Nutri-Score ranks pure cocoa lower than highly processed alternatives, study warns
Key takeaways
- A study has found that the Nutri-Score system does not accurately reflect the nutritional value of cocoa, often ranking products with higher cocoa content lower than highly processed alternatives.
- Researchers argue that Nutri-Score fails to account for beneficial bioactive compounds in cocoa, such as flavonoids and phenols, that offer health benefits.
- A more comprehensive system, including metabolomics, would provide consumers with a better understanding of product quality.
Spanish researchers have found that the Nutri-Score labeling system does not adequately reflect cocoa’s nutritional and metabolic complexity. In several cases, higher cocoa content with bioactive compounds scored lower than highly processed alternatives with added sugar and additives.
The study analyzed 54 products from 19 brands, assigning them Nutri-Score ratings from A to D. It found no correlation between the product category and their actual nutritional composition, especially when bioactive compounds with beneficial health effects were taken into account.
The scientists from the University of Granada, Spain, explain Nutri-Score classifies its products based on calories, sugar, and saturated fat.
“However, it overlooks relevant molecules associated with beneficial effects, such as phenolic compounds, bioactive peptides, and antioxidant compounds found in cocoa,” says Marta Palma, a researcher in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Granada.
Nutrition Insight speaks with a representative from Nutri-Score about the findings, who tells us: “The Nutri-Score operates as a public health policy, and as such, the nutrient profile focuses on key nutrients of public health interest: sugar, salt, saturated fats, calories, fibers, proteins, fruit and vegetables.”
The representative explains that some of the favorable elements taken into account within the system are used as proxies for additional elements, such as proteins, which act as a proxy for iron and calcium content.
“The guidelines for the Nutri-Score underline three main categories for the nutrient profile model: generic algorithm for solid foods, fats, oils, nuts and seeds, and beverages. As such, the nutrient profile model operates as an across-the-board system.”
In several cases, cocoa products with higher cocoa content and bioactive compounds were ranked lower than highly processed alternatives.Complexity of cocoa
The study, published in npj Science of Food, found that in several cases, cocoa products with a higher cocoa content and bioactive compounds were put in a lower ranking — C or D. Meanwhile, highly processed foods containing added sweeteners, thickeners, flavoring, or flour, received Nutri-Score’s highest ranking — A.
Additionally, highly processed products labeled “no added sugars” but containing additives also scored higher than products made with 100% pure cocoa.
“As to the specific case of cocoa, to the best of my knowledge, no national food-based dietary guideline currently integrates guidance into the consumption of cocoa in itself as a ‘healthy’ product. Rather, most guidelines stress the fact that cocoa products usually contain high levels of sugar and saturated fats, and are therefore types of products whose consumption should be limited,” says the Nutri-Score representative.
“As such, its classification within the system is consistent with its place within food-based dietary guidelines.”
Previous studies have found that dark chocolate and pure cocoa may have multiple health benefits, including anti-aging properties, reduced diabetes risk, and reduced inflammation in older adults.
The research team of the new study says it did not detect clear groupings by Nutri-Score categories, arguing the system is limited in discriminating between actual metabolic profiles of soluble cocoa products.
The Nutri-Score representative responds: “One of the key features of the Nutri-Score as a nutrient profile model is its reliance on directly available mandatory elements within the nutrient declaration. No other elements are taken into account in the system, neither nutrients, chemical compounds, or additives.”
“While it may seem as a restriction to the model, it is also one of its key transparency features, ensuring that it is readily computable by external parties.”
The research team stresses that cocoa contains peptides, flavonoids, fatty acids, phenols, and other metabolites that may have anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, cardioprotective, or neuroprotective effects.
The findings are relevant to regulatory bodies, the food industry, and consumers.Questioning the system
The authors underscore the limits of this front-of-packing label system and stress the need to incorporate comprehensive information such as metabolomics. This would give consumers a more realistic overview of a product’s nutritional quality.
They say the findings are relevant to regulatory bodies, the food industry, and consumers, amid debate over Nutri-Score’s future in Europe.
Prior studies have also questioned the adequacy of a multi-nutrient algorithm like the Nutri-Score system, which scores items’ healthfulness only within the food category in which they are placed, not against other categories, which “could lead to confusion.”
“Multiple studies have shown the consistency between the classification between the Nutri-Score and food-based dietary guidelines, ensuring that foods that are recommended within guidelines are promoted within the Nutri-Score and that foods that are to be limited are not promoted,” the Nutri-Score representative tells us.
