Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scaevolus t1_j54a60k wrote

Nutri-score attempts to crunch 7 different nutritional facts per 100g of food down to a single absolute scale. How objective that is given some of its stranger choices (is salt dangerous if you don't already have hypertension?) depends on how you agree with its analysis.

Here's the full system.

> Nutritionally "unfavourable" nutritional values N are offset against "favourable" nutritional values P (Nutri-Score = N - P). The sugar content, the calorie content, the saturated fatty acids and the converted salt content in sodium belong to the unfavourable components (N). The favourable components (P) include fruit, vegetables, nuts, fibre, protein and walnut, rapeseed and olive oils.

Plant analogues will score like meats and milks if they present similar nutritional breakdowns (including protein!), but this is missing many factors that might be more important for an individual, like glycemic index or satiety.

4

Unethical_Orange OP t1_j54qdnx wrote

Yes, I agree that the current iteration of Nutri-Score isn't the best metric. This part of the criticism in my original comment, but I should have been more direct.

Regardless, the system is explained in the paper itself and, with the lack of evidence in the matter, specially open access, my opinion is that it's preferrable to have this than nothing. Even more so as Nutri-Score is being widely used.

I don't think this is trying to push the narrative that plant-based alternatives are healthy because they explicitly point out that they aren't, regardless of their Nutri-Scores.

1