最新版包装前营养标签 Nutri-Score 与食品加工 NOVA 分类之间的互补性。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Barthélemy Sarda, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Valérie Deschamps, Pauline Ducrot, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Melanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Bernard Srour, Leopold K Fezeu, Mathilde Touvier, Chantal Julia
{"title":"最新版包装前营养标签 Nutri-Score 与食品加工 NOVA 分类之间的互补性。","authors":"Barthélemy Sarda, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Valérie Deschamps, Pauline Ducrot, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Melanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Bernard Srour, Leopold K Fezeu, Mathilde Touvier, Chantal Julia","doi":"10.1017/S1368980024000296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the initial and the updated versions of the front-of-pack label Nutri-Score (related to the nutritional content) with the NOVA classification (related to the degree of food processing) at the food level.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Using the OpenFoodFacts database - 129,950 food products - we assessed the complementarity between the Nutri-Score (initial and updated) with the NOVA classification through a correspondence analysis. Contingency tables between the two classification systems were used.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>The food offer in France.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With both versions (i.e. initial and updated) of the Nutri-Score, the majority of ultra-processed products received medium to poor Nutri-Score ratings (between 77·9 % and 87·5 % of ultra-processed products depending on the version of the algorithm). Overall, the update of the Nutri-Score algorithm led to a reduction in the number of products rated A and B and an increase in the number of products rated D or E for all NOVA categories, with unprocessed foods being the least impacted (-3·8 percentage points (-5·2 %) rated A or B and +1·3 percentage points (+12·9 %) rated D or E) and ultra-processed foods the most impacted (-9·8 percentage points (-43·4 %) rated A or B and +7·8 percentage points (+14·1 %) rated D or E). Among ultra-processed foods rated favourably with the initial Nutri-Score, artificially sweetened beverages, sweetened plant-based drinks and bread products were the most penalised categories by the revision of Nutri-Score while low-sugar flavoured waters, fruit and legume preparations were the least affected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results indicate that the update of the Nutri-Score reinforces its coherence with the NOVA classification, even though both systems measure two distinct health dimensions at the food level.</p>","PeriodicalId":20951,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10897572/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complementarity between the updated version of the front-of-pack nutrition label Nutri-Score and the food-processing NOVA classification.\",\"authors\":\"Barthélemy Sarda, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Valérie Deschamps, Pauline Ducrot, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Melanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Bernard Srour, Leopold K Fezeu, Mathilde Touvier, Chantal Julia\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1368980024000296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the initial and the updated versions of the front-of-pack label Nutri-Score (related to the nutritional content) with the NOVA classification (related to the degree of food processing) at the food level.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Using the OpenFoodFacts database - 129,950 food products - we assessed the complementarity between the Nutri-Score (initial and updated) with the NOVA classification through a correspondence analysis. Contingency tables between the two classification systems were used.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>The food offer in France.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With both versions (i.e. initial and updated) of the Nutri-Score, the majority of ultra-processed products received medium to poor Nutri-Score ratings (between 77·9 % and 87·5 % of ultra-processed products depending on the version of the algorithm). Overall, the update of the Nutri-Score algorithm led to a reduction in the number of products rated A and B and an increase in the number of products rated D or E for all NOVA categories, with unprocessed foods being the least impacted (-3·8 percentage points (-5·2 %) rated A or B and +1·3 percentage points (+12·9 %) rated D or E) and ultra-processed foods the most impacted (-9·8 percentage points (-43·4 %) rated A or B and +7·8 percentage points (+14·1 %) rated D or E). Among ultra-processed foods rated favourably with the initial Nutri-Score, artificially sweetened beverages, sweetened plant-based drinks and bread products were the most penalised categories by the revision of Nutri-Score while low-sugar flavoured waters, fruit and legume preparations were the least affected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results indicate that the update of the Nutri-Score reinforces its coherence with the NOVA classification, even though both systems measure two distinct health dimensions at the food level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Nutrition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10897572/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024000296\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024000296","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较包装正面标签 Nutri-Score(与营养成分有关)和 NOVA 分类(与食品加工程度有关)的最初版本和更新版本:比较食品包装正面标签 Nutri-Score(与营养成分有关)与 NOVA 分类(与食品加工程度有关)在食品层面上的初始版本和更新版本:设计:我们使用 OpenFoodFacts 数据库(129,950 种食品),通过对应分析评估了 Nutri-Score(初始和更新版)与 NOVA 分类之间的互补性。我们使用了两种分类系统之间的权变表:背景:法国的食品供应:结果结果:在两个版本(即初始和更新版)的营养评分中,大多数超加工产品的营养评分为中等至较差(77.9% 至 87.5%的超加工产品,取决于算法版本)。总体而言,营养分数算法的更新导致所有 NOVA 类别中被评为 A 级和 B 级的产品数量减少,被评为 D 级或 E 级的产品数量增加,其中未加工食品受到的影响最小(-3.2%)。未加工食品受影响最小(-3.8 个百分点(-5.2%)被评为 A 级或 B 级,+1.3 个百分点(+12.9%)被评为 D 级或 E 级),超加工食品受影响最大(-9.8 个百分点(-43.4%)被评为 A 级或 B 级,+7.8 个百分点(+14.1%)被评为 D 级或 E 级)。在营养素初始得分较高的超加工食品中,人工加糖饮料、加糖植物饮料和面包制品受营养素得分修订的影响最大,而低糖调味水、水果和豆类制品受影响最小:这些结果表明,尽管营养成分系统和诺瓦分类法在食品层面上测量的是两个不同的健康维度,但营养成分系统的更新加强了其与诺瓦分类法的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complementarity between the updated version of the front-of-pack nutrition label Nutri-Score and the food-processing NOVA classification.

Objective: To compare the initial and the updated versions of the front-of-pack label Nutri-Score (related to the nutritional content) with the NOVA classification (related to the degree of food processing) at the food level.

Design: Using the OpenFoodFacts database - 129,950 food products - we assessed the complementarity between the Nutri-Score (initial and updated) with the NOVA classification through a correspondence analysis. Contingency tables between the two classification systems were used.

Settings: The food offer in France.

Participants: Not applicable.

Results: With both versions (i.e. initial and updated) of the Nutri-Score, the majority of ultra-processed products received medium to poor Nutri-Score ratings (between 77·9 % and 87·5 % of ultra-processed products depending on the version of the algorithm). Overall, the update of the Nutri-Score algorithm led to a reduction in the number of products rated A and B and an increase in the number of products rated D or E for all NOVA categories, with unprocessed foods being the least impacted (-3·8 percentage points (-5·2 %) rated A or B and +1·3 percentage points (+12·9 %) rated D or E) and ultra-processed foods the most impacted (-9·8 percentage points (-43·4 %) rated A or B and +7·8 percentage points (+14·1 %) rated D or E). Among ultra-processed foods rated favourably with the initial Nutri-Score, artificially sweetened beverages, sweetened plant-based drinks and bread products were the most penalised categories by the revision of Nutri-Score while low-sugar flavoured waters, fruit and legume preparations were the least affected.

Conclusion: These results indicate that the update of the Nutri-Score reinforces its coherence with the NOVA classification, even though both systems measure two distinct health dimensions at the food level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Nutrition
Public Health Nutrition 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
521
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Public Health Nutrition provides an international peer-reviewed forum for the publication and dissemination of research and scholarship aimed at understanding the causes of, and approaches and solutions to nutrition-related public health achievements, situations and problems around the world. The journal publishes original and commissioned articles, commentaries and discussion papers for debate. The journal is of interest to epidemiologists and health promotion specialists interested in the role of nutrition in disease prevention; academics and those involved in fieldwork and the application of research to identify practical solutions to important public health problems.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信