-Delgado et al, 2023;Dickie et al, 2022;Ebner et al, 2022;Fedde et al, 2022;Ferreiro et al, 2021;Fialon et al, 2022;Hafner & Pravst, 2021, 2023Huybers & Roodenburg, 2023;Katsouri et al, 2021;Kissock et al, 2022;Konings et al, 2022;Panczyk et al, 2023;Pitt et al, 2023;Pointke & Pawelzik, 2022;Rodriguez-Martin et al, 2023;Septia Irawan et al, 2022;Stiletto & Trestini, 2022;Borg et al, 2021;Valenzuela et al, 2022), 3 communication/correspondence (Carruba et al, 2022;Drewnowski et al, 2021;Hau & Lange, 2023), and 3 review papers (Peonides et al, 2022;van der Bend et al, 2022;Włodarek & Dobrowolski, 2022), originating from 19 countries (including 12 EU member states). The list of reported limitations (n = 20), their connections, and the numbers of mentions are presented in Figure 2.…”

“…Critics also argue that NS penalizes traditional foods, posing challenges for companies preserving traditional diets due to the difficulty of reformulation, based on regulated recipes (Valenzuela et al, 2022).…”

Nutrients or processing? An analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, the NOVA classification, and front of package traffic light labelling

“…In particular, UPFs may be more energy dense (16) and have addictive-like, hyperpalatable properties that may encourage increased energy intake (14,17,18), which may be linked to their negative impact on health. The lower protein content of an ultra-processed diet has also been suggested to be a factor driving excess consumption (14,19) Studies outside of the UK have compared the NOVA classification with nutrient indices such as the Nutrient Rich Food Index (20), FOPL tools such as Nutri-Score or MTL, or nutrient profiling models such as those by the World Health Organization (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). Such studies find an inverse, partial association between UPF intake and dietary quality, or typically poorer FOPL profiling in UPFs compared with MPFs, but also find that not all UPFs are nutritionally inferior.…”