4.5 Article

The SENS algorithm-a new nutrient profiling system for food labelling in Europe

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 236-248

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41430-017-0017-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/objectives In response to the European regulation on nutrition and health claims, France proposed in 2008 the SAIN, LIM profiling system that classifies foods into four classes based on a nutrient density score called 'SAIN', a score of nutrients to limit called 'LIM', and one primary threshold on each score. We present here the SENS algorithm, a new nutrient profiling system adapted from the SAIN, LIM to be operational for simplified nutrition labelling in line with the European regulation on food information to consumers. Subjects/methods The main changes made to SAIN, LIM to get SENS were to introduce food categories and sub-categories ('Beverages', 'Added Fats' and 'Other Solid Foods' sub-categorised into 'cereals', 'cheese', 'other dairy products', 'eggs', 'fish' and 'others'), reduce the number of nutrients, introduce category-specific nutrients and category-specific weighting for some nutrients, replace French recommendations with European reference intakes, and add secondary thresholds. Each food and non-alcoholic beverage from the 2013-CIQUAL French composition database (n = 1065) was assigned one SENS class. Distribution of foods according to the four SENS classes was described by food groups (n = 26). Results The SENS classification was consistent with the recommendations to consume large amounts of whole grains, vegetables and fruits, and moderate intake of fats, sugars, meats, caloric beverages and salt. For most groups (19/26), foods were distributed across at least three SENS classes. Conclusions The SENS is a nutrition-sensitive system that discriminates foods between and within food categories. It preserves the strengths of the initial SAIN, LIM while making it operational for simplified nutrition labelling in Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据