What it is:
Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition designed a new nutrient profiling system in order to rank foods for positive health outcomes called the Food Compass. The food scoring system relies on research-backed information to guide individuals toward healthier food choices. It also aims to encourage public nutrition policy, such as government or industry reform toward food labeling.
The Food Compass reviewed over 100 different Nutrient Profiling systems (NPS) scoring principles, thresholds, and designs alongside ~90 national and international dietary guidelines. The primary NPS guides the food compass reviewed were distinguished systems such as:
Guiding Stars (United States)
Nutri-Score (Europe),
HSR (Australia and New Zealand),
Nordic Keyhole (Scandinavia)
Singapore Healthy Choice (Singapore),
Waqeya (United Arab Emirates)
Nestle Nutrient Profiling System
Most of the quantified data for these systems focused on macronutrients, vitamins and/or minerals, food categories (e.g. fruit, vegetables, dairy, legumes), and nutrients (e.g. sodium, sugar). The Food Compass then compared this information to observational studies or randomized trials in order to determine public and individual health outcomes.
Next, Attributes were scored 0 to 10 for positive overall health impact and from −10 to 0 for adverse overall health impact. These were then grouped into domains to prevent any single attribute from dominating a food score and finally resulting in a summary score for each food. Attributes included items such as:
Vitamins and Minerals
The sum of Food Ingredients (e.g. whole grains, vegetables, seafood)
Additives (e.g. added sugar, Monosodium glutamate (MSG))
Processing level (e.g. NOVA level, fermenting, frying)
Phytochemicals (e.g. flavanoid or carotenoid)
Using these specific attributes the food items were ranked from 1 (least healthy) to 100 (most healthy) the scoring is based on item per 100 kcal in order to account for differences in volume, hydration levels, fiber, fat, etc.
Food, beverages and mixed dishes were partitioned into high, low and medium categories based on their score. For example, above a 70 is considered an item that should be consumed more frequently due to its health benefits, and an item scoring lower than a 30 should be consumed minimally or avoided altogether.
Purported claims:
Effectively ranks the healthfullness of certain foods on a scale based on scientific literature and Nutrient Profiling systems (NPS) in order to guide consumer understanding, food policy, industry labeling, and investment decisions.
The approach quantifies current best evidence regarding dietary factors and their links to public health. The ranking system looks to reduce the public's risk factors towards diseases and health issues such as:
Cardiometabolic diseases
Cancers
Gut health
Immune function
Brain health
Bone health
Cognitive performance
What the science says:
One of the major areas the Food Compass misses the mark is in its ineffective ranking of whole foods versus processed foods. Fiber and protein were classified together, which did not give them enough weight and significantly lowered their score potential. Due to the ranking, based on the calorie scoring system of items per 100kcal, low-calorie and/or processed foods were bumped much higher on the list than is considered healthy.
Some nutritionally significant items were unable to be quantified due to a lack of comparative data or research, so they were not included in the Food Compass analysis. Such as:
Naturally occurring vs. fortified vitamins, minerals, and fiber
Food structure processing (e.g. milling of grains or cooking of meat)
Specialized dietary foods (e.g. nutritional supplements for performance or treatment for health conditions)
All of these items are important for understanding a healthful eating pattern. Not including them in the analysis is highly detrimental to the public's understanding of nutritionally dense foods. For example, consuming foods such as a vitamin-fortified cereal instead of a whole grain where it naturally occurs, caters to corporate processed foods rather than the fantastic interactions occurring within whole food plants. The fact that the Food Compass does not balance these factors is a significant issue.
The classification of the attributes is based on this generalized idea of foods being good or bad without considering the circumstance or the desired outcome. For example, orange juice is ranked 94/100 in the Food Compass system. Yet juices are stripped of their fiber, leaving copious amounts of liquid sugar that can be highly detrimental to both blood sugar levels and teeth cavities. The way the ranking system is weighted ignores these factors. Coffee, on the other hand, has numerous studies showing its protective health benefits yet isn't even included in the Food Compass system because the scores were derived via per 100 kcal. Therefore, coffee and other low-calorie items (<5 kcal per 100 g) couldn't be classified. Again, this skews the individual's understanding of what healthy means.
Individuals have individual needs, so classifying foods, meals, and beverages into such simple terms adds confusion and can be genuinely harmful. It is possible to formulate a correct ranking system; however, the Food Compass lacks essential information and classifications.
Our take:
The Food Compass looks to re-vamp the classification of foods in order to be a basis for a new type of Nutrient Profiling System (NPS). However, it is still based on the current information that the broken system is criticized for and the misinformation it espouses to the public.
It sends a detrimental message to an already confused public on healthy eating patterns. It may be acceptable to add this tool to health professionals' or food policy makers' arsenals, but it's not good enough for the public to decipher what is truly beneficial to their health.
Will this benefit you?
Not really. As a simple tool, it can be utilized as a guide, but it needs work. With a future, active restructuring and refocusing of the current literature, the Food Compass may be beneficial. However, for now, individuals should speak to a healthcare professional with any concerns about their eating habits.
References and additional reading:
Comentarios