Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys. / Quinio, Caroline; Biltoft-Jensen, Anja; De Henauw, Stefaan; Gibney, Michael J; Huybrechts, Inge; McCarthy, Sinéad N; O'Neill, Jennifer L; Tetens, Inge; Turrini, Aida; Volatier, Jean-Luc.

In: European Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 46, No. Suppl. 2, 2007, p. 37-46.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Quinio, C, Biltoft-Jensen, A, De Henauw, S, Gibney, MJ, Huybrechts, I, McCarthy, SN, O'Neill, JL, Tetens, I, Turrini, A & Volatier, J-L 2007, 'Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys', European Journal of Nutrition, vol. 46, no. Suppl. 2, pp. 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4

APA

Quinio, C., Biltoft-Jensen, A., De Henauw, S., Gibney, M. J., Huybrechts, I., McCarthy, S. N., O'Neill, J. L., Tetens, I., Turrini, A., & Volatier, J-L. (2007). Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys. European Journal of Nutrition, 46(Suppl. 2), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4

Vancouver

Quinio C, Biltoft-Jensen A, De Henauw S, Gibney MJ, Huybrechts I, McCarthy SN et al. Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys. European Journal of Nutrition. 2007;46(Suppl. 2):37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4

Author

Quinio, Caroline ; Biltoft-Jensen, Anja ; De Henauw, Stefaan ; Gibney, Michael J ; Huybrechts, Inge ; McCarthy, Sinéad N ; O'Neill, Jennifer L ; Tetens, Inge ; Turrini, Aida ; Volatier, Jean-Luc. / Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys. In: European Journal of Nutrition. 2007 ; Vol. 46, No. Suppl. 2. pp. 37-46.

Bibtex

@article{c6b06352d77d4112816142ac84b33286,
title = "Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys",
abstract = "A new EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods has entered into force in January 2007. The regulation provides for the use of nutrient profiles to determine which foods may bear claims but does not specify what the profiles should be or how they should be developed. Several nutrient profiling schemes have already been established. Therefore, it is necessary to develop approaches to test if the existing profiling schemes could fulfil the new regulation needs. The aim of the present study is to investigate how reference {"}indicator foods{"} derived from national dietary surveys in five different countries, are classified according to three existing nutrient profiling schemes: The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) model, The Dutch Tripartite classification model and the US FDA model used for regulating health claims. {"}Indicator foods{"} that have been shown to be positively or negatively associated with healthy diets in adults in five EU countries were classified according to each of the three profiling schemes. The performance and effectiveness of each profiling scheme in correctly classifying the {"}indicator foods{"} were assessed using sensitivity and specificity ratios. The sensitivity and the specificity ratios of the three profiling schemes tested were relatively good. There were only small differences of performance between the three systems. A significant negative correlation between sensitivity and specificity was observed. The level of concordance between the classification of the {"}indicator foods{"} that have been selected because of being positively or negatively associated with a healthy diet and the classification by each of the three profiling methods tested was quite good. However, further improvement of the {"}indicator foods{"} approach is needed if it is to serve as a {"}gold standard{"}.",
keywords = "Diet, Diet Surveys, Food, Food Analysis, Food, Organic, Humans, Legislation, Food, Netherlands, Nutrition Policy, Nutritive Value, Reference Values, Sensitivity and Specificity, United Kingdom, United States, Comparative Study, Nutrition and health claims, Nutrition profiling schemes, Evaluation",
author = "Caroline Quinio and Anja Biltoft-Jensen and {De Henauw}, Stefaan and Gibney, {Michael J} and Inge Huybrechts and McCarthy, {Sin{\'e}ad N} and O'Neill, {Jennifer L} and Inge Tetens and Aida Turrini and Jean-Luc Volatier",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "37--46",
journal = "European Journal of Nutrition",
issn = "1436-6207",
publisher = "Springer Medizin",
number = "Suppl. 2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys

AU - Quinio, Caroline

AU - Biltoft-Jensen, Anja

AU - De Henauw, Stefaan

AU - Gibney, Michael J

AU - Huybrechts, Inge

AU - McCarthy, Sinéad N

AU - O'Neill, Jennifer L

AU - Tetens, Inge

AU - Turrini, Aida

AU - Volatier, Jean-Luc

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - A new EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods has entered into force in January 2007. The regulation provides for the use of nutrient profiles to determine which foods may bear claims but does not specify what the profiles should be or how they should be developed. Several nutrient profiling schemes have already been established. Therefore, it is necessary to develop approaches to test if the existing profiling schemes could fulfil the new regulation needs. The aim of the present study is to investigate how reference "indicator foods" derived from national dietary surveys in five different countries, are classified according to three existing nutrient profiling schemes: The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) model, The Dutch Tripartite classification model and the US FDA model used for regulating health claims. "Indicator foods" that have been shown to be positively or negatively associated with healthy diets in adults in five EU countries were classified according to each of the three profiling schemes. The performance and effectiveness of each profiling scheme in correctly classifying the "indicator foods" were assessed using sensitivity and specificity ratios. The sensitivity and the specificity ratios of the three profiling schemes tested were relatively good. There were only small differences of performance between the three systems. A significant negative correlation between sensitivity and specificity was observed. The level of concordance between the classification of the "indicator foods" that have been selected because of being positively or negatively associated with a healthy diet and the classification by each of the three profiling methods tested was quite good. However, further improvement of the "indicator foods" approach is needed if it is to serve as a "gold standard".

AB - A new EU regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods has entered into force in January 2007. The regulation provides for the use of nutrient profiles to determine which foods may bear claims but does not specify what the profiles should be or how they should be developed. Several nutrient profiling schemes have already been established. Therefore, it is necessary to develop approaches to test if the existing profiling schemes could fulfil the new regulation needs. The aim of the present study is to investigate how reference "indicator foods" derived from national dietary surveys in five different countries, are classified according to three existing nutrient profiling schemes: The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) model, The Dutch Tripartite classification model and the US FDA model used for regulating health claims. "Indicator foods" that have been shown to be positively or negatively associated with healthy diets in adults in five EU countries were classified according to each of the three profiling schemes. The performance and effectiveness of each profiling scheme in correctly classifying the "indicator foods" were assessed using sensitivity and specificity ratios. The sensitivity and the specificity ratios of the three profiling schemes tested were relatively good. There were only small differences of performance between the three systems. A significant negative correlation between sensitivity and specificity was observed. The level of concordance between the classification of the "indicator foods" that have been selected because of being positively or negatively associated with a healthy diet and the classification by each of the three profiling methods tested was quite good. However, further improvement of the "indicator foods" approach is needed if it is to serve as a "gold standard".

KW - Diet

KW - Diet Surveys

KW - Food

KW - Food Analysis

KW - Food, Organic

KW - Humans

KW - Legislation, Food

KW - Netherlands

KW - Nutrition Policy

KW - Nutritive Value

KW - Reference Values

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - United Kingdom

KW - United States

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Nutrition and health claims

KW - Nutrition profiling schemes

KW - Evaluation

U2 - 10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4

DO - 10.1007/s00394-007-2005-4

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 18084735

VL - 46

SP - 37

EP - 46

JO - European Journal of Nutrition

JF - European Journal of Nutrition

SN - 1436-6207

IS - Suppl. 2

ER -

ID: 184389064