ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2025
An Updated Definition of "Healthy" Foods in the United States: How Do They Measure in Nutrient Density, Cost, and Frequency of Consumption?
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Three-Component Nutrient Density Calculator (NDC) for Mixed Dishes to Guide Innovation and Reformulation of Recipes.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Application of a Food-Based Nutritional Profiling System to Assess Diet Quality in Diet-Level Data: Evidence on Construct and Convergent Validity from the Hatoyama Cohort Study and Kusatsu Cohort Study.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized an update to the definition of the term "healthy" as used on food labels, to align with current dietary guidelines. A holistic understanding of food choice is vital for socially- and economically-conscious food programs and policies. Objectives: This study applied the new "healthy" criteria to a nationally-representative database of foods and beverages and compared qualifying items to those that failed to qualify, in terms of nutrient density, monetary cost, and frequency of consumption. Methods: Nutrient profile scores based on the Nutrient Rich Foods Index 9.3 model and weighted frequency of consumption data from the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies were linked to data for monetary cost, based on national food prices. Results: The analysis included 3062 foods and beverages in 12 food groups, of which 14% qualified as "healthy." Many foods did not qualify due to excess sodium and saturated fat. Overall, qualifying foods and beverages had a higher median nutrient density and frequency of consumption ( Conclusions: Foods and beverages that would qualify as "healthy" under new FDA criteria were more nutrient dense. Overall, qualifying items may be less expensive and consumed more frequently than not qualifying items, although results differed for individual food groups. To increase the availability of foods and beverages qualifying as "healthy," industry reformulation of packaged and processed nutrient-dense foods should be considered to reduce the addition of sodium, sugar, and saturated fat.
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.