Testing nutrient profile models in relation to energy density and cost

Center for Public Health Nutrition and the Nutritional Sciences Program, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3410, USA.
European journal of clinical nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.71). 03/2008; 63(5):674-83. DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2008.16
Source: PubMed


Nutrient profiling of foods is defined as the science of classifying foods based on their nutrient content. Food rankings generated by nutrient profile models need to be tested against objective reality as opposed to public opinion.
To test the performance of selected nutrient profile models in relation to the foods' energy density (kcal g(-1)) and energy cost (Dollar per 1000 kcal).
Analyses were based on 378 component foods of a food frequency instrument. The models tested were the French nutrient adequacy models NAS23 and NAS16 and nutrient density models NDS23 and NDS16; and a family of nutrient-rich models (NR(n), where n=5-7; 10-12, and 15). Also tested were LIM scores and a modified British Food Standards Agency model WXYfm. Profiles were calculated based on 100 g, 100 kcal and on Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed. Food rankings generated by different models were correlated with each other and with the foods' energy density and energy cost.
Nutrient profile models based on protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals showed an inverse correlation with energy density that diminished as more micronutrients were introduced into the model. Models based on fat, sugar and sodium were highly correlated with energy density. Foods classified as healthier were generally associated with higher energy costs.
Not all models accurately reflected the foods' content of nutrients known to be beneficial to health. High correlations with energy density meant that some models classified foods based on their energy density as opposed to nutrient content.

Download full-text


Available from: Nicole Darmon, Sep 11, 2014
25 Reads
  • Source
    • "Although there is already a considerable body of research examining consumer responses to food nutrition labels in general, and specifically to FOP labelling schemes (Kraus et al. 2010; Kelly et al., 2007; Jones and Richardson, 2007; Kozup et al., 2003), evidence of the impact on consumer behaviour is marginal at best (Nayga 2008). Additionally, few articles have considered ways different (voluntary) nutritional criteria or nutrient profile models may influence the adoption of FOP labelling or food product formulation (notable examples are Moser et al. 2010; Azaïs-Braesco et al. 2009; Drewnowski et al. 2009; Nijman et al. 2007; Young and Swinburn 2002). Studies measuring actual nutritional quality of products using voluntary FOP labels have been limited by the rapidity, scope and proprietary nature of product (re)formulations. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The adoption of voluntary front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels by UK food retailers and manufacturers is explored. These labels highlight key nutrients, facilitating product comparisons. Information for 2,201 products launched between 2007 and 2009 was analysed. Binary and multinomial logistic regression models explore drivers of FOP label use. Products introduced more recently by retailers and certain food categories were more likely to carry FOP labels. Increasing the content of sodium and sugar decreased odds of FOP use in some categories, but with limited significance. Discussion includes policy options to optimise firm response and implications for evolving mandatory FOP labelling proposals.
    European Review of Agricultural Economics 10/2011; 39(5). DOI:10.1093/erae/jbr063 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Using these optimized methods, the current study investigates the influence of three modulating factors of reward processing in the OFC and the amygdala: calorie content, hunger, and attention. A first hypothesized determinant of the regulation of reward processing is the calorie content of food [25]. According to the optimal foraging theory, organisms forage in such a way as to maximize their energy intake, which would provide evolutionary benefits [26]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research indicates that dysfunctional food reward processing may contribute to pathological eating behaviour. It is widely recognized that both the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) are essential parts of the brain's reward circuitry. The aims of this fMRI study were (1) to examine the effects of food deprivation and calorie content on reward processing in the amygdala and the OFC, and (2) to examine whether an explicit evaluation of foods is necessary for OFC, but not amygdalar activity. Addressing the first aim, healthy females were presented with high and low calorie food pictures while being either hungry or satiated. For the second aim, attention focus was manipulated by directing participants' attention either to the food or to a neutral aspect. This study shows that hunger interacts with the energy content of foods, modulating activity in the posterior cingulate cortex, medial OFC, insula, caudate putamen and fusiform gyrus. Results show that satiated healthy females show an increased reward processing in response to low calorie foods. Confirming our hypothesis, food deprivation increased activity following the presentation of high calorie foods, which may explain why treatments of obesity energy restricting diets often are unsuccessful. Interestingly, activity in both the amygdala and mOFC was only evident when participants explicitly evaluated foods. However, attention independent activity was found in the mPFC following the high calorie foods cues when participants where hungry. Current findings indicate that research on how attention modulates food reward processing might prove especially insightful in the study of the neural substrates of healthy and pathological eating behaviour.
    Behavioural brain research 12/2008; 198(1):149-58. DOI:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.035 · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • Source

Show more