Nutrient profiling is not the blunt instrument for arbitrarily categorising foods that some critics make it out to be, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has insisted.
The controversial nutrient profiling model, which will inform regulations governing children’s TV advertising and could also underpin a simple traffic light food labelling scheme, was being “constantly refined” said FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health Gill Fine.
Some aspects of the original scheme, such as its refusal to give nutrients added to products the same value as those intrinsically in products, were also being looked at again following criticism from nutritionists and food manufacturers, she said.
“It is obviously preferable to eat foods in which the nutrients are intrinsically there, and we are concerned about inappropriate fortification [to push a basically unhealthy product into a ‘healthy’ category]. But we recognise that some foods like fortified cereals are a major source of nutrients for some people. There will be further refinements. Nothing is cast in stone.”
The question of whether to use the same metrics to measure all products or to devise different metrics for each category was still being decided, said the FSA. However, it recognised that some categories such as oils and fats could need a more granular approach as simply slapping a red sticker on every product in a fixture would not help consumers identify the healthier options within it (eg olive oil as opposed to lard).
Refinements would also include developing a new approach to carbohydrate quality and the nutrient density of foods, plus new weighting methods for fruit and vegetable-based foods.
The results of the latest FSA research into nutrient profiling will be published later in the summer.