Skip to main content

From the SAIN,LIM system to the SENS algorithm: a review of a French approach of nutrient profiling

  • Marion Tharrey (a1), Matthieu Maillot (a2), Véronique Azaïs-Braesco (a3) and Nicole Darmon (a1) (a4)

Nutrient profiling aims to classify or rank foods according to their nutritional composition to assist policies aimed at improving the nutritional quality of foods and diets. The present paper reviews a French approach of nutrient profiling by describing the SAIN,LIM system and its evolution from its early draft to the simplified nutrition labelling system (SENS) algorithm. Considered in 2010 by WHO as the ‘French model’ of nutrient profiling, SAIN,LIM classifies foods into four classes based on two scores: a nutrient density score (NDS) called SAIN and a score of nutrients to limit called LIM, and one threshold on each score. The system was first developed by the French Food Standard Agency in 2008 in response to the European regulation on nutrition and health claims (European Commission (EC) 1924/2006) to determine foods that may be eligible for bearing claims. Recently, the European regulation (EC 1169/2011) on the provision of food information to consumers allowed simplified nutrition labelling to facilitate consumer information and help them make fully informed choices. In that context, the SAIN,LIM was adapted to obtain the SENS algorithm, a system able to rank foods for simplified nutrition labelling. The implementation of the algorithm followed a step-by-step, systematic, transparent and logical process where shortcomings of the SAIN,LIM were addressed by integrating specificities of food categories in the SENS, reducing the number of nutrients, ordering the four classes and introducing European reference intakes. Through the French example, this review shows how an existing nutrient profiling system can be specifically adapted to support public health nutrition policies.

Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: N. Darmon, email
Hide All
1. US Department of Health and Human Services & US Department of Agriculture (2005) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 6th ed. Washington, DC, USA.
2. Darmon, N, Darmon, M, Maillot, M et al. (2005) A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits: nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 18811887.
3. James, WP, Nelson, M, Ralph, A et al. (1997) Socioeconomic determinants of health. The contribution of nutrition to inequalities in health. BMJ 314, 15451549.
4. Maillot, M, Darmon, N, Darmon, M et al. (2007) Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling. J Nutr 137, 18151820.
5. Drewnowski, A, Maillot, M & Darmon, N (2009) Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size? Eur J Clin Nutr 63, 898904.
6. Maillot, M, Ferguson, EL, Drewnowski, A et al. (2008) Nutrient profiling can help identify foods of good nutritional quality for their price: a validation study with linear programming. J Nutr 138, 11071113.
7. Martin, A (2001) The ‘apports nutritionnels conseillés (ANC)’ for the French population. Reprod Nutr Dev 41, 119128.
8. AFSSA (2008) Setting of nutrient profiles for accessing nutrition and health claims: proposals and arguments. (accessed October 2016).
9. Rouveyrol, C, Lesturgeon, A, Georgé, S et al. (2014) GUIDE PRATIQUE OPTIMED: Une démarche d'optimisation et de valorisation nutritionnelles basée sur deux outils originaux. Guide ACTIA [in French].
10. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006) Regulation (EC) No1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Off J Eur Union L 404, 925.
11. Arsenault, JE, Fulgoni, VL, Hersey, JC et al. (2012) A novel approach to selecting and weighting nutrients for nutrient profiling of foods and diets. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 19681975.
12. Darmon, N, Vieux, F, Maillot, M et al. (2009) Nutrient profiles discriminate between foods according to their contribution to nutritionally adequate diets: a validation study using linear programming and the SAIN,LIM system. Am J Clin Nutr 89, 12271236.
13. Maillot, M, Drewnowski, A, Vieux, F et al. (2011) Quantifying the contribution of foods with unfavourable nutrient profiles to nutritionally adequate diets. Br J Nutr 105, 11331137.
14. Darmon, N & Drewnowski, A (2015) Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr Rev 73, 643660.
15. Darmon, N, Lacroix, A, Muller, L et al. (2014) Food price policies improve diet quality while increasing socioeconomic inequalities in nutrition. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 11, 66.
16. Achir, N, Kindossi, J, Bohuon, P et al. (2010) Ability of some food preservation processes to modify the overall nutritional value of food. J Food Eng 100, 613621.
17. Gamburzew, A, Darcel, N, Gazan, R et al. (2016) In-store marketing of inexpensive foods with good nutritional quality in disadvantaged neighborhoods: increased awareness, understanding, and purchasing. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13, 104.
18. Jo, J, Lusk, JL, Muller, L et al. (2016) Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment. Food Policy 63, 124133.
19. Masset, G, Vieux, F & Darmon, N (2015) Which functional unit to identify sustainable foods? Public Health Nutr 18, 24882497.
20. Perignon, M, Masset, G, Ferrari, G et al. (2016) How low can dietary greenhouse gas emissions be reduced without impairing nutritional adequacy, affordability and acceptability of the diet? A modelling study to guide sustainable food choices. Public Health Nutr 19, 26622674.
21. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2011) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004. Off J Eur Union 304, 1863.
22. Cohen, DA & Babey, SH (2012) Contextual influences on eating behaviors: heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obes Rev Off J Int Assoc Study Obes 13, 766779.
23. Cecchini, M & Warin, L (2016) Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Obes Rev Off J Int Assoc Study Obes 17, 201210.
24. World Health Organization (2010) Nutrient Profiling, Report of a WHO/IASO Technical Meeting. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
25. ANSES (2016) Faisabilité de la classification des aliments selon l'algorithme proposé par la FCD Comparaison des résultats obtenus à ceux du système 5-C intégrant les ajustements du HCSP. [in French] (accessed October 2016).
26. Darmon, N, Maillot, M, Braesco, V et al. (2015). L'Algorithme du Système d'Etiquetage Nutritionnel Simplifié (SENS). Développement, description et validation. Rapport remis le 23 décembre 2015 à l'Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES) [in French].
27. Scarborough, A, Arambepola, C, Kaur, A et al. (2010) Should nutrient profile models be ‘category specific’ or ‘across-the-board’? A comparison of the two systems using diets of British adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 64, 553560.
28. European Commission (2009) Working document on the setting of nutrient profiles. Brussels; Belgium. (accessed October 2016).
29. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (2015) Nutrient Profile Model. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
30. World Health Organization (2015) Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children [Internet] . Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
31. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies (2010) Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for fats, including saturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, and cholesterol. EFSA J 8, 1462.
32. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies (2010) Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre. EFSA J 8, 1462.
33. Hercberg, S, Chat-Yung, S & Chaulia, M (2008) The French National Nutrition and Health Program: 2001-2006-2010. Int J Public Health 53, 6877.
34. Clerfeuille, E, Vieux, F, Lluch, A et al. (2013) Assessing the construct validity of five nutrient profiling systems using diet modeling with linear programming. Eur J Clin Nutr 67, 10031005.
35. Drewnowski, A, Maillot, M & Darmon, N (2009) Testing nutrient profile models in relation to energy density and energy cost. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, 674683.
36. Hersey, JC, Wohlgenant, KC, Arsenault, JE et al. (2013) Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition labeling systems on consumers. Nutr Rev 71, 114.
37. The Nordic Council of Ministers (2010) The Keyhole: Healthy choices made easy. (accessed December 2016).
38. Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency (2016) Guide to creating a front of pack (FoP) nutrition label for pre-packed products sold through retail outlets. (accessed November 2016).
39. Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute (2017) Facts Up Front. (accessed November 2016).
40. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2014) Health Star Rating. (accessed November 2016).
41. Food and Drink Federation (2016) GDAs explained: Guideline Daily Amounts. (accessed November 2016).
42. Ducrot, P, Julia, C, Méjean, C et al. (2016) Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 50, 627636.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
  • ISSN: 0029-6651
  • EISSN: 1475-2719
  • URL: /core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 92 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 647 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th June 2017 - 22nd March 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.