An Updated Definition of “Healthy” Foods in the United States: How Do They Measure in Nutrient Density, Cost, and Frequency of Consumption?

IF 3.2 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Kayla Hooker, Namrata Sanjeevi, Pablo Monsivais
{"title":"An Updated Definition of “Healthy” Foods in the United States: How Do They Measure in Nutrient Density, Cost, and Frequency of Consumption?","authors":"Kayla Hooker,&nbsp;Namrata Sanjeevi,&nbsp;Pablo Monsivais","doi":"10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized an update to the definition of the term “healthy” as used on food labels, to align with current dietary guidelines. A holistic understanding of food choice is vital for socially- and economically-conscious food programs and policies.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study applied the new “healthy” criteria to a nationally-representative database of foods and beverages and compared qualifying items to those that failed to qualify, in terms of nutrient density, monetary cost, and frequency of consumption.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Nutrient profile scores based on the Nutrient Rich Foods Index 9.3 model and weighted frequency of consumption data from the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies were linked to data for monetary cost, based on national food prices.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The analysis included 3062 foods and beverages in 12 food groups, of which 14% qualified as “healthy.” Many foods did not qualify due to excess sodium and saturated fat. Overall, qualifying foods and beverages had a higher median nutrient density and frequency of consumption (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and lower median cost per serving (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) compared with items that failed to qualify. Among food groups, qualifying plant protein foods, consisting primarily of nuts and seeds, were significantly lower in nutrient density and more expensive than not qualifying plant proteins. Qualifying mixed dishes were also significantly more costly than those that failed to qualify.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Foods and beverages that would qualify as “healthy” under new FDA criteria were more nutrient dense. Overall, qualifying items may be less expensive and consumed more frequently than not qualifying items, although results differed for individual food groups. To increase the availability of foods and beverages qualifying as “healthy,” industry reformulation of packaged and processed nutrient-dense foods should be considered to reduce the addition of sodium, sugar, and saturated fat.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10756,"journal":{"name":"Current Developments in Nutrition","volume":"9 10","pages":"Article 107545"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Developments in Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299125030070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized an update to the definition of the term “healthy” as used on food labels, to align with current dietary guidelines. A holistic understanding of food choice is vital for socially- and economically-conscious food programs and policies.

Objectives

This study applied the new “healthy” criteria to a nationally-representative database of foods and beverages and compared qualifying items to those that failed to qualify, in terms of nutrient density, monetary cost, and frequency of consumption.

Methods

Nutrient profile scores based on the Nutrient Rich Foods Index 9.3 model and weighted frequency of consumption data from the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies were linked to data for monetary cost, based on national food prices.

Results

The analysis included 3062 foods and beverages in 12 food groups, of which 14% qualified as “healthy.” Many foods did not qualify due to excess sodium and saturated fat. Overall, qualifying foods and beverages had a higher median nutrient density and frequency of consumption (P < 0.001) and lower median cost per serving (P < 0.001) compared with items that failed to qualify. Among food groups, qualifying plant protein foods, consisting primarily of nuts and seeds, were significantly lower in nutrient density and more expensive than not qualifying plant proteins. Qualifying mixed dishes were also significantly more costly than those that failed to qualify.

Conclusions

Foods and beverages that would qualify as “healthy” under new FDA criteria were more nutrient dense. Overall, qualifying items may be less expensive and consumed more frequently than not qualifying items, although results differed for individual food groups. To increase the availability of foods and beverages qualifying as “healthy,” industry reformulation of packaged and processed nutrient-dense foods should be considered to reduce the addition of sodium, sugar, and saturated fat.
美国“健康”食品的最新定义:如何衡量营养密度、成本和消费频率?
2024年,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)最终更新了食品标签上“健康”一词的定义,以与当前的饮食指南保持一致。对食物选择的全面理解对于具有社会和经济意识的食物计划和政策至关重要。本研究将新的“健康”标准应用于具有全国代表性的食品和饮料数据库,并将符合条件的产品与不符合条件的产品在营养密度、货币成本和消费频率方面进行比较。方法将基于营养丰富食品指数9.3模型的营养概况评分和来自食品和营养数据库的膳食研究的加权消费频率数据与基于国家食品价格的货币成本数据相关联。结果分析了12类食品中的3062种食品和饮料,其中14%符合“健康”标准。许多食物由于钠和饱和脂肪含量过高而不合格。总体而言,与不合格的食品和饮料相比,合格的食品和饮料具有更高的营养密度和消费频率中位数(P < 0.001)和更低的每份成本中位数(P < 0.001)。在食物组中,主要由坚果和种子组成的合格植物蛋白食物的营养密度明显低于不合格植物蛋白的食物,价格也更高。合格的混合菜也比不合格的要贵得多。根据FDA的新标准,符合“健康”标准的食品和饮料的营养密度更高。总的来说,合格食品可能比不合格食品更便宜,消费频率更高,尽管个别食品组的结果有所不同。为了增加“健康”食品和饮料的可获得性,应考虑对包装和加工的营养密集食品进行重新配方,以减少钠、糖和饱和脂肪的添加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Developments in Nutrition
Current Developments in Nutrition NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
4.20%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信