IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p3980-d1077908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Nutri-Score and Health Star Rating Nutrient Profiling Models Using Large Branded Foods Composition Database and Sales Data

Author

Listed:
  • Edvina Hafner

    (Nutrition Institute, Tržaška Cesta 40, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Igor Pravst

    (Nutrition Institute, Tržaška Cesta 40, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    VIST—Faculty of Applied Sciences, Gerbičeva Cesta 51A, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) is known as an effective tool that can encourage healthier food choices and food reformulation. A very interesting type of FOPNL is grading schemes. Our objective was to compare two market-implemented grading schemes—European Nutri-Score (NS) and Australian Health Star Rating (HSR), using large Slovenian branded foods database. NS and HSR were used for profiling 17,226 pre-packed foods and drinks, available in Slovenian food supply dataset (2020). Alignment between models was evaluated with agreement (% of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa) and correlation (Spearman rho). The 12-month nationwide sales-data were used for sale-weighing, to address market-share differences. Study results indicated that both models have good discriminatory ability between products based on their nutritional composition. NS and HSR ranked 22% and 33% of Slovenian food supply as healthy, respectively. Agreement between NS and HSR was strong (70%, κ = 0.62) with a very strong correlation (rho = 0.87). Observed profiling models were most aligned within food categories Beverages and Bread and bakery products, while less aligned for Dairy and imitates and Edible oils and emulsions. Notable disagreements were particularly observed in subcategories of Cheese and processed cheeses (8%, κ = 0.01, rho = 0.38) and Cooking oils (27%, κ = 0.11, rho = 0.40). Further analysis showed that the main differences in Cooking oils were due to olive oil and walnut oil, which are favoured by NS and grapeseed, flaxseed and sunflower oil that are favoured by HSR. For Cheeses and cheese products, we observed that HSR graded products across the whole scale, with majority (63%) being classified as healthy (≥3.5 *), while NS mostly graded lower scores. Sale-weighting analyses showed that offer in the food supply does not always reflect the sales. Sale-weighting increased overall agreement between profiles from 70% to 81%, with notable differences between food categories. In conclusion, NS and HSR were shown as highly compliant FOPNLs with few divergences in some subcategories. Even these models do not always grade products equally high, very similar ranking trends were observed. However, the observed differences highlight the challenges of FOPNL ranking schemes, which are tailored to address somewhat different public health priorities in different countries. International harmonization can support further development of grading type nutrient profiling models for the use in FOPNL, and make those acceptable for more stake-holders, which will be crucial for their successful regulatory implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Edvina Hafner & Igor Pravst, 2023. "Comparison of Nutri-Score and Health Star Rating Nutrient Profiling Models Using Large Branded Foods Composition Database and Sales Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3980-:d:1077908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3980/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3980/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3980-:d:1077908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.