ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2022
Nutrition Classification Schemes for Informing Nutrition Policy in Australia: Nutrient-Based, Food-Based, or Dietary-Based?
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Policy Analysis of Healthcare Healthy Eating Policies in Canada.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Review
- Nutrient and Discretionary Food Intake in Vegan Adult Australians: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- Ultra-Processed Food Policies and Global Nutrition Equity: The Case for a Feasibility-Grounded, Differentiated Governance Supplement to Nova.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- The potential of Nutri-Score to differentiate foods in regulating food marketing to children.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Nutrition Labelling Practices and the Healthiness of Packaged Food and Beverage Products Available in Kenya.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Restricting outdoor advertising of unhealthy food: can Australia's food category-based classification system be applied consistently?Health promotion international · 2025Article
- The Healthiness of Packaged Food and Beverage Products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Fifteen Years of NOVA Food-Processing Classification: "Friend or Foe" Among Sustainable Diet Indicators? A Scoping Review.Nutrition reviews · 2025Article
- Modifying the Health Star Rating nutrient profiling algorithm to account for ultra-processing.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Nutrients or processing? An analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on nutrient content, the NOVA classification and front of package traffic light labelling.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- Giving fruits and vegetables a tax break: lessons from a Dutch attempt.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
- Nutrition classification schemes for plant-based meat analogues: Drivers to assess nutritional quality and identity profile.Current research in food science · 2024Article
- Association between ultra-processed foods and recurrence of depressive symptoms: the Whitehall II cohort study.Nutritional neuroscience · 2024Article
- A Little Bird Told Me… Nutri-Score Panoramas from a Flight over Europe, Connecting Science and Society.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Dietary risk of donated food at an Australian food bank: an audit protocol.BMC nutrition · 2023Article
- Processing and Nutritional Quality of Breakfast Cereals Sold in Italy: Results from the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Study.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Novel Lines of Research on the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Nut Consumption.Nutrients · 2023Review
- A novel food processing-based nutrition classification scheme for guiding policy actions applied to the Australian food supply.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Policy makers are increasingly using nutrition classification schemes (NCSs) to assess a food's health potential for informing nutrition policy actions. However, there is wide variability among the NCSs implemented and no standard benchmark against which their contrasting assessments can be validated. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the agreement of nutrient-, food-, and dietary-based NCSs in their assessment of a food's health potential within the Australian food supply, and examine the conceptual underpinnings and technical characteristics that explain differences in performance. Methods: A dataset combining food compositional data from the Mintel Global New Products Database and the Australian Food Composition Database (AUSNUT 2011-2012) ( Results: The PAHO NPM classified the lowest proportion (22%) of products as "healthy", and the HSR the highest (63%). The PAHO NPM, NOVA, WHO-Euro NPM, and the Chilean NPM classified >50% of products as "unhealthy," and the ADGs, HSR, and Nutri-Score classified <50% of products as "unhealthy." The HSR and Nutri-Score had the highest pairwise agreement (κ = 0.7809, 89.70%), and the PAHO NPM and HSR the lowest (κ = 0.1793, 53.22%). Characteristics of NCSs that more effectively identified ultraprocessed and discretionary foods were: category-specific assessment, the classification of categories as always "healthy" or "unhealthy," consideration of level of food processing, thresholds for "risk" nutrients that do not penalize whole foods; and no allowance for the substitution of ingredients. Conclusions: Wide variation was observed in agreement of the assessment of a food's health potential among the NCSs analyzed due to differing conceptual underpinnings and technical characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.