Original Article
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009) 63, 898–904; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2008.53; published online 5 November 2008
Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size?
A Drewnowski1, M Maillot2,3,4 and N Darmon2,3,4
- 1Center for Public Health Nutrition and the Nutritional Sciences Program, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- 2INRA, UMR1260 'Nutriments Lipidiques et Prévention des Maladies, Métaboliques', Marseille, France
- 3INSERM, U476, Marseille, France
- 4Université Aix-Mars eille 1, Université Aix-Marseille 2, Faculté de Médecine, IPHM-IFR 125, Marseille, France
Correspondence: Dr A Drewnowski, School of Public Health M 5170 Human Nutritional Program, University of Washington in Seattle, 305 Raitt Hall, 353410, Washington, MI 98195-3410, USA. E-mail: adamdrew@u.washington.edu
Received 28 March 2008; Revised 3 August 2008; Accepted 18 September 2008; Published online 5 November 2008.
Abstract
Background/Objectives:
Nutrient profiling of foods is defined as the science of ranking or classifying foods based on their nutrient content. Nutrient profiles can be calculated based on 100 g or 100 kcal of food or on standard serving sizes. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of nutrient profiles based on 100 g, 100 kcal and government-mandated serving sizes, and to identify the optimal base of calculation.
Subjects/Methods:
Nutrient profiles tested were composed of positive subscores based on nutrients to encourage and negative subscores based on nutrients to limit. Alternative profiles, computed using different bases of calculation, were used to rank order 378 commonly consumed foods from a food frequency instrument. Profile performance was tested with respect to the foods' energy density.
Results:
Serving sizes, defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as reference amounts customarily consumed (RACC), were inversely linked to energy density of foods. Positive subscores based on 100 kcal were equivalent to those calculated using RACC values. Negative subscores performed better when based on 100 g as opposed to 100 kcal.
Conclusions:
Models based on serving sizes and on 100 kcal were preferable for positive subscores and models based on 100 g of food were preferable for negative subscores. RACC-based profiles may represent an attractive option for the US consumer.
Keywords:
nutrition requirements, food legislation, nutritional quality, nutrient profile
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated
REVIEWS
Intense sweeteners, energy intake and the control of body weight
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Review
RESEARCH
Testing nutrient profile models in relation to energy density and energy cost
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Original Article
Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size?
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Original Article
Low-cost diets: more energy, fewer nutrients
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Scientific Correspondence
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Original Article
