Pivk Kupirovič Urška, Hristov Hristo, Hribar Maša, Lavriša Živa, Pravst Igor
Nutrition Institute, Tržaška cesta 40, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Foods. 2020 Mar 31;9(4):399. doi: 10.3390/foods9040399.
indicator front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes are gaining momentum. In Europe, an example of such a scheme is Nutri-Score, which was first introduced in France. Supported by additional research, the scheme has the potential to expand into other countries. Such a scenario opens a series of questions related to the use of Nutri-Score in the territories with pre-existing food labelling schemes. A key question is whether different nutrition labelling schemes would provide conflicting information for consumers when applied to same foods. The goal of our study was, therefore, to evaluate the alignment of different front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes. The study was conducted using cross-sectional data on the composition of selected categories of prepacked foods with high penetration nutrition/health claims and symbols in the Slovenian food supply. We evaluated a variety of existing front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes: three interpretive nutrition rating systems (Nutri-Score, Health Star Rating (HSR), Traffic light system), four health symbols (Protective Food symbol, Choices, Finnish heart, and Keyhole symbol), and also three nutrient profile models developed for other purposes (Office of Communications (United Kingdom, Ofcom), World Health Organization Regional office for Europe (WHOE) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)). Overall, our results indicate that interpretive nutrition rating systems (i.e., Nutri-Score) are mostly less strict than the nutrient profiles of tested health symbols. A risk of conflicting information would happen in a scenario where food is eligible to carry a health symbol, but is at the same time rated to have lower nutritional quality by an accompanying interpretive nutrition rating system. When Protective Food symbol and Nutri-Score are used together, this would occur for 5% of foods in our sample. To avoid such risks, schemes for health symbols could be adapted to be stricter than interpretive nutrition rating systems used in the same territory/market, but such adaptations are challenging and should be well planned. While our study showed that, in most cases, Nutri-Score is a less strict model than tested health symbols, the rating-system approach might offer useful support and incentive for food producers towards gradual food reformulation.
包装正面营养标签计划正越来越受到关注。在欧洲，此类计划的一个例子是营养评分（Nutri-Score），它最初是在法国推出的。在更多研究的支持下，该计划有可能扩展到其他国家。这种情况引发了一系列与在已有食品标签计划的地区使用营养评分相关的问题。一个关键问题是，当不同的营养标签计划应用于相同食品时，是否会为消费者提供相互矛盾的信息。因此，我们研究的目的是评估不同包装正面营养标签计划的一致性。该研究使用了斯洛文尼亚食品供应中具有高渗透率营养/健康声明和标识的预包装食品选定类别的成分横断面数据。我们评估了各种现有的包装正面营养标签计划：三种解释性营养评级系统（营养评分、健康星级评级（HSR）、红绿灯系统）、四种健康标识（保护性食品标识、选择标识、芬兰心脏标识和锁孔标识），以及另外三种为其他目的开发的营养素概况模型（英国通信办公室（Ofcom）、世界卫生组织欧洲区域办事处（WHOE）和澳大利亚新西兰食品标准局（FSANZ））。总体而言，我们的结果表明，解释性营养评级系统（即营养评分）大多不如测试的健康标识的营养素概况严格。在食品符合使用健康标识条件，但同时被随附的解释性营养评级系统评定为营养质量较低的情况下，就会出现信息冲突的风险。当同时使用保护性食品标识和营养评分时，我们样本中5%的食品会出现这种情况。为避免此类风险，健康标识计划可以调整得比同一地区/市场使用的解释性营养评级系统更严格，但这种调整具有挑战性，需要精心规划。虽然我们的研究表明，在大多数情况下，营养评分比测试的健康标识模型宽松，但评级系统方法可能会为食品生产商逐步进行食品配方改革提供有用的支持和激励。
