You "Ask", I Answer: Overall Nutritional Quality Index

As a consumer I can see immediate applications for this [new scoring system].

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, which can be billed entirely as healthy even though 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?

-- AMR
(via the blog)

I concur with you that the ONQI has the potential to make healthy shopping easier -- and faster -- for some people.

Let's, however, take your trail mix example further, as it is a pefect example of a controversial item.

Yes, trail mix is calorically dense due to the presence of nuts. And, on a food label, its sugar content would rival that of a chocolate bar.

However, we are talking about an item that offers heart-healthy fats, naturally-occurring sugars, protein, fiber, vitamin E, and magnesium.

Hence, those calories values differ greatly from similar ones found in a Crunch bar (which contains a generous share of saturated fat and added sugars).

Although one of my favorite mantras is "sugar is sugar is sugar" (meaning that whether in a piece of fruit or made in a lab, heavily processed, or made from organic cane juice crystals, it adds up to 4 calories per gram), the difference with naturally-occurring sugars (found in fruits, vegetables, and dairy) is that they are present in foods that offer nutrients (vitamins, minerals, and in many cases, fiber).

It would be helpful if foods had brief explanations as to why they received their respective scores (i.e.: "50% of the daily saturated fat limit" or "8 teaspoons of added sugar per serving.")

I would hate for people to be dissuaded from learning the skill of reading a food label or an ingredient list simply because this ranking would do that for them.

The other issue with these rankings is that they can sometimes split hairs unnecessarily. For instance, do we really need to start debating whether an orange is "healthier" than an apple?

We'll see how the public reacts once it is implemented.