relying

He Nutriscore what we can see in some foods born with an ambitious promise: simplify the nutritional complexity of products into a code of easy to understand colors to know if a food is healthy or not. However, what on paper seemed like the definitive solution against obesity and poor diet is facing a much grayer scientific reality. His dark side. Although the idea seemed quite good, the reality is that new scientific reviews are setting off alarm bells. The conclusion being drawn is quite clear: the real impact on the shopping basket is minimal and the algorithm categorizes foods that are essential as something very bad. A good gap. One of the strongest arguments in favor of Nutri-Score comes from studies conducted in controlled environments, i.e. a laboratory. But what happens when we go down to the real, everyday world? This is what they wanted to analyze in a recent narrative reviewwhich evaluates consumer behavior in physical supermarkets and throws cold water on the system. And with this food color coding, the data shows that the improvement in the nutritional score of the purchase is only 2.5%. That is to say, it has hardly been noticed that a person begins to eat much more appropriate foods with this color code. Something that quite disagrees with the laboratory results that predicted that the effect was going to be much better. The real victim. The fact that some people’s shopping baskets have improved a little is the motivation that some producers of these foods have to change their ingredients to achieve a better Nutri-Score. as seen on Eroski. But this does not mean that citizens have changed the way they shop. The great blind spot. The fiercest criticism from the scientific field, highlighted by organizations such as the Puleva Nutrition Instituteis the omission of micronutrients. The current algorithm focuses almost exclusively on macronutrients, which are fat, sugars and proteins, but forgets other points that are fundamental. One of these points are vitamins and minerals, which are logically essential for the body, especially because some of them must be taken as they are not produced by the body. But polyphenols or bioactive compounds also stand out, which are essential antioxidants that can prevent chronic diseases. Unfair penalty. The system that is implemented right now also penalizes foods for their total fat content without differentiating whether they are healthy, something that has led to putting a bad score for olive oil. A paradoxical situation. The study from the University of Granada wanted to see the same thing about soluble cocoa to highlight these large discrepancies that force us to question Nutri-score. The result of the research team indicates that while pure cocoas with a higher bioactive profile can receive low grades such as C or D. But, on the other hand, others ultra-processed products with additives They achieve better scores, even A, simply by adjusting their sugar or fiber levels, without necessarily being healthier. Trying to correct it. The scientific community is no stranger to this problem and logically when something goes wrong you want to fix it to make it fit reality and that it truly fulfills the objective with which it was created. In fact, recent updates have already tried to correct the algorithm to better treat vegetable oils and nuts and penalize ultra-processed foods more strongly. However, the validations insist that, although there is an association between scores and macronutrientsthere remain huge gaps with comprehensive dietary guidelines. And we must keep in mind that the Nutri-Score measures “isolated nutrients” but not the overall quality of the food. ¿Where are we going? Science seems to indicate that the Nutri-Score is a useful but overly simplistic tool. By trying to condense health into a letter, nuances are lost that really make a difference in longevity and disease prevention. Although the algorithm is being refined to better align with European recommendations, the risk of the consumer blindly trusting an “A” for a processed product versus a “C” for a natural food remains present. Images | Franki Chamaki In Xataka | Ozempic’s “great rebound”, in figures: science reveals that the weight returns four times faster than with a diet