 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nutritional rating systems edit
A good reason why Nutri-Score is not mentioned on Nutritional rating systems page? CharlesNepote (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've added it with this edit. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Broken link for DOI / weird citation edit
The citation [1] given for the calculation of the nutri score seems very wrong. First, a modal shift to environmentally friendly rail has nothing to do with nutrition scoring, second the link leads nowhere, the DOI seems to be non-existent. 2001:4090:A246:8024:516F:D2E8:16E:C6E9 (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Modal Shift to Environmentally Friendly Rail", EU Railway Policy-Making, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, doi:10.1057/9781137274496.0012, ISBN 9781137274496, retrieved 2022-03-29
Wild misrepresentation of cited articles on efficacy edit
I have removed a sentence from efficacy section after reading the cited references:
The study [performed in France] confirmed that Nutri-Score product labelling is the most efficient in promoting healthy dietary choices,[1] particularly among lower income consumers.[2]
In the conclusions section authors write EXPLICITLY:
The above studies lead to some tentative conclusions. FOP labels, especially MTL, warning labels, and Nutri-Score, assist shoppers in recognizing which foods are healthier. But there is little hard evidence that this enhanced knowledge has a significant impact on actual shopping behaviour.
and
A limitation of the review is that related areas were excluded including discussion of which FOP label is most preferred by shoppers and of demographic factors that may affect findings, such as socioeconomic status.
While the second citation mentiones neither France, nor Nutri-Score, is entirely about India and certainly does not say Nutri-Score is especially effective among the low income French. Worryingly this paper is cited in other sections of this article. RadostW (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Temple, Norman J. (January 2020). "Front-of-package food labels: A narrative review". Appetite. 144: 104485. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104485. PMID 31605724. S2CID 203988762.
- ^ Narayanan, Sudha (2022). "How India's agrifood supply chains fared during the COVID-19 lockdown, from farm to fork". Washington, DC. doi:10.2499/9780896294226_14. S2CID 247132089.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
Categories?? edit
In the criticism section (and many online reports) it is stated that the scores can only be used to compare WITHIN food categories and not ACROSS categories. Howeverit I have not managed to find a definition of these categories. In a previous Dutch system, stock cubes (negative as too much salt) and mayonaise (still moderately high in fat, sugar and salt but not very high in those scored ok). Lumping stock cubes with mayonaise in a category may make sense for logistics (these products tend to be placed in the same supermarket section) - but from the point of view of consumers it is (in my view) insane to do so. The use of stock-cubes as condiment/sauce is non-existent and hence clearly not part of the same consumer category. Given that these insanities may be the case here and that it is not easy to find the categories on the web the validity of the entire system seems to be rather shaky. This seems all extremely dodgy and non-transparent to me. Can someone add some clear information on how categories are composed (I could not find it on the web)? Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)