A new study argues that common food labels and simple calorie counts do not tell the full nutritional story. Researchers developed a new system, called Nutritional Value Score (NVS), to rank foods by overall nutrient content and by their relationship to chronic disease prevention.
Using the NVS, dark leafy greens, organ meats, fish and seafood came out on top, while soft drinks, sweet pastries, instant noodles, ultra-processed snacks and refined grains such as white flour scored very poorly. The study examined 289 common foods from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and the United States, aiming to build a tool that would work across different diets and regions.
The score is based on seven components, vitamins, minerals, protein, omega-3, fiber, calorie density, and nutrient ratios such as sodium to potassium, saturated fat to unsaturated fat, and carbohydrates to fiber. Ultra-processed foods were given a 25% penalty. Among the highest-scoring food groups were dark leafy vegetables and organ meats, followed by fish and seafood, unprocessed red meat, eggs, legumes, chicken, milk, yogurt, nuts and seeds.
At the individual-food level, top performers included dried okra, dried fish and seafood, spinach, liver and other organ meats from chicken and beef, sardines and other small fish, as well as lentils, eggs, tofu, carrots, guava, orange sweet potato, almonds, unsweetened milk and unsweetened soy milk. Lower-scoring items included beverages, Gatorade, cola, rice porridge, instant noodles, sweet and salty ultra-processed foods, coconut and white rice products.
The researchers said the NVS distinguished better than systems such as Nutri-Score and Health Star Rating between foods within the same broad category, for example guava versus watermelon, or spinach versus eggplant. They also said it is meant mainly for research, policy, environmental comparisons and affordability analysis, not as a simple front-of-pack label. The authors noted limits, including the need for further validation, some judgment in weighting the components, reliance on U.S. databases for some nutrition data, and the absence of factors such as polyphenols and beneficial microorganisms.
