NUTRITION | My Molecular Health

Are you familiar with the Tufts University's Food Compass that was introduced in October, 2021? Since its introduction there is considerable controversy about its 1-100 scoring system.

This new tool is a nutrient profiling system that takes into account the healthful and harmful aspects of different foods. It uses cutting-edge science to score all foods, beverages and even mixed dishes and meals using one consistent score. It is hoped that this tool will help consumers, food companies, restaurants, and cafeterias choose and produce healthier foods and officials to make sound public nutrition policy. As stated in its initial press release "Ranking Healthfulness of Foods from First to Worst", the Food Compass takes into account '54 different characteristics across nine domains representing different health-relevant aspects of foods, drinks, and mixed meals, providing for one of the most comprehensive nutrient profiling systems in the world.'

It has mixed reviews considering what shows up as healthy. A score of 100 is a 'perfect food' so chow down on those raw Rasberries, Oranges, and Vegetable Currie. A score of 70 and above is encouraged, 31-69 eaten moderately and scores 30 and below to be minimized.

But General Mills Cheerios has a score of 95? Hmmm. As with any type of scoring system a lot has to do with the parameters being used. While 54 seems a lot, there are instances where a 'healthy' food may not contain enough of the 54 to qualify as healthy. So while it is a nice guideline, we still have to use some common sense and a little detective work.

Here are two papers with competing outcomes:

Limitations of the Food Compass Nutrient Profiling System, published in February 2022 discusses the limitations: "Food Compass represents an impressive effort to develop a more comprehensive and objective NPS; nonetheless, we propose that its overall algorithm and structure needs to be redesigned. If used as intended to inform consumer choice, policies, programs, reformulations, and investment decisions, Food Compass scores could result in certain dietary improvements such as increased consumption of minimally processed plant-source foods, but may have negative implications on nutrient adequacy in essential commonly lacking nutrients (for example, iron) and, to some extent, reinforce the consumption of UPF."

In the paper 'Validation of Food Compass with a healthy diet,cardiometabolic health, and mortality among U.S. adults 1999-2018, published November, 2022, it approves the use and acknowledges some limitations.

"The Food Compass, extended based on scores of specific food and beverage products to a person’s dietary intake, associates with a healthy dietary pattern, major clinical risk factors and prevalent conditions, and longitudinal risk of all-cause mortality. These findings support the validity of Food Compass as a potential tool to guide public and private strategies to identify and encourage healthier foods and beverages".