Get ready for the Overall Nutritional Quality Index, coming to some supermarkets near you in 2008!This new labeling system, developed by a panel of leading nutritionists (including Yale's Dr. David Katz, who I interviewed for this blog) scores foods from 1 to 100 (1 being absolute junk, 100 being perfection) based on several different factors.
I applaud the motives behind this initiative (helping consumers quickly identify healthy foods), but a few questions come to mind.
First -- does this address the issue at hand?
Most people know the basics -- that fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes are healthy.
Similarly, I don't think anyone considers Doritos, Coke, Haagen Dazs, and Oreos to be staples of a nutritious diet. Whether they choose to ignore that and snack on Ruffles and Pepsi every day because "they taste good" is a separate topic.
I don't think too many people will be surprised to learn that raisins score higher than M&M's, or that Trix and Grapenuts are several numbers apart.
Are consumers not buying healthy foods due to a lack of knowledge on their behalf, or the vastly different marketing budgets of food companies? After all, Nabisco certainly has more money to throw around for a cookie advertising campaign than the Avocado Board.
Additionally, many healthy snack options are developed by smaller companies who are more concerned with getting their products on store shelves than on an American Idol commercial break.
Many people who would love the taste of a nutritious product like Lara bars have no idea they exist. No wonder -- when was the last time you saw a magazine or television ad for one?
My main hope is that this system stays far away from the glycemic index. After all, if you swear by that ranking, ice cream is a better choice than a potato!
I'm also curious to know how the issue of vitamins and minerals will be dealt with. Will a processed food like a Luna Bar injected with synthetic vitamins and minerals score just as high as an orange or apple (which, despite lacking added sugar or sodium, offer a lower variety of nutrients?)
I'm looking forward to seeing how ONQI resonates with the public. If anything, I love the discourse it will bring up, and I sincerely appreciate the desire to make shopping for healthy foods that much easier.
Posts
4 comments:
Hi Andy,
Ok this situation is a little awkward but I ate the lays light chips...the ones which are cooked with olestra? and it produced some rather unfortunate side affects the next morning as you can imagine. i checked but there was no warning on the packaging. How come they dont warn about the side affects of olestra?
Andy,
I am not a nutritionist, but as a consumer I can see immediate applications for this. It would help me tremendously to see an easy to read label that ranks foods faster than I can read the labels. See a "1" and you can avoid those foods, especially the sneaky ones (such as cereal! billed entirely as healthy and some have so much sugar). It won't make me skip label reading entirely, but they would help to make faster decisions.
The most important application, however, is to have a VISUAL reminder of what you are about to purchase- something that not everyone thinks of when buying. If you find yourself always snacking on trailmix, for example, because it's "healthy" and all of a sudden it gets slapped with a "2" or a "3"- well, it might just make you think twice about getting that again, won't it?
I think it is a sad commentary on "America's eating disorder" (to quote Michael Pollan) that such a rating system is even needed. If people just got back to basics and ate only "real" food, purchased from local producers, manufacturers would soon get the message that their marketing hype is no longer fooling the consumer. Sadly, though, many Americans have no idea what "real" food is -- just go to your local Wal-Mart on a Saturday and look into shoppers' carts (and gape at the size of those shoppers). It will be an educational, if depressing, experience.
Hi Andy,
I am a new comer to your blog,so this comment is coming a little late, but this topic is one that I feel very strongly about so I couldn't resist putting in my two cents.
I think the ONQI system, although not perfect, is definately a step in the right direction. When it comes to reading food labels, consumers often just get confused as to how to compare products in regards to calories vesus sugar content or fat versus sodium. At least with the ONQI system, consumers have a rating in which to compare similar products. However, as you identified with the trail mix example, the system may "discriminate" against some high calorie healthy options.
Probably the most crucial advantage to the ONQI system is that it does NOT rely on the food companies for funding. Unfortunatley here in Canada, the Heart and Stoke Foundations' Health Check program is not as politically correct. In recent news (see link attached) it was discovered that the Heart and Stroke Foundation was endorsing "not so healthy" products for a fee. As a result the HSF were misleading consumers into thinking they were making healthier choices by choosing their Health Check products.
Shame on them!
I hope that the HSF improves their rating system and policies (they are currently under review following this news relaease. Or better yet, perhaps we will adopt the ONQI system here in Canada. Until then, the best way to make an informed choice is by simply, reading the labels.
Heart and Stroke Health Check
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/01/23/hyping_health/
Post a Comment