This is really interesting because I can see intense pushback against suggesting the government do this in the US (unless "nutriscore" is a private 3rd party score, not the gov?)
I think no one would _really_ object to labelling like oatmeal healthier than chips. The issue would be along the thresholds, when a product gets a B and its competitor gets an A. I can see wanting to dispute that decision, or claims of corruption to skew the ratings in favor of certain companies etc.
I think that's a common myth. There's no separate category for frozen pizza in Nutriscore. The categories are: general food, drinks, cheeses, and oils/fats.
Pizza producers can game the system somewhat, however, by adding ingredients that are counted positive (like protein or fiber) to partially offset "negative" ingredients such as sugar or saturated fats.
Dairy lobbying has led to cheese as a separate category and that milk is counted as food, rather than drink.
> I think no one would _really_ object to labelling like oatmeal healthier than chips.
Chip manufacturers certainly would (and do). They pay money to politicians to keep these regulations away, and they pay money to media to stir up a counter-movement against these ideas.
> unless "nutriscore" is a private 3rd party score, not the gov?
From Wikipedia:
> The system relies on the computation of a nutrient profiling system derived from the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency nutrient profiling system (FSA score). It was created by Santé Publique France, the French public health agency, based on the work of Serge Hercberg from Sorbonne Paris North University. Other bodies involved in the development of the system included the Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) and the High Council for Public Health (HCSP).
Thresholds are not a problem as long as they are documented. Presumably the standard I'd neutral, and if less (say) sugar makes the product rating change, I don't see how that hurts competition. Meet the threshold, don't meet the threshold, it's up to you.
Your thesis that providing nutritional information to the public would result in industry pushback would suggest that govt cares more about corporate profits than public health.
Alas I agree with you. One feels that providing nutritional information to American consumers would be easily trumped by money.
I'm not sure such an "obvious" conclusion is necessarily a good sign of effective government.
Whole Foods sort of does this. They have a minimum bar (which they hopefully raise over time) and simply don’t carry anything that fails to meet it.
(If you are going to label something an F, why sell it?)
They also still seem to try to get bad practices banned.
For instance, I recently saw a sign explaining all the different types of fruit “wax” in their produce section.
Apparently it is legal and common practice to coat fruit with melted plastic in the US now, they aren’t able to source plastic-free fruit, and the only effective way to remove it is to throw away the peel.
I’m hoping a direct competitor to them with higher standards pops up, triggering an arms race.
> unless "nutriscore" is a private 3rd party score
The advantage of 3rd party evaluation is that when you don't like the score they gave you, you can easily create your own "independent" evaluation company that will rate all your products A+. At the end of the day, every product of every major company will be A+, each rated by a different evaluator.
> The food contains less than 0.5 g of sugars, as defined in § 101.9(c)(6)(ii), per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving or, in the case of a meal product or main dish product, less than 0.5 g of sugars per labeled serving; and
>(ii) The food contains no ingredient that is a sugar or that is generally understood by consumers to contain sugars unless the listing of the ingredient in the ingredient statement is followed by an asterisk that refers to the statement below the list of ingredients, which states "adds a trivial amount of sugar," "adds a negligible amount of sugar," or "adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar;" and
First, you can't add sugar, it has to be sugars that naturally occur in the other ingredients, but not ingredients that people know contain sugar like fruit, and second products don't have as much leeway as you think in defining their serving size. The FDA actually spells out what kinds of food get what serving size which is why you never see 1 chip / serving.
Fruit juice is not much better than soda when it comes sugar content. The only beverages allowed in our house are water, whole fat milk, and alcohol (because of course us parents get an exception).
Whole-fat milk is a meal, not a beverage, and it's a mystery how anyone can put up with the flavour. Especially mystifying: whole-fat milk with your meal.
I have to limit how much my toddler gets, or he would literally suck down 1.5 liters of whole milk a day, and not bother with that time-wasting eating business that keeps him away from more important things, like his train set.
Only my kids love whole fat milk (it's kinda scary how much of it they drink, but then being vegetarian it does provide a decent amount of protein and fat). I just use it for coffee.
I think no one would _really_ object to labelling like oatmeal healthier than chips. The issue would be along the thresholds, when a product gets a B and its competitor gets an A. I can see wanting to dispute that decision, or claims of corruption to skew the ratings in favor of certain companies etc.