Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Escuela de Nutrición y Dietética, Universidad Mayor, Temuco 4810767, Chile.
Centro de Biología Molecular y Farmacogenética, Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4810767, Chile.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 8;19(22):14631. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192214631.
Currently, there are different food classification systems in order to inform the population of the best alternatives for consumption, considering all the diseases associated with the consumption of products of low nutritional quality. Reports indicate that these forms of labelling warnings correspond to a laudable strategy for populations that do not have the knowledge to discriminate between the wide range of products offered by the food industry. However, recent publications indicate that there may be inconsistencies between the different classification guidelines, and the guidelines that nations should adopt in their food guides are still a matter of debate. In view of this, the present study aimed to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative differences that exist between the NOVA, Nutri-Score and Chilean Front-of-package (FoP) food warning label according to the Chilean basic food basket list.
An analytical study was carried out to classify a list of 736 foods according to three different systems, evaluating the distributions according to their methods of classifying the products. Quantitative differences were contrasted for each system, as well as between them, together with an analysis of the dimensions of each system.
According to the Nutri-Score classification, the most frequent category was A with 27% (high nutritional quality), followed by D with 22% (low nutritional quality) of the total. On the other hand, the NOVA classification showed that the most frequent categorization was ultra-processed food (NOVA 4) with 54%, followed by unprocessed (NOVA 1) with 19%. Regarding the FoP warning labels, 57% of the foods were categorized as free warning labels, followed by the category of foods with 3 warning labels (23%). Regarding the results of the principal component analysis, the Nutri-Score and FoP warning labels present a degree of similarity in their classification guidelines, being different than the dimension pointed out by NOVA.
The present work managed to demonstrate that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between the classification and recommendation guidelines of the Nutri-Score, NOVA and FoP warning labels, finding concrete discrepancies between them.
目前,有不同的食物分类系统,以便向公众提供最佳消费选择,同时考虑到所有与低营养质量产品消费相关的疾病。报告表明,这些形式的标签警告对应于一种值得称赞的策略,适用于那些没有知识来区分食品工业提供的广泛产品的人群。然而,最近的出版物表明,不同的分类指南之间可能存在不一致,各国应在其食品指南中采用的指南仍存在争议。有鉴于此,本研究旨在评估 NOVA、Nutri-Score 和智利包装正面(FoP)食品警告标签之间根据智利基本食品篮清单存在的定量和定性差异。
进行了一项分析性研究,根据三种不同系统对 736 种食品进行分类,根据产品分类方法评估分布情况。对每个系统以及它们之间的定量差异进行了对比,同时对每个系统的维度进行了分析。
根据 Nutri-Score 分类,最常见的类别是 A 类,占 27%(高营养质量),其次是 D 类,占 22%(低营养质量)。另一方面,NOVA 分类显示,最常见的分类是超加工食品(NOVA 4),占 54%,其次是未加工食品(NOVA 1),占 19%。关于 FoP 警告标签,57%的食品被归类为无警告标签,其次是有 3 个警告标签的食品类别(23%)。关于主成分分析的结果,Nutri-Score 和 FoP 警告标签在其分类指南方面存在一定程度的相似性,与 NOVA 指出的维度不同。
本工作成功地证明了 Nutri-Score、NOVA 和 FoP 警告标签的分类和推荐指南之间存在定量和定性差异,发现它们之间存在具体差异。