Comparison between the Choices Five-Level Criteria and Nutri-Score: Alignment with the Dutch Food-Based Dietary Guidelines

Giving fruits and vegetables a tax break: lessons from a Dutch attempt

OBJECTIVE

Food taxation can improve diets by making unhealthy foods more expensive and by making healthy foods cheaper. In the Netherlands, a political window of opportunity arose in December 2021 to reduce the value-added tax (VAT) on fruits and vegetables to zero percent. The policy is now facing institutional friction along several fronts, however, delaying and potentially averting its implementation. We analysed this institutional friction to inform future food tax policies.

DESIGN

We qualitatively analysed open-access fiscal and health experts' position papers about benefits and downsides of the zero-rate that were discussed with members of parliament in June 2023.

SETTING

The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Health and fiscal experts expressed noticeably different viewpoints towards the utility of the zero-rate. One important argument fiscal experts based their negative advice upon pertained to the legal restrictions for distinguishing between healthier and unhealthier forms of fruits and vegetables (i.e. the principle of neutrality). A zero-rate VAT on unhealthier forms of fruits and vegetables, e.g. processed cucumber, mixed with salt and sugar, would be undesirable, but differentiating between raw and processed cucumber would offend the neutrality principle.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch attempt to give fruits and vegetables a tax break highlights the need for crystal-clear food classifications when designing food tax policies. Public health nutritionists should combine classifications based on caloric density, palatability, degree of processing and nutrient content to provide a database for evidence-informed tax differentiation according to food item healthfulness.

Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels: Comparing the Nordic Keyhole and Nutri-Score in a Swedish Context

The extent to which different front-of-pack nutrition labels (FOPNLs) agree or contradict each other has been insufficiently investigated. Considering the 2020 proposal from the European Commission to create a harmonized FOPNL, the aim of this study was to assess agreements and disagreements between two FOPNL schemes-the Keyhole and the Nutri-Score-in a Swedish context. The current Keyhole criteria and the updated Nutri-Score 2022 algorithm were applied to 984 food items and their nutrient compositions, obtained from the food database of the Swedish Food Agency. Agreements (Keyhole-eligible and Nutri-Score A or B; or not Keyhole-eligible and Nutri-Score C, D, or E) and disagreements (Keyhole-eligible and Nutri-Score C, D, or E, or not Keyhole-eligible and Nutri-Score A or B) were calculated as percentages for all items and by food group. An agreement was found for 81% of included items. The lowest level of agreement was found for the groups of flour, grains, and rice (62% agreement) and for plant-based meat and fish analogues (33% agreement). There is generally a good level of agreement between the Keyhole and the Nutri-Score for food items on the Swedish market. Large disagreements found for plant-based meat and fish analogues, and products based on cereals/grains, highlight important considerations for the development of a harmonized FOPNL within Europe.

Front-of-pack labels: "Directive" versus "informative" approaches

Front-of-pack labels (FOPLs) aim at communicating to consumers the health value of food items in support of public health policies. Two main types can be discerned: directive and semidirective FOPLs using color schemes (e.g., Nutri-Score) and informative FOPLs (e.g., Nutrinform Battery). Directive approaches tend to show a "wear-out effect" and, additionally, they tend to have various underlying conceptual problems. Usually, their nutritional scores are calculated using changing, arbitrary algorithms and involve a reductionist set of parameters of debatable validity. Thus, they overstate the effects of selected nutritional factors, such as saturated fat and energy, while overlooking the food matrix and the more holistic aspects of nourishment. Moreover, they do not reflect the portion that is consumed, ignore the preparation steps at home, and fail to serve as a useful basis for composing a healthy diet. Also, so long as the nutritional formulations match the algorithmic standards, they tend to allow ultra-processed products. Thus, this might confuse and mislead consumers. Overconfidence in green-colored labels could even result in unbalanced dietary choices, whereas avoidance of red products may eliminate certain foods from the diet that are rich in essential nutrients (e.g., cheese), leading to opposite results than aimed for. The latter is particularly relevant to vulnerable populations, such as the young, pregnant women, and older adults, or for individuals with specific needs. Taken together, directive FOPLs such as Nutri-Score contradict the declared intent of the European Commission to empower consumers to undertake healthy and balanced diets based on easily accessible and robust information. Although informative systems usually also keep the focus on a few selected nutritional parameters, they have are less paternalizing and obviate the need to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy. They also focus attention on the individual portions that are consumed (even if the definition of portion size remains contentious). Given the importance of dietary patterns, rather than individual foods or nutrients, directiveFOPLs of the Nutri-Score type represent a regretful case of nutritionism. Finally, attempts to associate the adoption of a FOPL with an improvement in the health status are few and mainly applied in virtual settings; none of which are longitudinal, nor have they been able to identify a causal link.