If you have been reading my blog for awhile then you may have noticed my skepticism about the overall nutrient quality index (ONQI), a new system that rates the nutrition quality of grocery store foods and gives them a score of 0-100.
If you haven’t been reading, let me catch you up quickly… A team of experts worked together to create a formula that can evaluate any food product and assign it an ONQI score. The idea is that people can buzz through the bread aisle and look for the highest number among their favorite kind of bread (or find a new favorite). See sample food rankings here.
My opinion about ONQI has been that this system will do nothing more than help grocery stores sell more food, albeit healthier food. Until I had a chance to sit down with ONQI’s creator, Dr. Katz, in person and discuss his hopes and dreams for the ONQI. Read the interview below and let me know what you think about ONQI. Would you use it to make decisions. Do you think the average consumer would use it
Rebecca: Briefly describe ONQI for BHN readers.
Dr. Katz: ONQI uses nutrition science to assign a single score to foods. The closer the number is to 100, the healthier the food. So, it helps people quickly answer the question “is this good for me?”. It can help people improve their overall diet by making one well-informed choice at a time.
Rebecca: What will the consumer experience be?
Dr. Katz: ONQI will roll out first in Topco stores. We expect to launch with fanfare and media attention so consumers will hear about it before they get to the store. When they are in the grocery store, they will see a new ONQI graphic on the price labels and the ONQI score will be right there at the decision point.
Rebecca: Why do grocery stores want to participate in this?
Dr. Katz: Essentially it’s customer satisfaction. We know consumers want an easy way to choose healthy foods in the grocery store and that’s what ONQI helps them do. It’s good for business because it is giving the customers what they want. But the CEOs of the grocery stores are people to and many of them tell me that they would do this anyway because it is the right thing to do. Ultimately, customers will indicate if they like ONQI and if they will use it to make decisions.
Rebecca: Why do we need a rating system to help us make food choices?
Dr. Katz: The bottom line is that we have so many choices in the grocery store. All the different kinds of breads, cereals, yogurts, and snack foods is dizzying. How does a person decide? This one is higher in fiber, but also uses high fructose corn syrup. This one is made with enriched wheat flour and this one with whole wheat. Which one is healthier? Who knows? The ONQI knows. It cuts through the marketing fluff and rates foods based on their overall quality and the more wholesome, more natural foods come out on top.
Rebecca: Doesn’t ONQI assume people are using “health” as a criteria for selecting certain foods?
Yes, but we realize that people have other priorities that guide their food choices, such as price. Our hope for the ONQI is that it can be expanded to include price considerations. For example, a person could go online and get the “dollar quality” of their food choices with a cost versus nutrition comparison. So foods that seem inexpensive but don’t have much nutrition would be rated lower and people could get other food suggestions that give them more nutrition for a similar price. People also care about taste and convenience. ONQI will allow people to choose the healthier cookie or healthier chip so it allows people to love foods that will love them back.
(note: this is where I have to see some numbers… because if ONQI gives a higher score to baked chips vs. the real thing there could be an argument for the taste of the real deal, just consumed in the right portions)
Rebecca: We both know that the number one determining factor in total energy and nutrient intake is portion size. How does ONQI consider the portion size in the scores?
Dr. Katz: Good question. The portion size is not built in to the equation, but the types of foods higher on the ONQI scale tend to be the ones that people aren’t overeating so if people shop by the ONQI their portions should be normal too. Let me explain…. why do people eat too much food? Essentially, because they can. The kinds of foods people tend to overeat are processed and higher in calories. But foods that score well on ONQI (fruits, vegetables, whole grains) tend to be high in fiber, water content, or have a low glycemic load so the chances of a person overeating the food is decreased dramatically. Strawberries and oranges get 100 on ONQI. A person would have to eat 2 cups of strawberries to reach the same calories in a 100-calorie-snack-pack. Chances are, they won’t finish the 2 cups of strawberries , but they’d polish off the snack pack in seconds. People will still need guidance on portion sizes of the foods they choose, but selecting high ONQI foods will naturally put items in their basket that won’t let them over-consume calories.
Rebecca: Were there any surprises when you ran the foods through the ONQI equation? I noticed the chicken breast was surprisingly low.
Dr. Katz: I’d have to agree with you that the chicken was surprising. Fish does well… salmon gets an 87 and tilapia gets an 82, but chicken breast only gets 32. One reason is because meat in general is higher in calories for the portion size so the number will come out lower.
(note: this is the other area that is troublesome to me… is a consumer going to think that chicken breast is bad with such a low score?)
Rebecca: So if I buy tilapia at the store and go home and fry it, does it still get an 82?
Dr. Katz: No, it wouldn’t because the breading you added and oil you used to fry it would be part of the entree. But that is definitely something we see for the future of ONQI, online recipes that get a rating so baked fish with vegetables gets a higher score than fried fish.
Rebecca: What is your long term vision for ONQI?
Dr. Katz: There are a number of ways it could pan out. One scenario is that it becomes the winning rating system and is adopted as the industry standard. Another scenario is that the Federal government would adopt it and use it as part of the nutrition facts and labeling standards on packaged foods. If they didn’t adopt it, they could endorse it.
In the big picture, for ONQI to make a real difference it needs to be embraced on a large scale; supermarkets, stores, schools, restaurants and foodservice establishments, worksite wellness programs etc. I envision it as the GPS of the food supply and it points to “nutrition’s true north,” guiding people in their health decisions. It could help improve the food supply because companies might reformulate their products to get a better ONQI. But ultimately, consumers will decide if they value ONQI and they will drive its distribution in the system.
I enjoyed my conversation with Dr. Katz. His passion for health and wellness was palpable and his energy was contagious. I was interested to hear his ideas about online features of ONQI. I think some kind of tool that shows consumers how to get the most nutritious food for the price would be very valuable, especially in this era or rising food costs. I also think an online tool that suggests recipes and allows consumers to calculate a score based on their recipes is crucial. We don’t eat individual foods. We eat meals. While my peanut butter might score lower. How does my peanut butter on whole grain bread score? My salmon might score high, but what if I make salmon cakes with some kind of cream sauce then what’s the score?
These are just some of the reasons why I still think the system is flawed, but Dr. Katz acknowledges that there is no magic bullet, no one tool that will reverse chronic diseases. But this ONQI tool can at least help out people who are trying to make better choices. On this point, I agree with him and I had a first-hand experience on the potential benefits of ONQI while sitting in on his presentation at the DC Dietetic Association meeting. He threw up a slide of peanut butter and the reduced fat version and showed how the reduced fat had more sodium and sugar and less fiber than the regular with only a 4g fat difference (which is healthy fat by the way). Much to my hubby’s enjoyment, my days of reduced fat peanut butter are behind me.
Other reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/business/01food.html
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1298001/food_retailers_hope_to_inspire_loyalty_increase_sales_with_their/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202733_pf.html
Filed under: eating healthy, food, food labeling, health | Tagged: onqi
We have a similar program in Canada.
The Health Check symbol.
All a consumer has to do is ‘look for the health check’ and they can be assured that the food they are going to buy passes some sort of quasi-governmental health certification.
OR – Is it just another way for manufacturers to differentiate their products.
The national broadcaster, CBC investigated this program – and it wasn’t good.
Here is a link to the program / video
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/01/23/hyping_health/
and I used to be such an optimist
Rebecca, it seems to me that this might actually justify buying unhealthy foods to consumers who use only the number. Most people are not going to take the time to look at portion size and other ingredients online as suggested by Dr. Katz. Another point is that information on healthy foods needs to reach consumers with limited incomes, these are often people who choose the most unhealthy foods because they are cheap. These same people likely have extremely limited access to the internet (e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-03-18-wifi-poor_x.htm). Your original skepticism still remains with me.
The Canadian Health Check is NOT like the OQNI in a big way. The health check label doesn’t inform consumers about how the food in question relates to other foods. I think your skepticism mostly sounds too much like someone just being afraid of something new: it’s not the status quo and it has all the hallmarks of good old fashioned “hype”. Sure, there will be “hype” just like anything else but that doesn’t necessarily make it invalid. I think the status quo allows manufacturers to get away with spewing out mostly junk food on the cheap while marketing it under dubious health claims.
Attempting to inform consumers about the empty calories they are thinking about purchasing can’t be a bad goal. I know there is an obvious difference between an apple and cheese puffs. But, the difference between some of these “light” products vs. equal portions of the “regular” is where the real significance comes into play. I don’t want to study the ingredients everytime to know the tricks they are playing to qualify as “light”. Half the time, I don’t even know how to pronounce their ingredients anyways. So, a score to easily inform me about the difference will be very much welcomed. I agree that there are some pitfalls, but overall I think it’s a good idea and will help many people make wiser decisions.
I’m not sure from the comments so far if people are “afraid” of something new. I think it is more skepticism about the effectiveness of ratings when it comes to public health. Will overall diets improve enough in the people who are obese to help them lose weight and in the overweight population to help them prevent obesity? Or will it help the health-conscious people have an easier time choosing between breads and cereals. (trust me, I would love the help in the store, but as a marathoner and health nut I’m not the “target” for improving public health).
I agree that a rating system can help cut the clutter of marketing claims on packaged foods.
I have some skepticism about ONQI being proprietary… evidently the Nutrient Rich Foods Coalition http://www.nutrientrichfoods.org/ is coming out with a rating system that will be open source, public, non-proprietary… thoughts?
I can’t wait for this to come to New England! I spend so much time trying to figure out what’s best for me to eat off the shelves in grocery stores while still strongly balancing price in there. This will be so helpful in calculating the “health” side of things so I can then calculate points vs. cost easily. I think eventually this will make companies think about the health aspect of their products, and in reducing usage of unnecessary “bad ingredients” like trans-fats.
The ONQI appears to be a brilliant and very clever system and just what the doctor ordered (pardon the pun).
If it gets widespread acceptance just watch and see the health index of the country also increase and the obesity level and average weight decrease.
What normal person would choose a 10 index value food over a 100 index value food?
It’s also brilliant in that it will be like a silver bullet that will kill the influence of shady marketing and use of buzzwords on packaging. Any marketer knows how easy it is to deceive a consumer just by what you put on the label. e.g. 96% fat free = 4% fat.
We will see a financial strain develop amongst the junk food companies and the only way they will be able to stay in business is to change the garbage that they feed people and make millions on.
What are the McDonalds and Burger Kings of this world going to do? Now might be the time to sell any shares in those companies.
This truly puts into place the concept of the survival of the fittest i.e. survival of the healthiest food.
I actually can’t wait to be able to easily make the choice of the healthiest foods when I do my shop.
ONQI – a truly brilliant system. In my opinion – can’t be faulted.
[...] And the “average shopper” may soon be able to compare the food values of various grocery store items using the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI), a system supported by some of the largest grocery store chains. The results, hopefully, will be better choices by shoppers and better product formulation by industry so their products score higher on the scale. BalancedHealth [...]