ATNI calls for standardized Nutrient Profile Model based on food healthfulness across sector

11 Sep 2024 --- A new report by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) investigates three Nutrient Profile Models (NPMs) — the Health Star Rating (HSR) used in Australia and New Zealand, the Nutri-Score used in some EU countries and the UK NPM — and argues for the need of a globally accepted method to define and measure the healthiness of food portfolios.

“An NPM — a tool used to classify or score food products according to their nutritional composition and impact on health — can serve as a tool to evaluate the nutritional quality of foods and highlight what food choices contribute to a healthy diet,” the report explains.

The comparative analysis shows that the HSR, the Nutri-Score and the UK NPM are fully aligned in their ranking of some products, but diverge on others. The differences established by the report highlight the need for multiple NPMs to be considered when assessing the healthiness of an F&B product. 

This is particularly pertinent to F&B investors looking to keep up with the evolving consumer awareness and preferences for products that improve rather than harm their health. For this reason, the report additionally presents an analysis that makes use of the Delphi method, used to gather a consensus among experts.

Investor organizations, including those part of ATNI’s Investors in Nutrition and Health, have committed to the proposed Reporting Guidelines presented in this report when engaging with companies.

Juan Salazar, senior engagement specialist at Pictet Asset Management, comments: “We would all benefit from getting to that level where we can easily compare between two companies that currently use different models.”

NPM similarities and differences

The aim of the comparative analysis of NPMs was to evaluate and compare the three selected NPMs across 17 product categories and four types of company portfolios.

NPM classify or score food products according to their nutritional composition and impact on health.“The comparative analysis revealed complete agreement across NPMs in categorizing ‘confectionery’ and ‘sweet biscuits, snack bars and fruit snacks’ as less healthy as these categories did not meet the criteria for healthiness of any NPM,” the report details.

“Disparities were found in the classification of ‘Ice Cream,’ ‘Juice’ and ‘Sports Drinks,’ indicating low agreement among the NPMs. The mixed, dairy and beverages portfolios showed greater variability compared to the consistent classification in the ‘indulgent’ portfolio.”

“The discrepancy among models creates confusion for regulators, manufacturers, investors and consumers and defeats the purpose of these models, which is to facilitate healthier food choices.”

This NPM alignment initiative does not set out “to develop, redesign, create or combine NPMs,” nor to influence consumer behavior practices, front-of-pack labeling or health claim regulations. It does not aim to direct whether and how NPMs are used on a state level either.

It takes into consideration F&B products that are part of regular diets. It excludes alcohol or special-purpose products such as infant formula, medical foods or dietary supplements

Delphi process

ATNI highlights that the Delphi process it utilized was designed “to facilitate stakeholder alignment on a standard to assess and compare the healthiness of companies’ food product portfolios using NPMs and on the reporting of the results.”

The analysis included a three-round Delphi process including three surveys and two roundtable events, during which participants evaluated the need and feasibility of aligning on NPMs used for reporting, the essential features of a robust NPM and reporting standards. The research included 86 individuals from 14 countries around the world.

The report defines an “alignment” in experts’ perceptions as achieved when 70% or more of participants select that they “agree or strongly agree” or “disagree or strongly disagree” with a statement, while when over 60% or more give the same responses signifies a “high level of agreement.”

The notable challenges outlined by experts throughout the Delphi process include the industry’s resistance to adopting an NPM reporting standard, identifying an NPM that all experts are aligned with, a lack of international consensus on what healthy F&B are exactly, the lack of a technical capacity for implementation and the management of stakeholder priorities.

There was a high level of alignment between industry, investor and academic experts on the need for transparency and on the governance of NPMs. However, on the components of underlying principles of NPMs, 100% of investors and 82% of academic experts agreed that an NPM should include nutrient thresholds based on national or international dietary guidelines, while only 46% of the industry agreed with this assertion.

The Delphi process was utilized to facilitate stakeholder alignment.Similarly, only 69% of industry experts agreed that NPMs should specify which national or international dietary guidelines they use, while 100% of investors and 88% of academia were in support. 

Additionally, on whether an NPM should score healthiness based on a 1–100 or 0–5 score or letter grades (A–E), industry and investors were both aligned (75% and 100% respectively), but academics did not, as only 67% agreed.

Proposed Reporting Guidelines

Based on the findings determined with the Delphi process, ATNI presents elements that should be part of a standardized framework for reporting to ensure transparency, a level playing field, the comparison of portfolios and reformulation efforts and the provision of a direction for nutrition-focused reporting and investment.

When reporting employs one or multiple NPMs, companies can be offered the option to report against one or multiple of the selected NPMs.

The methodology should include details of the NPM guidelines, the data sources used, missing values, the inclusion or exclusion of products and deviations from the NPM guidelines.

Reporting should also include details about the audit process and should be conducted or validated by an impartial third party.

The results of the report are for the global overall portfolio by category and should include the percentage of products scored as “healthier” or “unhealthier.”

It should show the total sales and the percentage of sales from healthier and unhealthier products and the change in sales-weighted NPM results over time while highlighting reformulation efforts.

Finally, reporting should highlight the marketing spending for healthier vs. unhealthier products and lobbying information related to health and nutrition policies.

By Milana Nikolova