‘Think you know what’s good for you?’ – Emine Saner, guardian.co.uk, 22/10/08
We have the traffic-light system that was introduced last year by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Guideline Daily Amount system in the UK. In the US, a new food labelling system is being introduced. Dr David Katz, a nutritionist and former director of medical studies in public health at Yale University, who now runs the university’s Prevention Research Centre devised the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI), commercially known as the NuVal system. The idea is simple- the higher the score given to the food, the more nutritious it is. For example, broccoli scores the highest, at 100 while fizzy drinks get only one point.
So far, 3 supermarket chains in the US have adopted the system, with another 15 to 20 companies planning to get involved next year. The system was devised when Katz and a number of other nutritionists were invited by the US secretary of health to submit one idea each to combat obesity. Katz wanted to create a single measure of nutritional quality and apply it to every food product sold in the supermarkets. Although his system did not take up his proposal, Katz received funding to develop it from a local hospital.
After reading the headline ‘Think you know what’s good for you?’ I expected that the article was about finding foods that are thought to be healthy by many people are actually not so nutritious…which is true, but the main focus of the article was about the new food labelling system in the US, that ranked foods on how nutritious it is. The thumbnail picture of bright oranges put up on the main food and drink page draws the attention of the reader to read the article, and the large picture put at the top of the article makes the article look more appealing to read. The article would be of interest to anyone who shops regularly in supermarkets such as mums, who look out for food labelling systems such as the traffic light system.
The article usefully provides a printable pdf guide to food ratings. the ONQI guide is simple to understand, but as the last part of the article says, “The ONQI guides you towards the most nutritious foods in any given category, but the message of balance and variety in your diet is still relevant”, I don’t think it informs people on the balance of foods. For example, Broccoli is given 100 points whereas a green cabbage is given 96 points. Although only 4 points more, people may think because broccoli has a higher value, they will opt to buy it instead of the cabbage. I think people will confuse and misunderstands ‘nutritional value’ as an indication of how healthy the food is. I don’t think you can say a green cabbage is an unhealthy choice over broccoli, but only that it has a less nutritional value. The list given at the end of the article, although intended to inform the different nutritional values of a range of food, it makes people compare the values of one against another.
