Advertisement

Modeled industry-wide food and beverage reformulations reduce the gap between current and nutritionally adequate dietary intakes among French adults

  • Matthieu Maillot
  • Lisa Privet
  • Gabriel MassetEmail author
Original Contribution
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The objective was to assess the capacity of food reformulations to reduce the required dietary changes to reach overall nutritional adequacy in the French adult population.

Methods

Reformulation standards, defined using the Nestlé Nutritional Profiling System (NNPS), were applied to the French food composition database (CIQUAL-2013), classifying foods into “PASS” or “FAIL”. Baseline nutritional intakes were estimated for 1838 adults of the INCA2 French national survey according to three scenarios based on: (1) the original food composition database (CURRENT), (2) a “reformulated” database in which the nutrient composition of FAIL products was adjusted to the NNPS standards (REFORMULATION), and (3) a “substituted” database in FAIL products were replaced by the most nutritionally similar PASS products from the same NNPS-category (SUBSTITUTION). For each scenario, starting from each baseline diet, a new optimized diet was modeled to fulfill a complete set of nutrient recommendations while remaining closest to the respective baseline diet. To quantify the dietary changes needed to reach nutritional adequacy in the optimized diets, the total dietary deviation (TDD) was calculated as the sum in quantities (grams) of the absolute difference between observed and optimized amount of repertoire foods (i.e., foods already consumed) plus the amount of non-repertoire foods (i.e., new foods added).

Results

TDD was significantly lower in the REFORMULATION and the SUBSTITUTION scenarios compared to CURRENT (1269 g/day, 1191 g/day and 1494 g/day, respectively). This was explained by smaller shifts among repertoire foods and less additions of non-repertoire foods.

Conclusions

Nutritional reformulation of the food supply may reduce the dietary changes required to achieve nutritionally adequate diets, but would not suffice to reach the complete set of nutrient recommendations.

Keywords

Food reformulation Linear programming Nutrient profiling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kevin C Mathias for reviewing the manuscript. The study was funded by Nestec SA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

The INCA 2 study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by the French Data Protection Authority (Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés). All participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Conflict of interest

Nestec SA funded this study. At time of submission, GM was employed by Nestec SA; MM and LP were employed by MS-Nutrition, which received funding from Nestec SA to conduct this study.

Supplementary material

394_2019_1973_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (659 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 658 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Leroy P, Réquillart V, Soler L-G, Enderli G (2016) An assessment of the potential health impacts of food reformulation. Eur J Clin Nutr 70:694–699.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2015.201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kloss L, Meyer JD, Graeve L, Vetter W (2015) Sodium intake and its reduction by food reformulation in the European Union—a review. NFS J 1:9–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NFS.2015.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mozaffarian D, Jacobson MF, Greenstein JS (2010) Food reformulations to reduce trans fatty acids. N Engl J Med 362:2037–2039.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1001841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    WCRF (2017) I nourishing framework examples of policy actions examples of where implemented what the action involvesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinez SW, Levin D (2017) United States Department of Agriculture An Assessment of Product Turnover in the U.S. Food Industry and Effects on Nutrient ContentGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WHO/IASO (2010) Nutrient profiling: Report of a WHO/IASO technical meeting. World Health Organization, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poon T, Labonté M-È, Mulligan C et al (2018) Comparison of nutrient profiling models for assessing the nutritional quality of foods: a validation study. Br J Nutr 120:567–582.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114518001575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roodenburg AJC, Temme EHM, Howell-Davies O, Seidell JC (2009) Potential impact of the Choices Programme on nutrient intakes in the Dutch population. Nutr Bull 34:318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vlassopoulos A, Masset G, Charles VR et al (2017) A nutrient profiling system for the (re)formulation of a global food and beverage portfolio. Eur J Nutr.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1161-9 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gressier M, Privet L, Mathias KC et al (2017) Modeled dietary impact of industry-wide food and beverage reformulations in the United States and France. Am J Clin Nutr.  https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.153361 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maillot M, Vieux F, Ferguson EF et al (2009) To meet nutrient recommendations, most French adults need to expand their habitual food repertoire. J Nutr 139:1721–1727.  https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.109.107318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lluch A, Maillot M, Gazan R et al (2017) Individual diet modeling shows how to balance the diet of French adults with or without excessive free sugar intakes. Nutrients 9:162.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9020162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maillot M, Issa C, Vieux F et al (2011) The shortest way to reach nutritional goals is to adopt Mediterranean food choices: evidence from computer-generated personalized diets. Am J Clin Nutr 94:1127–1137.  https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.016501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maillot M, Vieux F, Amiot MJ, Darmon N (2010) Individual diet modeling translates nutrient recommendations into realistic and individual-specific food choices. Am J Clin Nutr 91:421–430.  https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubuisson C, Lioret S, Touvier M et al (2010) Trends in food and nutritional intakes of French adults from 1999 to 2007: results from the INCA surveys. Br J Nutr 103:1035–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114509992625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louie JCY, Moshtaghian H, Boylan S et al (2015) A systematic methodology to estimate added sugar content of foods. Eur J Clin Nutr 69:154–161.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guthrie HA, Scheer JC (1981) Validity of a dietary score for assessing nutrient adequacy. J Am Diet Assoc 78:240–245Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vieux F, Soler L-G, Touazi D, Darmon N (2013) High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. Am J Clin Nutr 97:569–583.  https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.035105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ledikwe JH, Blanck HM, Khan LK et al (2005) Dietary energy density determined by eight calculation methods in a nationally representative United States population. J Nutr 135:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ledikwe JH, Blanck HM, Khan LK et al (2006) Low-energy-density diets are associated with high diet quality in adults in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc 106:1172–1180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maillot M, Vieux F, Delaere F et al (2017) Dietary changes needed to reach nutritional adequacy without increasing diet cost according to income: an analysis among French adults. PLoS One 12:e0174679.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dantzig GB (1990) The diet problem. Interfaces (Providence) 20:43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.20.4.43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Health Organization (2003) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Report of a joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin A (2001) Apports nutritionnels conseillés pour la population Française. 3e édition. [Recommended dietary intakes for the French population 3rd edition], TEC&DOC. Paris: LavoisierGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becker W, Lyhne N, Pedersen A et al (2004) Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2004—integrating nutrition and physical activity. Scand J Nutr 48:178–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1102680410003794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) (2010) Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for water| European Food safety authority. EFSA J 8:48.  https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1459 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Darmon N, Darmon M, Maillot M, Drewnowski A (2005) A nutrient density standard for vegetables and fruits: nutrients per calorie and nutrients per unit cost. J Am Diet Assoc 105:1881–1887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roodenburg AJC, van Ballegooijen AJ, Dötsch-Klerk M et al (2013) Modelling of usual nutrient intakes: potential impact of the choices programme on nutrient intakes in young Dutch adults. PLoS One 8:e72378.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Combris P, Goglia R, Henini M et al (2011) Improvement of the nutritional quality of foods as a public health tool. Publ Health 125:717–724.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2011.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cobiac L, Irz X, Leroy P et al (2018) Accounting for consumers’ preferences in the analysis of dietary recommendations. Eur J Clin Nutr.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0317-5 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MS-NutritionMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Nestlé Research CenterLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Cereal Partners WorldwideOrbeSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations