Ever since the Food Standards Agency first examined the concept of a Nutrient Profiling Model to stem the obesity crisis, it has been the cause of bitter argument.
Not unreasonably, the FSA considered a dozen proposals before opting for the now notorious model. Crucially, however, it failed to involve industry representatives in the selection process. The proposals were all suggested by an expert panel - made up of nutritionists, scientists and consumer representatives. Manufacturers and retailers were only consulted when the proposals had been whittled to the three most-favoured options, all of which the industry dismissed as unworkable and unfair.
But whatever you may think about the flaws of the Nutrient Profiling Model, and the FSA's non-collaborative approach, the fact is the industry has failed to come up with a better alternative. Something needed to be done about childhood obesity, and food and drink suppliers were the obvious target. Instead of rising to the challenge, the industry stuck its head in the sand. By failing to develop a viable alternative - and to unite behind it - the industry has been lobbying from the sidelines when what it needed to do was to take centre stage in the debate.
As one senior figure within Ofcom said last week: "The Nutrient Profiling Model is still the only game in town. Several times, Ofcom has said it would be happy to look at alternatives, but the FSA one is all it's got."
So, we set out to see if there were other systems out there that might work. Have new models emerged - or are new ones in the pipeline - that overcome the fundamental flaws of the NPM against which The Grocer's Weigh It Up campaign is fighting?
The obvious starting point is to modify the Nutrient Profiling Model itself. A number of tweaks were made during the consultation period. An exception was made for nuts. Fibre and protein were also allowed in its credit/debit-based calculations. The dairy industry has called for cheese to be excluded or to consider calcium in the calculation. A distinction could also be made between natural sugars, such as honey and dried fruit, and highly processed sugars, which produce a very different reaction, described by nutritionist Dr Patrick Holford as giving a 'drug-like high' and linked, in children, to hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and depression.
As we have seen in our campaign coverage, one of the iniquities of the FSA model's 100g measuring system is its failure to take into account the small portions in which products like Marmite, raisins, olive oil, cheese, ketchup, honey and jam, breakfast cereals, butter and low-fat margarine are typically consumed. One of the simplest ways of getting round this is the Energy Density system developed way back in 1993 by Dr Verner Wheelock, a professor in food science. Energy density scores a food or drink according to the amount of energy it creates. If it's high in sugar or fat, it gets a one-star rating; if it's low in sugar or fat, it gets a five-star rating. As a result, skimmed milk gets four stars, semi-skimmed gets three, whole milk two and cream gets one. Four and five-star foods (including fruit and vegetables) can be consumed without restriction. And although certain foods, such as Cheddar cheese, olive oil and mayonnaise would only receive one star, Wheelock believes the system is more balanced. "A healthy diet must be based on a wide selection of foods and some high density foods are essential," he adds. The FSA has long since dismissed Wheelock's system, however, describing it as overly simplistic. It doesn't consider salt levels, for example.
A more recent methodology was proposed by Kraft to Ofcom during the consultation period last summer.
The manufacturer of Dairylea, Vegemite and Toblerone launched its hybrid system in 2005, and it tackles the issue of portion head-on. It's a two-step process. Step one states that any product advertised to children should first meet a calorie-per-serving threshold. This would be calculated as a percentage of the energy GDA for a child aged between five and 10 years. Individual foods and snacks aren't allowed to represent more than 10% of this daily allowance. Step two judges whether a product satisfies existing regulatory requirements for 'low' or 'reduced/light' claims for one or more of the key nutrients - fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar.
Simple to use, another merit of the Kraft system is that it encourages food and drink manufacturers to develop low-fat, low-sugar and low-salt variants. This circumvents one of the criticisms that has been levelled at the Nutrient Profiling Model which, as a result of the unrealistically high portion sizes on which many foods are scored, makes no distinction between a low-fat or reduced sugar/salt variant.
The problem with this system is that portions are a subjective measure. In rejecting a portion-based methodology, the FSA argued that manufacturers could make unrealistically low claims for a typical portion; and that a child of five would typically consume a much smaller portion than a 10-year-old.
Another solution that's been mooted is to measure a safe amount of fat, salt and sugar, based on the 'norm' in a particular category, whether it's a condiment, a cheese or cereal. New Zealand's 'Pick the Tick', or the 'Health Check' system developed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Canada have made use of benchmarks per product category based on local data such as legislation, food intake data or dietary recommendations. But a local nutrient profiling system is a movable feast: country or culture-specific variations as well as a large number of categories would make the system horribly complex.
Unilever's Nutrient Enhancement Model, developed in 2002, aims to be both practical and globally applicable. It assesses trans fats, saturated fat, fat quality, salt, total sugars and added sugar. This offers some kind of comment on the quality of the ingredients, since it measures saturated fat as a percentage of total fat and the percentage of added sugar.
Unilever has used this model internally to determine whether a product can or can't make health claims, and externally, in the form of a nutritional label it places on qualifying products, called 'My Choice', which it is now testing in the Netherlands in a joint initiative with Dutch supermarket Ahold.
Unilever hopes the system will be adopted by other manufacturers, but in the meantime, it's already resulted in the elimination of 15,000 tonnes of trans-fats, 10,000t of saturated fats, 10,000t of sugar, and 2,000t of salt from Unilever brands.
But the biggest problem with Unilever's system - and with all the systems mentioned above, as well as the FSA's model - is not what they count and how they score it. It's what they don't count and don't score: vital nutrients, minerals, vitamins. This has also enabled a number of food and drink products with little or no nutritional value, as well as preservatives, artificial sweeteners and additives, to escape the Ofcom ban.
"Nutrient profiling, and a number of the other systems out there, place too much emphasis on the negative attributes, and not enough on the positive attributes," says leading dietician Stephanie French at Nutrition Directions. "And people don't want to hear about what they shouldn't eat. It's simple consumer marketing psychology. They want to hear about what they should."
At least two new systems - both hailing from the US - are better able to accentuate the positive. The first is Guiding Stars, developed by Delhaize America. This uses a debit and credit system: a product is docked points for trans fats, saturated fat, cholesterol, added salt and added sugar; and wins points for vitamins, minerals, dietary fibre and wholegrains. It also uses 100-calorie portions rather than 100g portions, which has the advantage of not demonising high-fat foods, which are naturally calorific. And it's more likely to reflect a typical portion size, since it measures food on how we do/should eat, ie according to calorie requirements. The supermarket is trying to patent it.
The most compelling new development, however, is the Naturally Nutrient Rich Index, which ranks food according to its ratio of nutrients to calories. Developed by Dr Adam Drewnowski, it measures the percentage of the recommended daily values of 14 nutrients, vitamins and minerals calculated per 2,000 calories of individual foods. The total figure is then divided by 14 to work out the nutrient per calorie score.
The beauty of this system is, again, that it takes into account a wide range of positives to balance against the negatives. Under this system, higher fat products such as cheese and full-fat yoghurt - badly penalised by the FSA's model - score better because of the positive nutrients they offer. The model also circumvents the issue of portion size.
And crucially, this method also has the support of leading industry organisations in the US, forming the Naturally Nutrient Rich Coalition and lobbying hard for nutrient density to be adopted across public and education arenas. The powerful Food and Drug Administration is now looking at how it can use the nutrient density approach on health claims and food labels. The French and Canadians are looking it too.
Dr Judith Bryans, director of the Dairy Council, who holds a PhD in human nutrition, is another fan. "This method is more appropriate because it takes into account a whole variety of positive nutrients, rather than the randomly selected ones adopted by the FSA."
Like the Delhaize system, the Naturally Nutrient Rich Index is not perfect: for instance, wholegrains foods with a low water content score badly on the nutrient-density scale. But there are far fewer flaws - and far more positives - than in the FSA's nutrient profiling model and should surely offer Ofcom food for thought.nPuzzle solved? The alternatives
Energy Density
How it works: Scores food and drink, from 1-5, according to the concentration of energy. Those with the lowest energy density (fruit, veg) typically have low fat and high fibre, and score the highest marks. Strengths: Not dependent on portion size. Can take other nutrients into account. Weaknesses: Doesn't measure salt. Doesn't credit positive nutritional values Industry support/use: None
Kraft Two-Step Solution
How it works: Step one calculates calorie thresholds as a percentage of a child's energy GDAs. Step two considers 'low', or 'reduced/light' claims (based on regulatory criteria) for fat, saturated fat, salt or sugar. Strengths: Simple to use. Takes children's portion sizes into account. Weaknesses: Portion sizes vary. Doesn't credit positive nutritional values. Industry support/use: Developed and used only by Kraft
Nutrient Enhancement Model
How it works: Unilever's model evaluates food and drink based on six factors: trans and saturated fats, fat quality, salt, total sugars and added sugar. Strengths: Judges quality as well as quantity of calories. Can be applied globally across all categories. Weaknesses: Doesn't credit positive nutritional values. Industry support/use: Tested on 19,000 Unilever products. Dutch trials for label in JV with supermarket Ahold
Naturally Nutrient Rich Index
How it works: Calculates percentage of RDAs of 14 nutrients, vitamins and minerals per 2,000 calories of food. Strengths: Balances wide range of positive nutritional values against fat, salt, sugar. Doesn't rely on portion sizes. Weaknesses: Not invented here! Wholegrain foods score badly. Industry support/use: UK Dairy Council. Wide support in US food industry. US-based FDA, French, Canadian governments looking at it
delhaize's guiding stars
How it works: Uses a 100-calorie serving, with credits for vitamins, minerals, fibre and wholegrains; debits for trans and saturated fats, cholesterol, added salt and added sugar. Strengths: Balances wide range of positive and negative nutritional values. Calorie portions mean high-fat foods like cheese not demonised Weaknesses: Limited to info on the nutritional facts panel. Industry support/use: Patent pendingThere is another way, too
A less considered way to tackle obesity is simply to encourage kids to put down the TV remote control and games console and lead a more active life. Health professionals cite the lack of activity in the UK as a key factor in the increase in obesity. Is enough being done by the government to get more children to burn more calories? Especially as the stats for childhood activity make for such unhappy reading ...
Children aged 11 to 15 spend 55% of their waking lives - that's seven-and-a-half hours a day - watching TV and playing computer games. This represents a 40% increase over the past 10 years
Based on national viewing figures, the average child will have spent a full year watching TV by the time they are six
Experts suggest that children need an hour of daily exercise, but only 10% of 11-year-olds get this
The average child spends 17 hours a week watching TV, the time it takes to watch 11.3 football matches. In the same week they will only exercise for enough time to play just two games of football
A Barclays Space for Sports Survey of 200 teenagers aged between 13 and 18 found that one in five play no sport at all
The number of obese children in Scotland is double the UK average. Yet, according to the Scottish Executive, in 2005 there were just three teachers with a principal subject of PE between Glasgow's 178 primary schools. Only 5% of primary schools in Scotland receive the minimum requirement of two hours of physical education each week.
Not unreasonably, the FSA considered a dozen proposals before opting for the now notorious model. Crucially, however, it failed to involve industry representatives in the selection process. The proposals were all suggested by an expert panel - made up of nutritionists, scientists and consumer representatives. Manufacturers and retailers were only consulted when the proposals had been whittled to the three most-favoured options, all of which the industry dismissed as unworkable and unfair.
But whatever you may think about the flaws of the Nutrient Profiling Model, and the FSA's non-collaborative approach, the fact is the industry has failed to come up with a better alternative. Something needed to be done about childhood obesity, and food and drink suppliers were the obvious target. Instead of rising to the challenge, the industry stuck its head in the sand. By failing to develop a viable alternative - and to unite behind it - the industry has been lobbying from the sidelines when what it needed to do was to take centre stage in the debate.
As one senior figure within Ofcom said last week: "The Nutrient Profiling Model is still the only game in town. Several times, Ofcom has said it would be happy to look at alternatives, but the FSA one is all it's got."
So, we set out to see if there were other systems out there that might work. Have new models emerged - or are new ones in the pipeline - that overcome the fundamental flaws of the NPM against which The Grocer's Weigh It Up campaign is fighting?
The obvious starting point is to modify the Nutrient Profiling Model itself. A number of tweaks were made during the consultation period. An exception was made for nuts. Fibre and protein were also allowed in its credit/debit-based calculations. The dairy industry has called for cheese to be excluded or to consider calcium in the calculation. A distinction could also be made between natural sugars, such as honey and dried fruit, and highly processed sugars, which produce a very different reaction, described by nutritionist Dr Patrick Holford as giving a 'drug-like high' and linked, in children, to hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and depression.
As we have seen in our campaign coverage, one of the iniquities of the FSA model's 100g measuring system is its failure to take into account the small portions in which products like Marmite, raisins, olive oil, cheese, ketchup, honey and jam, breakfast cereals, butter and low-fat margarine are typically consumed. One of the simplest ways of getting round this is the Energy Density system developed way back in 1993 by Dr Verner Wheelock, a professor in food science. Energy density scores a food or drink according to the amount of energy it creates. If it's high in sugar or fat, it gets a one-star rating; if it's low in sugar or fat, it gets a five-star rating. As a result, skimmed milk gets four stars, semi-skimmed gets three, whole milk two and cream gets one. Four and five-star foods (including fruit and vegetables) can be consumed without restriction. And although certain foods, such as Cheddar cheese, olive oil and mayonnaise would only receive one star, Wheelock believes the system is more balanced. "A healthy diet must be based on a wide selection of foods and some high density foods are essential," he adds. The FSA has long since dismissed Wheelock's system, however, describing it as overly simplistic. It doesn't consider salt levels, for example.
A more recent methodology was proposed by Kraft to Ofcom during the consultation period last summer.
The manufacturer of Dairylea, Vegemite and Toblerone launched its hybrid system in 2005, and it tackles the issue of portion head-on. It's a two-step process. Step one states that any product advertised to children should first meet a calorie-per-serving threshold. This would be calculated as a percentage of the energy GDA for a child aged between five and 10 years. Individual foods and snacks aren't allowed to represent more than 10% of this daily allowance. Step two judges whether a product satisfies existing regulatory requirements for 'low' or 'reduced/light' claims for one or more of the key nutrients - fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar.
Simple to use, another merit of the Kraft system is that it encourages food and drink manufacturers to develop low-fat, low-sugar and low-salt variants. This circumvents one of the criticisms that has been levelled at the Nutrient Profiling Model which, as a result of the unrealistically high portion sizes on which many foods are scored, makes no distinction between a low-fat or reduced sugar/salt variant.
The problem with this system is that portions are a subjective measure. In rejecting a portion-based methodology, the FSA argued that manufacturers could make unrealistically low claims for a typical portion; and that a child of five would typically consume a much smaller portion than a 10-year-old.
Another solution that's been mooted is to measure a safe amount of fat, salt and sugar, based on the 'norm' in a particular category, whether it's a condiment, a cheese or cereal. New Zealand's 'Pick the Tick', or the 'Health Check' system developed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Canada have made use of benchmarks per product category based on local data such as legislation, food intake data or dietary recommendations. But a local nutrient profiling system is a movable feast: country or culture-specific variations as well as a large number of categories would make the system horribly complex.
Unilever's Nutrient Enhancement Model, developed in 2002, aims to be both practical and globally applicable. It assesses trans fats, saturated fat, fat quality, salt, total sugars and added sugar. This offers some kind of comment on the quality of the ingredients, since it measures saturated fat as a percentage of total fat and the percentage of added sugar.
Unilever has used this model internally to determine whether a product can or can't make health claims, and externally, in the form of a nutritional label it places on qualifying products, called 'My Choice', which it is now testing in the Netherlands in a joint initiative with Dutch supermarket Ahold.
Unilever hopes the system will be adopted by other manufacturers, but in the meantime, it's already resulted in the elimination of 15,000 tonnes of trans-fats, 10,000t of saturated fats, 10,000t of sugar, and 2,000t of salt from Unilever brands.
But the biggest problem with Unilever's system - and with all the systems mentioned above, as well as the FSA's model - is not what they count and how they score it. It's what they don't count and don't score: vital nutrients, minerals, vitamins. This has also enabled a number of food and drink products with little or no nutritional value, as well as preservatives, artificial sweeteners and additives, to escape the Ofcom ban.
"Nutrient profiling, and a number of the other systems out there, place too much emphasis on the negative attributes, and not enough on the positive attributes," says leading dietician Stephanie French at Nutrition Directions. "And people don't want to hear about what they shouldn't eat. It's simple consumer marketing psychology. They want to hear about what they should."
At least two new systems - both hailing from the US - are better able to accentuate the positive. The first is Guiding Stars, developed by Delhaize America. This uses a debit and credit system: a product is docked points for trans fats, saturated fat, cholesterol, added salt and added sugar; and wins points for vitamins, minerals, dietary fibre and wholegrains. It also uses 100-calorie portions rather than 100g portions, which has the advantage of not demonising high-fat foods, which are naturally calorific. And it's more likely to reflect a typical portion size, since it measures food on how we do/should eat, ie according to calorie requirements. The supermarket is trying to patent it.
The most compelling new development, however, is the Naturally Nutrient Rich Index, which ranks food according to its ratio of nutrients to calories. Developed by Dr Adam Drewnowski, it measures the percentage of the recommended daily values of 14 nutrients, vitamins and minerals calculated per 2,000 calories of individual foods. The total figure is then divided by 14 to work out the nutrient per calorie score.
The beauty of this system is, again, that it takes into account a wide range of positives to balance against the negatives. Under this system, higher fat products such as cheese and full-fat yoghurt - badly penalised by the FSA's model - score better because of the positive nutrients they offer. The model also circumvents the issue of portion size.
And crucially, this method also has the support of leading industry organisations in the US, forming the Naturally Nutrient Rich Coalition and lobbying hard for nutrient density to be adopted across public and education arenas. The powerful Food and Drug Administration is now looking at how it can use the nutrient density approach on health claims and food labels. The French and Canadians are looking it too.
Dr Judith Bryans, director of the Dairy Council, who holds a PhD in human nutrition, is another fan. "This method is more appropriate because it takes into account a whole variety of positive nutrients, rather than the randomly selected ones adopted by the FSA."
Like the Delhaize system, the Naturally Nutrient Rich Index is not perfect: for instance, wholegrains foods with a low water content score badly on the nutrient-density scale. But there are far fewer flaws - and far more positives - than in the FSA's nutrient profiling model and should surely offer Ofcom food for thought.nPuzzle solved? The alternatives
Energy Density
How it works: Scores food and drink, from 1-5, according to the concentration of energy. Those with the lowest energy density (fruit, veg) typically have low fat and high fibre, and score the highest marks. Strengths: Not dependent on portion size. Can take other nutrients into account. Weaknesses: Doesn't measure salt. Doesn't credit positive nutritional values Industry support/use: None
Kraft Two-Step Solution
How it works: Step one calculates calorie thresholds as a percentage of a child's energy GDAs. Step two considers 'low', or 'reduced/light' claims (based on regulatory criteria) for fat, saturated fat, salt or sugar. Strengths: Simple to use. Takes children's portion sizes into account. Weaknesses: Portion sizes vary. Doesn't credit positive nutritional values. Industry support/use: Developed and used only by Kraft
Nutrient Enhancement Model
How it works: Unilever's model evaluates food and drink based on six factors: trans and saturated fats, fat quality, salt, total sugars and added sugar. Strengths: Judges quality as well as quantity of calories. Can be applied globally across all categories. Weaknesses: Doesn't credit positive nutritional values. Industry support/use: Tested on 19,000 Unilever products. Dutch trials for label in JV with supermarket Ahold
Naturally Nutrient Rich Index
How it works: Calculates percentage of RDAs of 14 nutrients, vitamins and minerals per 2,000 calories of food. Strengths: Balances wide range of positive nutritional values against fat, salt, sugar. Doesn't rely on portion sizes. Weaknesses: Not invented here! Wholegrain foods score badly. Industry support/use: UK Dairy Council. Wide support in US food industry. US-based FDA, French, Canadian governments looking at it
delhaize's guiding stars
How it works: Uses a 100-calorie serving, with credits for vitamins, minerals, fibre and wholegrains; debits for trans and saturated fats, cholesterol, added salt and added sugar. Strengths: Balances wide range of positive and negative nutritional values. Calorie portions mean high-fat foods like cheese not demonised Weaknesses: Limited to info on the nutritional facts panel. Industry support/use: Patent pendingThere is another way, too
A less considered way to tackle obesity is simply to encourage kids to put down the TV remote control and games console and lead a more active life. Health professionals cite the lack of activity in the UK as a key factor in the increase in obesity. Is enough being done by the government to get more children to burn more calories? Especially as the stats for childhood activity make for such unhappy reading ...
Children aged 11 to 15 spend 55% of their waking lives - that's seven-and-a-half hours a day - watching TV and playing computer games. This represents a 40% increase over the past 10 years
Based on national viewing figures, the average child will have spent a full year watching TV by the time they are six
Experts suggest that children need an hour of daily exercise, but only 10% of 11-year-olds get this
The average child spends 17 hours a week watching TV, the time it takes to watch 11.3 football matches. In the same week they will only exercise for enough time to play just two games of football
A Barclays Space for Sports Survey of 200 teenagers aged between 13 and 18 found that one in five play no sport at all
The number of obese children in Scotland is double the UK average. Yet, according to the Scottish Executive, in 2005 there were just three teachers with a principal subject of PE between Glasgow's 178 primary schools. Only 5% of primary schools in Scotland receive the minimum requirement of two hours of physical education each week.
No comments yet