If we want to create a healthier food system, we need ways of defining how healthy different foods are. Currently, the most universally accepted system in the UK is the nutrient profiling model, created in 2005 by the FSA to help determine which foods can be advertised to children. Subsequently, nutrient profiling and the HFSS classification have become the basis for much of this country’s health-related food policy.
This system, based on measuring calorie density and nutrient levels, has plenty of critics. It often classifies foods such as muesli or flavoured yoghurts as problematic, despite them being part of many healthy diets.
Other items – particularly ready meals, pizzas and some fast-food options – are given a non-HFSS pass. That’s despite campaigners instinctively feeling these sorts of things should not be promoted to children.
Fatal flaws
This has led many to suggest the nutrient profiling model is fatally flawed. Some see it as a vestige of what is pejoratively termed ‘nutritionism’, an obsession with individual nutrients that fails to see the bigger picture.
The Nova system, which instead classifies foods by their level of processing, is considered a bold new paradigm that might just lead us to a better, healthier world. And it is Nova that has led to the now ubiquitous UPF classification.
The desire for revolution is seductive, but often the greatest progress is achieved through evolution. In the case of nutrient profiling, this will require us to understand and correct the flaws in our current system, rather than calling for a complete ultra-processed overhaul.
Only the most vociferous – and some might suggest scientifically illiterate – UPF campaigners think calories, salt and saturated fat don’t matter. But similarly, only those ignorant of the current state of nutrition science think these are the only measures that count.
Eating rate
For instance, an increasing body of scientific literature suggests that eating rate, or the number of calories that people consume per minute, is hugely important when it comes to overall consumption. This is impacted by calorie density, but it is also dependent upon many things we do not routinely measure, such as food volume, texture and even shape.
It also seems the microstructure of the food matrix matters a great deal when it comes to digestion, glucose response and satiety. Intact cellular structures in flours, fruits, vegetables and legumes can lead to slower digestion, lower calorie intake and additional gut health benefits, even in foods that are nutritionally equivalent.
Embracing things such as eating rate and microstructure into the nutrient profiling model will be key to its future utility, yet there is currently little will to make this happen. Instead, it is the Nova revolution that is gaining momentum, a system that most serious nutrition scientists consider to have even more serious flaws.
Nutrient profiling must evolve quickly, or risk extinction. Eating rate and microstructure are things that can easily be modified, leading to new ways of creating healthier manufactured foods. But this will only happen if there is incentive to do so. It’s up to our systems of regulation to move with the times.
Anthony Warner, development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet