Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals

  • Peter Scarborough (a1), Anna Boxer (a1), Mike Rayner (a1) and Lynn Stockley (a1)

Abstract

Objective

To compare nutrient profile models with a standard ranking of 120 foods.

Design

Over 700 nutrition professionals were asked to categorise 120 foods into one of six positions on the basis of their healthiness. These categorisations were used to produce a standard ranking of the 120 foods. The standard ranking was compared with the results of applying eight different nutrient profile models to the 120 foods: Models SSCg3d and WXYfm developed for the UK Food Standards Agency, the Nutritious Food Index, the Ratio of Recommended to Restricted nutrients, the Naturally Nutrient Rich score, the Australian Heart Foundation's Tick scheme, the American Heart Association's heart-check mark and the Netherlands tripartite classification model for foods. Rank correlation was assessed for continuous models, and dependence was assessed for categorical models.

Results

The continuous models each showed good correlation with the standard ranking (Spearman's ρ = 0.6–0.8). The categorical models achieved high χ2 results, indicating a high level of dependence between the nutrition professionals' and the models' categorisations (P < 0.001). Models SSCg3d and WXYfm achieved higher scores than the other models, implying a greater agreement with the standard ranking of foods.

Conclusions

The results suggest that Models SSCg3d and WXYfm rank and categorise foods in accordance with the views of nutrition professionals.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email peter.scarborough@dphpc.ox.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1Scarborough, P, Rayner, M, Stockley, L. Developing nutrient profile models: a systematic approach. Public Health Nutrition 2007; in press.
2Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Stockley, L. Nutrient Profiles: Options for Definitions for Use in Relation to Food Promotion and Children's Diets. London: Food Standards Agency, 2004. Also available athttp://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutrientprofilingfullreport.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2006.
3Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Stockley, L. Nutrient Profiles: Further Testing and Modifications to Model SSCg3d. London: Food Standards Agency, 2005. Also available athttp://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/npreportsept05.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2006.
4Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Boxer, A, Stockley, L. Nutrient Profiles: Development of Final Model. London: Food Standards Agency, 2005. Also available athttp://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2006.
5Scarborough, P, Rayner, M, Stockley, L, Black, A. Nutrition professionals' perception of the ‘healthiness’ of individual foods. Public Health Nutrition 2007; in press.
6Gazibarich, B, Ricci, PF. Towards better food choices: the nutritious food index. Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 1998; 55(1): 1020.
7Scheidt, DM, Daniel, E. Composite index for aggregating nutrient density using food labels: ratio of recommended to restricted food components. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2004; 36(1): 35–9.
8Drewnowski, A. Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 82(4): 721–32.
9Netherlands Nutrition Centre (NNC). Criteria for the Nutritional Evaluation of Foods. The Netherlands Tripartite Classification Model for Foods. Den Haag: NNC, 2005. Also available athttp://www.voedingscentrum.nl/NR/rdonlyres/0AF85A19-79B1-4DB5-A0E8-C8BFFD44B089/0/Criteriaengelssite.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2006.
10National Heart Foundation of Australia (AHF). Tick Program. Guidelines for Tick approval [online]. Melbourne: AHF, 2005. Available athttp://www.heartfoundation.com.au/index.cfm?page = 975 . Accessed 18 September 2006.
11American Heart Association (AHA). The power of the heart: American Heart Association food certification program annual report 04–05 [online]. Texas: AHA, 2005. Available athttp://www.heartcheckmark.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier = 4973 . Accessed 24 October 2006.
12ILSI Europe. Workshop on nutritional characterisation of foods, Mallorca, Spain, 25–27 April 2006. Unpublished conference proceedings.
13Roe, M, Finglas, P, Church, S. McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 6th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2002.
14Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food Portion Sizes, 2nd ed. London: HMSO, 1993.
15Altman, DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
16Abramson, JH, Abrahsom, ZH. Survey Methods in Community Medicine, 5th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed