I think most all the rating systems out there mean well and have good intent but in the end, backfire and do more harm then good.
I realize Doug's intentions with his system and that he is attempting to simplify this process and give people something helpful. I respect that, just disagree with the product.
First, some background and history on why I don't like these systems.
As you may know, this has been a topic I have been covering and has been a main focus of mine since the mid 80's when I used to teach a class in Healthy Food Shopping. There were 2 parts, we spent a 90 minute class learning about healthy food and how to evaluate packaged products, then, we would go and spend about 2 hours in the grocery store practicing. (I still have my flyers from back then). At that time, I created a simple system that basically had three levels: the healthiest foods that can be consumed without any restriction; the healthiest foods that could be consumed but had to be restricted for some reason (i.e., calorie density, salt, sugar, sat fat, etc) and; everything else. The main focus was on the first 2 categories. So, you can say it had an A and a B and everything else was a D and if used, should be limited.
The original label reading lecture was based on this and was to help people basically understand the three levels and to focus on the healthiest foods.
Since then, I have worked with many grocers (including Whole Foods Market, Safeway, Schnucks, Publix,etc), in trying to implement a rating system of one kind or another. The one we implemented in the Wellness Clubs was very close to the above original system. There were very few items in the store that made the A or B grade.
Over the years, several organizations (and people) have wanted me to add other levels and while there were some times when we did look into it (behind the scenes), I never liked them and never did.
Here is why...
Studies and surveys has consistently shown that about 75-83% of the food is highly processed in one form or another and, as the years go by, its not getting any better, but worse.
The point is that most of the food products out there (that are sold as food) are nothing more than pure junk. These systems try to rank this junk.
These food rating/ranking system, have had huge critics (besides me)....
Here is a link to a JAMA article that addresses several of these systems and it raises 5 key concerns about them including...
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/ ... MA_101.pdf1) most are proprietary so we do not know how they achieved the score/scoring they do
2) Most may focus on one, or two (or maybe three) aspects of the food and not the total picture. In regard to nutrients, which values were used for each nutrient and why? Many nutrients do not have an RDA/DRI so if a number was used, where did it come from as there are no established values.
3) Some of these systems actually violate labeling laws
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/ ... RSS_PUBLIC4) Many of them give a false sense of health to products that do not deserve them.
Here is an article from the MAYO Clinic (Which is no longer on line)
"Some grocery stores and food manufacturers are creating their own nutrition rating systems and labels to highlight what they say are healthy options for consumers. These nutrition rating systems — which appear on the grocery shelf or on food packages themselves — use symbols, scores or colors to indicate how a product rates in terms of calories, fiber, fat, sodium and other nutrients. Each nutrition rating system uses different criteria, which may include federal dietary guidelines or input from dietitians.
But these labeling systems have become controversial. Sometimes called front of package labels, shelf labels or shelf tags, they are raising the eyebrows of consumer groups and agencies that contend they may be misleading — for instance, a high-sugar cereal was rated healthy. Some of the companies behind the labels have become the subject of lawsuits and state investigations.
These voluntary nutrition rating systems are different from the Nutrition Facts label required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on most prepared foods. While the FDA Nutrition Facts label lists amounts of certain nutrients for an item, the grocery store nutrition rating systems judge the nutritional value of products.
The FDA doesn't currently regulate grocery store nutrition rating systems. These rating systems aren't standardized, and it's not always clear how their health ratings are determined. But because of the growing controversy, the FDA may set standards for this kind of labeling.
What can you do in the meantime? Don't rely solely on grocery store nutrition rating systems for your nutrition information. Read the Nutrition Facts label and other nutrition information to help you make wise choices.
Some of the new nutrition rating systems and labels include:
* Guiding Stars. This system, developed by Hannaford Supermarkets, uses one, two or three stars to represent good, better and best nutritional value.
* Healthy Ideas. This system, developed by Giant Food and Stop & Shop, uses the Healthy Ideas logo on products they deem healthy.
* Nutrition iQ. This system, developed for the SuperValu chain of stores, uses colored bars to highlight an item's main nutritional benefits.
* NuVal. This system, developed for Price Chopper and Hy-Vee stores, rates products from 1 to 100, with higher scores signaling greater nutritional value.
* Smart Choices. This system, developed by a coalition of food companies and health professionals, was available for use by any food manufacturer or retailer for a fee. The program has been suspended because of the ratings controversy.Here is a quote from the above mentioned JAMA article which I think makes some very important points, especially number 4
For a century, food manufacturers have lobbied for the right to use health claims in marketing, justifying their demands on precisely these grounds. Health claims demonstrably promote sales. But do they promote health? Research suggests that consumers believe front-of-package claims, perceive them to be government-endorsed, and use them to ignore the Nutrition Facts Panel.9,10 Indeed, current practices may mislead the public in several ways:
(1) Few, if any, claims can be verified. To be marketed, drugs must be proved safe and effective through randomized controlled trials. Although specific dietary components may be linked to improved health outcomes, food products containing that dietary component might not have the same effect. A diet ofwhole andminimallyprocessed foods provides more than 40 essential nutrients and countless phytochemicals that interact in complex ways to promote health. The claim, for example, that a refined breakfast cereal could boost a child’s immune system due to the presence of few antioxidants is tenuous at best. No independent agency would likely invest funds in high-quality clinical trials to test such possibilities.
(2) Claims based on individual nutritional factors are misleading. Whereas drug adverse effects must be disclosed in advertisements, front-of-package health claims have a selective focus, ignoring the presence of potentially unhealthful aspects (eg, the sugar or salt content in a prepared breakfast cereal).
(3) Even front-of-package labels restricted to nutrient content can be deceptive by presenting information out of context. Although an 8-oz serving of a sugared beverage has fewer calories than a 1-oz serving of nuts, a dietary choice based on this difference would be misguided.
(4) “Healthier” processed foods are not necessarily healthy. Manufacturers can manipulate snack food ingredients by replacing fat or sugar with refined starch, yielding a higher rating score with little meaningful improvement in nutritional quality. Moreover, health claims confer an aura of healthfulness that might encourage consumption of products of poor nutritional quality.
(5) Front-of-package claims produce conflicts of interest. Unless the FDA specifically dictates allowable claims for each food product (a logistically unfeasible approach), food companies’ interest in selling more products will undermine the educational purpose of labeling.When Hannaford Brothers came out with their 3 star rating system, they rated 28,800 foods and showed that outside of the produce section, only about 23% of items in each section qualified for one star out of three (out of a fairly lenient system). 77% couldn't even get one star.
The Package May Say Healthy, but This Grocer Begs to Differ
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/busin ... ocery.htmlAfter about a year, they came out with an article showing how successful the system was but success was based on sales and not health outcomes. All they showed was that in certain categories of products (ice cream, junk food), people picked the item with more stars, though this does not always equate to healthier as these are propriety systems and everyone has different health issues.
Store Chain’s Test Concludes That Nutrition Sells
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/busin ... .html?_r=1I wrote a response at the time, The 3-star Rating System - One Year Later, but unfortunately, it is no longer online and I can't find it
Basically the system helped people choose better junk/convenience food, which may not really be an improvement. Produce sales changed little.
Here is an article by Marion Nestle, which points out some of these issues
'Better' junk food about marketing, not health
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 18ITKJ.DTLFrom Harvard
Food rating systems: A not-so-smart choice
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... index.htmlIn this review in the NY Times, it points out that many health food companies were expressing their discontent with these systems, because many of their products from these "health" food companies that were making all these front of the box health claims, were getting low ratings.
The Package May Say Healthy, but This Grocer Begs to Differ
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/busin ... ing&st=nytThis research article from 2008 questions the efficacy of these systems.
Health Claims in the United States: An Aid to the Public or a Source of Confusion?
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/6/1216S.full.pdfSo, to sum up the above, in the end, these systems do little then help people choose better junk/convenience food.
Now, I know you may be thinking, but Doug's perspective, focus and approach is different. I agree. But, in the end, we have the same problem. This is verified by my personal experience working with 1000's of people over 2.5 decades. What happens with these systems is that people don't use them to eat more of the best or top categories (A, B) but end up spending most of their time and effort trying to find products that are C's and D's and even debating which is the best C or D or even whether something is really a C or a D or whether it should be an E or an F and why can't the product that is rated an E or an F be a C or a D, if I only eat it once in while. And what percent of your diet can be C, D, E, F? When Doug gave this lecture the first time at the ASW, during the Q&A, Doug and John Mackey got into this very issue.
Herei s a video of their discussion
their discussion starts around 58:20
https://esteemdynamics.com/2020/04/24/t ... m-of-evil/In the end, it does nothing to increase intake of A's & B's which is the real issue.
Unfortunately, due to human nature, as soon as we say, yeah, you can have that once in a while, the once in a while becomes very often. And if we say, yea, this cookie is (relatively) better than that cookie, it is heard as us blessing the better cookie. And, the biggest trap right now is that, oh, but it is vegan.
Recently, when asked about feast days in one his lectures at the 10-day program, Dr McDougall said, (paraphrasing), the problem with me saying you can have a few feast days is everyone starts having way too many of them.
I will give you more clarity (and detail) on my 3 levels in a later post in this thread, but if you know my video's or classes, you probably know them.
In Health
Jeff
PS Doug knows the above