The Grocer should be commended on its efforts to put forward constructive alternatives to the FSA's Nutrient Profiling Model, particularly those incorporating positive attributes of foods.

It is all too easy to criticise government efforts without acknowledging the complexity of the task facing them. With every "positive" profiling project I conduct in the commercial arena, I find myself having to refine and tweak a working model to suit particular purposes - one size fits all remains an elusive goal.

While supporting the principles behind the Weigh It Up! campaign I would, however, advise caution where it comes to defending some of the foods that it is claimed have been "demonised" by the current system. The apparent healthiness of these foods is often the result of a comparison with the less healthy alternatives that form a significant part of many consumers' diets today. Relative healthiness needs to be clearly distinguished from the absolute.

Where I believe the FSA's Nutrient Profiling Model falls down is in its failure to highlight the positive benefits of foods and the fact that some foods of questionable nutritional value slip through its net only by virtue of their low content of fat, sugar and salt rather than because of any positive nutritional offering.

The most important thing is to maintain focus on the big picture: the objective of nutrient profiling is supposedly to "categorise foods according to their nutrient composition". By focusing on a limited range of nutrients the FSA's model leaves plenty of room for improvement.