Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size?

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 63, pages 898–904 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Background/Objectives:

Nutrient profiling of foods is defined as the science of ranking or classifying foods based on their nutrient content. Nutrient profiles can be calculated based on 100 g or 100 kcal of food or on standard serving sizes. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of nutrient profiles based on 100 g, 100 kcal and government-mandated serving sizes, and to identify the optimal base of calculation.

Subjects/Methods:

Nutrient profiles tested were composed of positive subscores based on nutrients to encourage and negative subscores based on nutrients to limit. Alternative profiles, computed using different bases of calculation, were used to rank order 378 commonly consumed foods from a food frequency instrument. Profile performance was tested with respect to the foods’ energy density.

Results:

Serving sizes, defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as reference amounts customarily consumed (RACC), were inversely linked to energy density of foods. Positive subscores based on 100 kcal were equivalent to those calculated using RACC values. Negative subscores performed better when based on 100 g as opposed to 100 kcal.

Conclusions:

Models based on serving sizes and on 100 kcal were preferable for positive subscores and models based on 100 g of food were preferable for negative subscores. RACC-based profiles may represent an attractive option for the US consumer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA) (2008). Définition de profils nutritionnels pour l'accès aux allégations nutritionnelles et de santé: propositions et arguments (Setting of nutrient profiles for accessing nutrition and health claims: proposals and arguments), Maison-Alfort. Accessed at: http://www.afssa.fr/Documents/NUT-Ra-Profils.pdf on 15 October 2008.

  • Arambepola C, Scarborough P, Rayner M (2008). Validating a nutrient profile model. Public Health Nutr 11, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azais-Braesco V, Goffi C, Labouze E (2006). Nutrient profiling: comparison and critical analysis of existing systems. Public Health Nutr 9, 613–622.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darmon N, Darmon M, Maillot M, Drewnowski A (2005). A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits: nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 1881–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski A (2005). Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. Am J Clin Nutr 82, 721–732.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski A (2007). What's next for nutrition labeling and health claims: an update of nutrient profiling in the European Union and the US. Nutr Today 42, 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski A, Maillot M, Darmon N (2008). Testing nutrient profile models in relation to energy density and energy cost. Eur J Clin Nutr 2008 (epub ahead of print).

  • EFSA (2008). The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutrition and health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) N° 1924/2006. Scientific opinion of the panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies. EFSA J 644, 1–44. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/nda_op_ej644_nutrient%20profiles_en,2.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA (2002). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21-Food and drugs (volume 2), Chapter I-Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Part 101-Food Labeling-Table of Contents, Subpart A-General Provisions, Sec. 101.14 Health claims: General requirements and Subpart E-Specific requirements for Health Claims. US Government Printing Office, revised as of 1 April 2002. Accessed at: http://www.grokfood.com/regulations/101.14.htm on 15 October 2008.

  • FDA (2007a). Code of Federal Regulations. Sec 101.9 Nutrition labeling of food. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/cfr101-2.html.

  • FDA (2007b). Food labeling: use of symbols to communicate nutrition information, consideration of consumer studies and nutritional criteria; public hearing, request for comments. FDA Docket No. 2007N-0277. Accessed at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr070720.html on 15 October 2008.

  • FDA (2008). A Food Labeling Guide, Appendix A. Definitions of nutrient content claims including the terms free, low, and reduced/less, with references to appropriate sections of Title 21 CFR Part 101. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/2lg-xa.html.

  • FDA/CFSAN (2007). Public Hearing—Food labeling: use of symbols to communicate nutrition information, consideration of consumer studies and nutritional criteria. LIVE AUDIO WEBCAST Sept 10–11, 2007. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/labsymb.html.

  • Food Standards Agency (2005). Scientific workshop to assess the Food Standards Agency's proposed approach to nutrient profiling. Friday 25th February 2005. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofworkshop250205.pdf.

  • Food Standard Agency (2007). Traffic light labelling. [Monograph on the Internet] Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights.

  • Garsetti M, de Vries J, Smith M, Amosse A, Rolf-Pedersen N (2007). Nutrient profiling schemes: overview and comparative analysis. Eur J Nutr 46 (Suppl 2), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazibarich B, Ricci PE (1998). Towards better food choice: the nutritious food index. Aust J Nutr Diet 55, 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen RG, Wyse BW, Sorenson AW (1979). Nutritional Quality Index of Foods. AVI Publishing Co.: Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristal AR, Shattuck AL, Patterson RE (1999). Differences in fat-related dietary patterns between black, Hispanic and White women: results from the Women's Health Trial Feasibility Study in Minority Populations. Public Health Nutr 2, 253–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Labouze E, Goffi C, Moulay L, Azais-Braesco V (2007). A multipurpose tool to evaluate the nutritional quality of individual foods: Nutrimap. Public Health Nutr 10, 690–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maillot M, Darmon N, Darmon M, Lafay L, Drewnowski A (2007). Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling. J Nutr 137, 1815–1820.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maillot M, Ferguson EL, Drewnowski A, Darmon N (2008). Nutrient profiling can help identify foods of good nutritional quality for their price: a validation study with linear programming. J Nutr 138, 1107–1113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Monsivais P, Perrigue MM, Drewnowski A (2007). Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? Am J Clin Nutr 86, 116–123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mytton O, Gray A, Rayner M, Rutter H (2007). Could targeted food taxes improve health? J Epidemiol Community Health 61, 689–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netherlands Nutrition Center (2007). Criteria for the nutritional evaluation of food. The Netherlands tripartite classification model for foods. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: www.voedingscentrum.nl/NR/rdonlyres/0AF85A19-79B1-4DB5-A0E8-C8BFFD44B089/0/Criteriaengelssite.pdf.

  • Nijman CA, Zijp IM, Sierksma A, Roodenburg AJ, Leenen R, van den KC et al. (2007). A method to improve the nutritional quality of foods and beverages based on dietary recommendations. Eur J Clin Nutr 61, 461–471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Padberg DI, Kubena KS, Ozuna T, Kim H, Osborn L (1993). The Nutritional Quality Index: An Instrument for Communicating Nutrition Information to Consumers. Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX (AFPC Policy Research Report 93-10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson RE, Kristal A, Rodabough R, Caan B, Lillington L, Mossavar-Rahmani Y et al. (2003). Changes in food sources of dietary fat in response to an intensive low-fat dietary intervention: early results from the Women's Health Initiative. J Am Diet Assoc 103, 454–460.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson RE, Kristal AR, Tinker LF, Carter RA, Bolton MP, Agurs-Collins T (1999). Measurement characteristics of the Women's Health Initiative food frequency questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 9, 178–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner M, Scarborough P, Stockley L, Boxer A (2005). Nutrient profiles; further refinement and testing of model SSCg3d. Final Report 2005. [Monograph online] Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/npreportsept05.pdf.

  • Scarborough P, Boxer A, Rayner M, Stockley L (2007a). Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals. Public Health Nutr 10, 337–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough P, Rayner M, Stockley L, Black A (2007b). Nutrition professionals’ perception of the ‘healthiness’ of individual foods. Public Health Nutr 10, 346–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt DM, Daniel E (2004). Composite index for aggregating nutrient density using food labels: ratio of recommended to restricted food components. J Nutr Educ Behav 36, 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockley L (2007). Nutrition profiles for foods to which nutrients could be added, or on which health claims could be made. Experiences from other countries and testing possible models. Final Report prepared for the UK Food Standards Agency. 2003. Accessed on 31 July 2008 at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutritionclaims.pdf.

  • The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union L 404, 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2006). USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, 2.0. (2006). [Monograph on the Internet] Agricultural Research Service, Food Surveys Research Group: Beltsville, MD.

  • USDA (2007). Composition of Foods Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference SR-19. www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR19/sr19_doc.pdf.

  • Volatier J-L, Biltoft-Jensen A, De Henauw S, Gibney MJ, Huybrechts I, McCarthy SN, O’Neill JL, Quinio C, Turrini A, Tetens I (2007). A new reference method for the validation of the nutrient profiling schemes using dietary surveys. Eur J Nutr 46 (Suppl 2), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willet W (1998). Nutritional epidemiology. In: Willett W (ed). Nutritional Epidemiology. Oxford University Press: New York, pp 1–514.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with the financial support of the ‘ANR—Agence Nationale de la Recherche—The French National Research Agency’ under the ‘Programme National de Recherche en Alimentation et nutrition humaine’, project ‘ANR-07-PNRA-018, ALIMINFO’. AD was supported in part by funds from The Beef Checkoff through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and by the National Dairy Council. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions to the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health Nutrition and the Nutritional Sciences Program, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    A Drewnowski

  2. INRA, UMR1260 ‘Nutriments Lipidiques et Prévention des Maladies, Métaboliques’, Marseille, France

    M Maillot & N Darmon

  3. INSERM, U476, Marseille, France

    M Maillot & N Darmon

  4. Université Aix-Mars eille 1, Université Aix-Marseille 2, Faculté de Médecine, IPHM-IFR 125, Marseille, France

    M Maillot & N Darmon

Authors
  1. A Drewnowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Maillot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N Darmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Drewnowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drewnowski, A., Maillot, M. & Darmon, N. Should nutrient profiles be based on 100 g, 100 kcal or serving size?. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, 898–904 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2008.53

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2008.53

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links