Complementarity Between the Updated Version of the Front-of-pack Nutrition Label Nutri-Score and the Food-processing NOVA Classification
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: To compare the initial and the updated versions of the front-of-pack label Nutri-Score (related to the nutritional content) with the NOVA classification (related to the degree of food processing) at the food level.
Design: Using the OpenFoodFacts database - 129,950 food products - we assessed the complementarity between the Nutri-Score (initial and updated) with the NOVA classification through a correspondence analysis. Contingency tables between the two classification systems were used.
Settings: The food offer in France.
Participants: Not applicable.
Results: With both versions (i.e. initial and updated) of the Nutri-Score, the majority of ultra-processed products received medium to poor Nutri-Score ratings (between 77·9 % and 87·5 % of ultra-processed products depending on the version of the algorithm). Overall, the update of the Nutri-Score algorithm led to a reduction in the number of products rated A and B and an increase in the number of products rated D or E for all NOVA categories, with unprocessed foods being the least impacted (-3·8 percentage points (-5·2 %) rated A or B and +1·3 percentage points (+12·9 %) rated D or E) and ultra-processed foods the most impacted (-9·8 percentage points (-43·4 %) rated A or B and +7·8 percentage points (+14·1 %) rated D or E). Among ultra-processed foods rated favourably with the initial Nutri-Score, artificially sweetened beverages, sweetened plant-based drinks and bread products were the most penalised categories by the revision of Nutri-Score while low-sugar flavoured waters, fruit and legume preparations were the least affected.
Conclusion: These results indicate that the update of the Nutri-Score reinforces its coherence with the NOVA classification, even though both systems measure two distinct health dimensions at the food level.
Nova fails to appreciate the value of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives in the diet.
Messina M, Messina V J Food Sci. 2025; 90(2):e70039.
PMID: 39929603 PMC: 11810565. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.70039.
Deschasaux-Tanguy M, Huybrechts I, Julia C, Hercberg S, Sarda B, Fialon M Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 46():101006.
PMID: 39529812 PMC: 11551499. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101006.
de Farias Xavier D, de Moraes R, Viana T, Pereira J, da Costa P, Duarte D Nutrients. 2024; 16(21).
PMID: 39519567 PMC: 11547796. DOI: 10.3390/nu16213734.
Cerf M, Serry A, Marty L, Nicklaus S, Ducrot P BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):3037.
PMID: 39497099 PMC: 11533413. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-20092-w.
Brichacek A, Florkowski M, Abiona E, Frank K Nutrients. 2024; 16(11).
PMID: 38892671 PMC: 11174918. DOI: 10.3390/nu16111738.