U.S. patent application number 13/452395 was filed with the patent office on 2012-08-16 for method and system for assessing, scoring, grouping and presenting nutritional value information of food products.
This patent application is currently assigned to GUIDING STARS LICENSING COMPANY. Invention is credited to Stephen F. Culver, Leslie M. Fischer, James L. McBride, Lisa A. Sutherland, John A. Vitagliano.
Application Number | 20120208151 13/452395 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 38712269 |
Filed Date | 2012-08-16 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120208151 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Culver; Stephen F. ; et
al. |
August 16, 2012 |
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING, SCORING, GROUPING AND PRESENTING
NUTRITIONAL VALUE INFORMATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS
Abstract
A method and system for presenting nutritional information about
food products. The method involves gathering nutritional data about
food products, analyzing that data to determine a nutritional
value, scoring the product, and applying a designation reflecting
the nutritional score. The nutritional value score designation is
then displayed at the point of sale for observation by customers.
The system includes a data gathering function, a data analyzing
function, a data storing function, a scoring function, a reporting
function and a display function to perform the steps of the method
described.
Inventors: |
Culver; Stephen F.; (Cape
Elizabeth, ME) ; Fischer; Leslie M.; (Durham, NC)
; McBride; James L.; (Windham, ME) ; Sutherland;
Lisa A.; (Durham, NC) ; Vitagliano; John A.;
(Charlotte, NC) |
Assignee: |
GUIDING STARS LICENSING
COMPANY
Scarborough
ME
|
Family ID: |
38712269 |
Appl. No.: |
13/452395 |
Filed: |
April 20, 2012 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
13154032 |
Jun 6, 2011 |
|
|
|
13452395 |
|
|
|
|
11926727 |
Oct 29, 2007 |
7974881 |
|
|
13154032 |
|
|
|
|
11437315 |
May 19, 2006 |
|
|
|
11926727 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
434/127 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G16H 20/60 20180101;
G06Q 50/10 20130101; G09B 19/0092 20130101; G06Q 10/087
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
434/127 |
International
Class: |
G09B 19/00 20060101
G09B019/00 |
Claims
1-11. (canceled)
12. A computer-implemented method of assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, the computer-implemented method using a computer system
having (i) a plurality of computer-implemented functions, and (ii)
one or more databases, the computer-implemented method comprising,
for each food product, assigning a rating by: a) executing a data
gathering function and a data filtering function of the computer
system that stores in one or more of the databases nutritional data
for a plurality of nutritional quality attributes of each food
product, wherein caloric value is not an evaluated nutritional
quality attribute of the food product; b) establishing ranges of
nutritional quality attribute values for each nutritional quality
attribute, wherein nutritional quality attribute values are not
established for caloric content of the food product; c) assigning a
point value to each of the ranges of nutritional quality attribute
values to establish the relative importance of each of the ranges,
and storing the assigned point values in the one or more databases;
and d) executing a scoring function of the computer system that is
in communication with the one or more databases that (i) calculates
a total nutritional quality score for the food product based on the
point values of the nutritional quality attributes for the food
product and a scoring algorithm, and (ii) assigns a nutritional
value rating based on the total nutritional quality score, wherein
each nutritional value rating corresponds to a nutritional quality
score or a range of nutritional quality scores, and wherein the
same scoring algorithm and rating correlations are used for
different types of food products.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein the nutritional data is based on
a normalized serving size.
14. The method of claim 13 wherein the serving size is normalized
on a predetermined caloric value.
15. The method of claim 12 wherein the nutritional value rating is
a designation of stars.
16. The method of claim 15 wherein the designation of stars ranges
from zero to three.
17. The method of claim 12 wherein the nutritional quality
attributes include trans fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, added
sugars, added sodium, dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals and whole
grain.
18. The method of claim 12 wherein the scoring algorithm adds up
the assigned point values to obtain the nutritional quality
score.
19. The method of claim 12 wherein a first plurality of types of
food products uses a first correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, and a second plurality of types of food
products uses a second correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, the same nutritional value ratings
being used for the first and second plurality of types of food
products.
20. The method of claim 12 further comprising the step of executing
a reporting function of the computer system in communication with
the scoring function that presents the nutritional value rating for
each food product in a human readable printed form.
21. A computer-implemented system for assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, the computer-implemented system comprising: (a) a data
gathering function and a data filtering function of a computer
system that (i) stores in one or more databases nutritional data
for a plurality of nutritional quality attributes of each food
product, wherein caloric value is not an evaluated nutritional
quality attribute of the food product; and (ii) establishes ranges
of nutritional quality attribute values for each nutritional
quality attribute, wherein nutritional quality attribute values are
not established for caloric content of the food product; (b) one or
more of the databases of the computer system storing a point value
assigned to each of the ranges of nutritional quality attributes to
establish the relative importance of each of the ranges; and (c) a
scoring function of the computer system in communication with the
one or more databases that (i) calculates a total nutritional
quality score for the food product based on the point values of the
nutritional quality attributes for the food product and a scoring
algorithm, and (ii) assigns a nutritional value rating based on the
total nutritional quality score, wherein each nutritional value
rating corresponds to a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, and wherein the same scoring algorithm
and rating correlations are used for different types of food
products.
22. The system of claim 21 wherein the nutritional data is based on
a normalized serving size.
23. The system of claim 22 wherein the serving size is normalized
based on a predetermined caloric value.
24. The system of claim 21 wherein the nutritional value rating is
a designation of stars.
25. The system of claim 24 wherein the designation of stars ranges
from zero to three.
26. The system of claim 21 wherein the nutritional quality
attributes include trans fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, added
sugars, added sodium, dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals and whole
grain.
27. The system of claim 21 wherein the scoring algorithm adds up
the assigned point values to obtain the nutritional quality
score.
28. The system of claim 21 wherein a first plurality of types of
food products uses a first correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, and a second plurality of types of food
products uses a second correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, the same nutritional value ratings
being used for the first and second plurality of types of food
products.
29. The system of claim 21 further comprising a reporting function
of the computer system in communication with the scoring function
that presents the nutritional value rating for each food product in
a human readable printed form.
30. A computer program product for assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, wherein the computer program product includes
computer-readable instructions tangibly embodied on a
computer-readable medium that, when executed by a computer system,
uses the computer system to perform a method comprising, for each
food product, assigning a rating by: a. executing a data gathering
function and a data filtering function of the computer system that
i. stores in one or more databases nutritional data for a plurality
of nutritional quality attributes of the food product, wherein
caloric value is not an evaluated nutritional quality attribute of
the food product; and ii. establishes ranges of nutritional quality
attribute values for each nutritional quality attribute, wherein
nutritional quality attribute values are not established for
caloric content of the food product; b. assigning a point value to
each of the ranges of nutritional quality attributes to establish
relative importance of each of the ranges, and storing the point
values for each of the ranges in the one or more databases; and c.
executing a scoring function of the computer system that is in
communication with the one or more databases that i. calculates a
total nutritional quality score for the food product based on the
point values of the nutritional quality attributes for the food
product and a scoring algorithm, and ii. assigns a nutritional
value rating based upon the total nutritional quality score,
wherein each nutritional value rating corresponds to a nutritional
quality score or a range of nutritional quality scores, and wherein
the same scoring algorithm and rating correlations are used for
different types of food products.
31. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein the
nutritional data is based on a normalized serving size.
32. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the serving
size is normalized based on a predetermined caloric value.
33. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein the
nutritional value rating is a designation of stars.
34. The computer program product of claim 33 wherein the
designation of stars ranges from zero to three.
35. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein the
nutritional quality attributes include trans fat, saturated fat,
cholesterol, added sugars, added sodium, dietary fiber, vitamins,
minerals, and whole grain.
36. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein the scoring
algorithm adds up the assigned point values to obtain the
nutritional quality score.
37. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein a first
plurality of types of food products uses a first correlation
between each nutritional value rating and a nutritional quality
score or a range of nutritional quality scores, and a second
plurality of types of food products uses a second correlation
between each nutritional value rating and a nutritional quality
score or a range of nutritional quality scores, the same
nutritional value ratings being used for the first and second
plurality of types of food products.
38. The computer program product of claim 30 wherein the computer
readable instructions further perform a method comprising the step
of executing a reporting function of the computer system in
communication with the scoring function that presents the
nutritional value rating for each food product in a human readable
printed form.
39. A computer-implemented method of assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, the computer-implemented method using a computer system
having (i) a plurality of computer-implemented functions, and (ii)
one or more databases, the computer-implemented method comprising,
for each food product, assigning a rating by: a) executing a data
gathering function and a data filtering function of the computer
system that (i) analyzes nutritional data for a plurality of
nutritional quality attributes of the food product, wherein caloric
value is not an evaluated nutritional quality attribute of the food
product, to determine its relative importance with respect to the
nutritional value of the product; (ii) normalizes the nutritional
data for a predetermined caloric value to allow accurate comparison
of different food products; (iii) stores the normalized nutritional
data in the one or more databases including at least the Uniform
Product Code and the normalized nutritional data; and (iv)
establishes ranges of nutritional quality attribute values for each
nutritional quality attribute based on the normalized nutritional
data; b) assigning a point value to each of the ranges of
nutritional quality attributes to establish relative importance and
storing the point values for each of the ranges in the one or more
databases; and c) executing a scoring function of the computer
system that is in communication with the one or more databases that
(i) calculates a total nutritional quality score for the food
product based on the point values of the nutritional quality
attributes for the food product reflecting the food's value and a
scoring algorithm assessing amounts of at least trans fat,
saturated fat, cholesterol, added sugar, added sodium, dietary
fiber, vitamins, minerals and whole grain, and (ii) assigns a
nutritional value rating based on the total nutritional quality
score, wherein each nutritional value rating corresponds to a
nutritional quality score or a range of nutritional quality scores,
and wherein the same scoring algorithm and rating correlations are
used for different types of food products.
40. A computer-implemented method of assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, the computer-implemented method using a computer system
having (i) a plurality of computer-implemented functions, and (ii)
one or more databases, the computer-implemented method comprising,
for each food product, assigning a rating by: a) executing a data
gathering function of the computer system that stores in one or
more of the databases nutritional data for a plurality of
nutritional elements of each food product; b) using a caloric value
to normalize nutritional element values for the nutritional
elements for each food product and establishing ranges of
nutritional element values for each nutritional element, wherein
calories is not a nutritional element for which a range of
nutritional element values is established; c) assigning a point
value to each of the established ranges of nutritional element
values to establish the relative importance of each of the ranges,
and storing the assigned point values in the one or more databases;
and d) executing a scoring function of the computer system that is
in communication with the one or more databases that (i) calculates
a total nutritional quality score for the food product based on the
point values of the nutritional elements for the food product and a
scoring algorithm, and (ii) assigns a nutritional value rating
based on the total nutritional quality score, wherein each
nutritional value rating corresponds to a nutritional quality score
or a range of nutritional quality scores.
41. The method of claim 40 wherein the nutritional data is based on
a normalized serving size.
42. The method of claim 41 wherein the serving size is normalized
on a predetermined caloric value.
43. The method of claim 40 wherein the nutritional value rating is
a designation of stars.
44. The method of claim 43 wherein the designation of stars ranges
from zero to three.
45. The method of claim 40 wherein a first plurality of types of
food products uses a first correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores, and a second plurality of types of food
products uses a second correspondence between each nutritional
value rating and a nutritional quality score or a range of
nutritional quality scores.
46. The method of claim 40 wherein any food product that does not
have a minimum caloric value greater than zero is not included in
the plurality of food products rated.
47. The method of claim 40 wherein the nutritional elements are
classified into primary nutritional elements and secondary
nutritional elements.
48. A computer-implemented method of assigning nutritional value
ratings to a plurality of food products of the same and different
type, the computer-implemented method using a computer system
having (i) a plurality of computer-implemented functions, and (ii)
one or more databases, the computer-implemented method comprising,
for each food product, assigning a rating by: a) storing in one or
more of the databases nutritional data for a plurality of
nutritional elements of each food product; b) using a caloric value
to normalize nutritional element values for the nutritional
elements for each food product and establishing ranges of
nutritional element values for each nutritional element, wherein
calories is not a nutritional element for which a range of
nutritional element values is established; c) weighting nutritional
element values to assign relative importance to each nutritional
element of the plurality of nutritional elements for which ranges
of nutritional element values are established; d) assigning a point
value to each of the established ranges of nutritional element
values to establish the relative importance of each of the ranges,
and storing the assigned point values in the one or more databases;
and e) executing a scoring function of the computer system that is
in communication with the one or more databases that (i) calculates
a total nutritional quality score for the food product based on the
point values of the nutritional elements for the food product and a
scoring algorithm, and (ii) assigns a nutritional value rating
based on the total nutritional quality score, wherein each
nutritional value rating corresponds to a nutritional quality score
or a range of nutritional quality scores.
49. The method of claim 48 wherein the nutritional data is based on
a normalized serving size.
50. The method of claim 49 wherein the serving size is normalized
on a predetermined caloric value.
51. A computer-implemented method of assigning nutritional value
representations to a plurality of food products of the same and
different type, the computer-implemented method using a computer
system having (i) a plurality of computer-implemented functions,
and (ii) one or more databases, the computer-implemented method
comprising, for each food product, assigning a nutritional quality
score by: a) executing a data gathering function of the computer
system that stores in one or more of the databases nutritional data
for a plurality of nutritional elements of each food product; b)
using a caloric value to normalize nutritional element values for
the nutritional elements for each food product and establishing
ranges of nutritional element values for each nutritional element,
wherein calories is not a nutritional element for which a range of
nutritional element values is established; c) assigning a point
value to each of the established ranges of nutritional element
values to establish the relative importance of each of the ranges,
and storing the assigned point values in the one or more databases;
and d) executing a scoring function of the computer system that is
in communication with the one or more databases that calculates a
single total nutritional quality score representative of total
nutritional value for the food product based on the point values of
the nutritional elements for the food product and a scoring
algorithm.
52. The method of claim 51 wherein the nutritional data is based on
a normalized serving size.
53. The method of claim 52 wherein the serving size is normalized
on a predetermined caloric value.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] The present application is a continuation of, and claims
priority benefit in, U.S. nonprovisional application Ser. No.
11/437,315, filed May 19, 2006, entitled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR
ASSESSING, SCORING, GROUPING AND PRESENTING NUTRITIONAL VALUE
INFORMATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS" assigned to a common assignee. The
entire content of that priority application is incorporated herein
by reference.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] The present invention relates to retail food sales. In
particular, the present invention relates to characterizing the
nutritional value of foods in a standardized way, establishing food
nutritional value designations, and presenting that information in
a readily observable manner.
[0004] 2. Description of the Prior Art
[0005] Current literature documents the growing problems of
obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other diseases that may be
prevented or mitigated by healthy eating and lifestyle choices. The
public is inundated with information about the dangers of certain
types of foods and the benefits of others. It is difficult for
consumers to keep current with the latest research and to
synthesize that information into meaningful purchasing decisions at
the grocery store.
[0006] The retail food sales business is extremely competitive.
Because competition on price alone is not always possible or
effective, food retailers often look for other ways to distinguish
themselves from their competitors. Customer service is one of the
more effective ways for food retailers to compete. One such
customer service is providing information about the food products.
As consumers become more health-conscious, they are more inclined
to shop at food retailers that regularly provide helpful, accurate
and consistent information about the effects that the food products
being offered might have on consumer health.
[0007] Much of the information presented to the consumer at the
point of sale is inadequate for a number of reasons. The
information provided is not based upon one set of uniform
standards. Product packaging and marketing materials may or may not
contain information about healthy attributes of the products
depending upon the marketing strategy of the manufacturer. Even
when such information does appear, it may be incomplete, confusing
or inaccurate. Some such information consists of the endorsement of
the product by a health-related entity, for which the manufacturer
has paid a fee. Another type of such information consists of a
health designation based upon consideration of a very limited set
of criteria in order to produce a desired result. Some information
is simply nutritional data for selected nutrients, while other less
desirable ingredients are ignored.
[0008] It is also noteworthy that much of the information comes not
from the retailer, but from the manufacturer. Manufacturer's
designations are, by definition, limited to their own products and
do not provide information about competing products. This
limitation precludes a meaningful comparison of competing products
of different brands. Given the manufacturer's vested interest in
selling as many of its products as possible, consumers may question
the accuracy or completeness of the manufacturer's designations as
well.
[0009] Nor is it always practical for consumers to rely upon the
nutritional information and ingredient lists or lists of
nutritional data on product labels. To do so would require the
consumer to spend a significant amount of time reading and
analyzing the information on the product label. The nutritional
data are subject to manipulation by varying the serving size.
Because there is no standardized serving size, manufacturers may,
for example, artificially reduce the serving size to reduce the
quantity of kilocalories or fat disclosed on the label, thereby
making the product appear more healthy than it actually is. Relying
upon such lists can therefore be too time consuming and
unreliable.
[0010] Specific examples of existing methods of providing health
related information about food products illustrate many of these
shortcomings. Most methods involve the use of designations, often
consisting of a label alerting the consumer to a particular
characteristic of the product. For instance, the method employed by
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., a food retailer based in Rochester,
N.Y., ("Wegmans") uses 13 labels identifying characteristics such
as "gluten free", "vegan", "high fiber", and "heart healthy".
Wegmans only designates the products sold under its own brands, and
does not designate the products sold under other brands. Another
such system is the "smart shopping" certification offered by the
American Heart Association to certain manufacturers who choose to
participate in the program. This system "certifies" food products
as "heart-healthy". Certified food products may then display a
designation recognizable to consumers. Like the Wegmans method,
this system is not employed universally across different brands
because only the participating manufacturer's branded products are
graded. The vast majority of food products displayed in a grocery
store are therefore left ungraded. It is often impossible to use
such systems to compare the participating manufacturer's products
to competing products. These systems also rely upon a very limited
set of criteria. The heart healthy designation is given to any food
that contains fat, sodium, and cholesterol below a certain level
and at least one nutrient (vitamin A, C, calcium, iron, protein or
fiber) in an amount above a certain level. Many of the other
ingredients that affect health are not considered. That is, there
is not a comprehensive identification of overall potential effects
of the product on human health based on the complete nutritional
profile.
[0011] Another type of designation system involves providing basic
nutritional data without comprehensive analysis, such as the
nutritional information label required by the United States Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"), or labels that tout a certain
level of a certain ingredient or nutrient. Basic nutritional data
is information relating to the amounts of substances affecting
human health contained in the food product. The FDA label provides
the quantities of a government-established list of certain
nutrients contained in a serving size. The problem with these
methods is that they provide basic data only, and the consumer must
analyze that data to determine the potential health effects of the
product based on nutritional value. Certain substances that may
affect the health characteristics of a product may be omitted from
the nutritional data, but may appear on the ingredients list. It
might not be apparent or convenient for customers to consult both
lists. Another problem is that there is no standard serving size,
so the serving sizes on competing products could differ, which
would cause a misleading comparison between the two products unless
the consumer is savvy enough to adjust the data from one of the
products to account for the difference in serving size.
[0012] There are several limitations associated with such
conventional methods. First, they merely provide a single
particular characteristic designation rather than an overall
scoring system. Second, they do not score all food products. Third,
they do not provide comprehensive information at the point of sale.
Fourth, they rely upon limited criteria, and thus are subject to
the limitations of those criteria. Fifth, they are limited to
assessing a product characteristic that may affect one aspect of
healthiness rather than considering the food product as a whole for
a more complete sense of the possible nutritional value of the
product. Sixth, no standardization of serving size exists within
food product groups. What is needed is a system that addresses the
barriers that often prevent customers from making healthy
choices--inconsistency, inaccuracy, inconvenience and confusion.
There is therefore a great demand for a simple, comprehensive,
accurate, and easy to understand system of communicating to
consumers the relative nutritional values of food products at the
point of sale. It would be advantageous for a food retailer to
employ such a system as it would distinguish the food retailer from
its competitors and enable the food retailer to develop substantial
good will and loyalty with its customers.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0013] An objective of this invention is to provide a simple,
uniform, comprehensive, accurate, and reliable method of providing
nutritional value information to the consumer for food products at
the point of sale. Another objective of this invention is to
provide a method for food retailers to distinguish themselves from
their competitors and to create customer loyalty by offering such
reliable nutritional value information in which customers can have
confidence and upon which customers can rely. Another objective of
this invention is to provide a method for analyzing a product's
nutritional value as an aid to consumers in considering possible
health characteristics of the product that is also practical for
use by food retailers. Another objective of this invention is to
provide a method of scoring food for nutritional value in a way
that is useful to consumers.
[0014] These and other objectives are achieved by the present
invention, which is a food nutritional value navigation system to
make it easy for customers to find and buy products in retail food
stores having nutritional characteristics of interest to them. The
system generally includes an advisory panel, an algorithm for
uniform scoring of food products, a collection of nutritional data
about each food product suitable for use by the algorithm, an
appropriate assessment and weighting of the various categories of
information, a series of designations that communicate relative
nutritional values of the food products to consumers, a store-wide
system that scores products from all suppliers, and scoring for
prepared as well as pre-packaged foods. Prepared foods are those
made at the retailer's premises such as freshly baked breads or
freshly made sandwiches.
[0015] The advisory panel preferably has members with varied
backgrounds suitable for providing guidance for improving the
system and keeping it current with trends in nutrition and health
sciences. Serving sizes are standardized to enable effective
comparisons across brands. One way to standardize serving sizes is
to make them realistic in the sense that they reflect the amount of
the product that an average consumer is likely to consume at a
single meal. Alternatively, they may be normalized to a
predetermined weight or caloric value. For instance, for the sake
of analysis, all serving sizes can be normalized to 100
kilocalories. (It is to be understood that the word "kilocalories"
will be used throughout this description in any standardizing or
normalizing discussions, as being the same as what is generally
considered by the consuming public as "calories.") The scoring
algorithm takes the basic data from the collection of data, usually
a database, and computes a score. The weighting of the various
elements of the data used in the performance of the scoring
algorithm is reviewed and updated regularly. A simple and clear
system of designations, such as three stars for the best
nutritional value, two stars for better nutritional value, one star
for good nutritional value, and no star for foods with limited
nutritional value, is employed to communicate the scoring to
consumers. This system is also unique in that it covers all food
products in the store from all manufacturers and includes prepared
as well as packaged products. These and the other advantages of the
food nutrition scoring system of the present invention will become
more apparent upon review of the following detailed description,
accompanying drawings and appended claims.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0016] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the functional elements of the
system of the present invention.
[0017] FIG. 2 is a simplified diagrammatic representation of an
example computing system including the scoring system of the
present invention.
[0018] FIG. 3 is a simplified flow diagram representing the primary
steps of the method of the present invention.
[0019] FIG. 4 is a representation of a display featuring the three
star scoring designation.
[0020] FIG. 5 is a table illustrating an example matrix of
designated nutritional characteristics and weightings for the
specific values of those characteristics used in the algorithm to
establish food scoring information for general foods and
beverages.
[0021] FIG. 6 is a table illustrating an example matrix of
designated nutritional characteristics and weightings for the
specific values of those characteristics used in the algorithm to
establish food scoring information for meats, poultry, seafood,
dairy and nuts.
[0022] FIG. 7 is a chart for grouping assignments based on scores
calculated, showing ranges of scores associated with grouping
designations.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
[0023] The present invention is a food nutrition scoring system 10
represented functionally and diagrammatically in FIGS. 1 and 2, and
a related method 200, represented in FIG. 3, for offering food
products by retailers in a manner that provides meaningful,
consistent, and accurate information to consumers at the point of
sale. An example of the resulting output from the system 10 is
shown in FIG. 4.
[0024] The system 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes a data gathering
function 20, a data filtering function 30, data storing functions
40, a scoring function 50, and a reporting function 60. A computer
system 100 as shown in exemplar form in FIG. 2 is preferably used
as the means by which the functions described are performed. One or
more accessible databases 130 are used to store and query
information.
[0025] The data gathering function 20 may involve creating new data
or accessing existing data. Nutrition data may not exist for some
food products, especially prepared foods. Creating new data may
involve measuring and analyzing ingredients of food products.
Ingredient information may be used to determine nutritional
information. Data gathering may include one or more manual methods
such as recording information from product labels, or one or more
automated methods such as electronic data transfer or scanning to
input food nutrition information. It may be preferable to obtain
nutrition information from the product label for pre-packaged food
items. It may be possible to access existing data by licensing or
purchasing rights to access such existing data.
[0026] The data filtering function 30 involves analyzing the data
to determine its relative importance with respect to the
nutritional value of the product. This function may occur in
conjunction with the data gathering function 20 or after the data
gathering function is completed. It may be necessary to manipulate
the data to account for the proper serving size. Most product
labels display nutritional data per serving size. There is no
uniform standard for determining serving size. Two serving sizes
are generally identified: volume and/or unit quantity (e.g. one cup
of cereal or three cookies). The lack of uniformity hinders
comparison because serving size (and thus nutritional data) may be
inconsistent between products. Serving size therefore must be
normalized for the purpose of comparing products. Any adjustments
to the serving size would require a proportional adjustment to the
other nutritional data. For example, if one manufacturer provides
nutritional information for one cup of cereal and another for one
and one-half cups, the latter could be normalized to one cup, with
nutritional values reduced by 331/3 percent. The preferred method
of the present invention for normalizing the nutritional data for
comparison is to adjust for a predetermined number of kilocalories.
For instance, the nutritional data can be normalized to 100
kilocalories regardless of stated serving size. The data filtering
function 30 performs this optional function by normalizing to a
serving size of 100 kilocalories. Other normalizing functions may
be used.
[0027] The use of standardization or normalization to 100
kilocalories resolves several limitations associated with
standardization to the weight of a serving size. A preliminary
comparative analysis using manufacturer-provided serving sizes, a
universal serving size of 100 grams, and a kcal normalized serving
size that supplies 100 kilocalories, indicates that the kcal
normalized serving size may be optimal. The majority of dietary
recommendations made by the key health organizations are based on
percentages of the daily values of key macro- and micronutrients.
The percentages of the daily values in turn are based on fixed
caloric intakes. Thus in order to make the system of the present
invention most consistent with these recommendations, it follows
that the cutoffs used should likewise be linked to kilocalories
rather than weight. Moreover, when a fixed weight serving size is
used, many unrealistic serving sizes are evaluated. However,
normalization to a 100 kilocalorie serving size adjusts serving
sizes up or down inversely to caloric density. As higher caloric
density foods (i.e. oils) tend to be consumed in smaller portions
and vice versa, a 100 kilocalorie portion represents a more
realistic serving size for more foods. In addition, normalization
to a 100 kilocalorie portion can also be applied to beverages and
liquid products which are supplied in volume rather than weight
units. Using a commercially available yogurt product as an example,
if the manufacturer's serving size is shown to be 64 g (2.25 oz.),
and contains 80 kilocalories, to evaluate a normalized serving size
that contains 100 kilocalories, all information on the nutrition
facts panel would be multiplied by 1.25 (100 kcal/80 kcal).
[0028] The data storing function 40 preferably involves
transferring data to one or more databases. Data can be stored
after it is gathered and before it is filtered, or it can be
filtered first then stored. It is preferable that both are done.
Filtered data should preferably include at least the Uniform
Product Code ("UPC"), and the nutritional data per 100 kilocalories
of product as determined by the data filtering function 30. The
data are then extracted from the database and analyzed by the
scoring function 50. The data storing function 40 may also store
scoring information to one or more of the databases 130 after the
scoring function 50 is performed.
[0029] The scoring function 50 preferably includes an algorithm
that automatically computes a score of nutritional quality. The
algorithm may consider the amounts of the following substances in
the food product: trans fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, added
sugar, added sodium, dietary fiber, nutrient density and whole
grain. These substances are believed to be important to the overall
nutritional value of food products. Other substances or
combinations of substances may be used as the understanding of the
nutritional importance of such substances increases. For example,
the impact of omega-3 fatty acids, plant phytosterols,
monounsaturated fatty acid, live active cultures, nitrates,
nitrites, phytochemicals, and phosphates may be considered.
[0030] The results of the scoring are reviewed and revised as
necessary by the advisory panel to ensure the integrity of the
system. The preferred scoring system is composed of three
designations: three stars for the best nutritional value, two stars
for better nutritional value and one star for good nutritional
value. Foods with scores placing them below the one-star range
would have no star designation. More or less complex groupings and
designations may be included.
[0031] The reporting function 60 presents the scoring results in a
desirable manner. One such manner is a printed label bearing the
scoring designation that can be displayed along with the product at
the point of sale as illustrated in FIG. 4. FIG. 4 shows a tag 300
that can be displayed at the point of sale. The tag 300 shows the
product name 310, the Uniform Product Code ("UPC") 320, the price
330 and the scoring designation 340. The tag 300 may be removably
applied to a shelf 350 upon which the products 360 are presented
for sale. Other manners of displaying the scoring designations
include a sign, a printed or electronic report, package labels,
hand-held electronic device, and lists posted on the Internet or in
the store.
[0032] As illustrated in FIG. 2, a user of the system 10 may engage
in the evaluation of a food product through the computer system 100
that may be associated with local or remote computing means, such
as one or more central computers, such as server 110 in a local
area network, a metropolitan area network, a wide area network, or
through intranet and internet connections. The computer system 100
may include one or more discrete computer processor devices, such
as a desktop computer 120. The server 110, the computer processor
120, or a combination of both may be programmed to include one or
more of the functions of the system 10. One or more databases
represented by database 130 that may be associated with the server
110, the computer processor 120, other computing devices, or any
combination thereof, include information related to the use of the
system 10. The database 130 may be populated and updated with
information necessary for carrying out one or more of the functions
associated with the system 10. All of the devices may be
interconnected through one or more signal exchange devices, such as
router/switch 140.
[0033] In operation, a user of the system 10 inputs nutritional
information through one or more input devices, such as a keyboard
101, a mouse 102, or a combination thereof, as well as any other
input means suitable for directing information and requests to the
server 110 and/or the processor 120. The input information,
queries, and output information may be viewed on a computer display
103. Optionally, a local or remote printer 104 may be employed to
print out input information, query information, and/or output
information. It is to be noted that the system may be accessed and
used through other forms of hardware devices including, for
example, text/graphic scanner or reader inputs, touch-screen
technology, voice recognition/synthesis equipment, other
input/output devices, portable laptop, notebook, in-vehicle, or
handheld personal digital assistant (PDA) portable computer
devices, including those equipped for wireless communications, and
telephony devices, such as wireless phones and IP-based phones.
Other data collection and analysis systems may be employed.
[0034] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the method 200 of the present
invention embodied in the system 10, or other system with
equivalent functionality, aids retailers in providing food
nutritional value scoring information to consumers. A first
gathering and storing nutritional information step 202 can be
performed in many ways. For example, data from the product labels
can be entered into a computer device such as server 110 or
processor 120 using the keyboard 101 and mouse 102 or some similar
device. Data might also be available in electronic form from the
product manufacturer or other sources. Advisory panel input step
203, which may be associated with either or both of the data
filtering function 30 and/or the scoring function 50, involves
receiving input from a panel of knowledgeable individuals regarding
important nutritional elements of a food product and how each such
element should be valued. Preferably, the advisory panel assists in
the identification of nutritional element characteristics of food
products and in the development of the system 10 for analyzing the
data in a desirable way.
[0035] With continuing reference to FIG. 3, a data analysis step
204 associated with the data filtering function 30 to identify the
nutritional elements determined to be of value by the advisory
panel and, optionally, to standardize the gathered data to standard
serving sizes or to a standard caloric value. A store analyzed data
step 206 of the data storing function 40 includes transferring the
analyzed nutritional element information of importance to the
server 110, processor 120, and/or the database 130 for subsequent
manipulation in determining the nutritional scoring of the food
products selected for evaluation. The scoring of the food products
includes a weighting of nutritional values step 208 of the scoring
function 50 to assign relative importance to each of the
nutritional elements identified and stored in the store analyzed
data step 206. The weighting step 208 may assign a range of
calculation weighting values as desired and as preferably
recommended by the advisory panel. For example, a scale from 1 to
10 for a set of ten ranges of nutritional element values, a scale
of -3 to +3 for a set of seven ranges of nutritional element
values, or other type of scale may be assigned to weight the
particular nutritional elements determined to be of importance. An
example weighting matrix is presented in FIG. 5 and will be
described herein with respect to several scoring examples. Once
weighting values have been established, the nutritional element
values may be manipulated by a calculation algorithm to establish a
single score for the food product pursuant to a scoring step
209.
[0036] As noted, the step of weighting the values 208 involves
assigning greater or less relative value to the particular datum,
in the form of a nutritional element characteristic, under
consideration as a portion of the particular food product.
Weighting matrixes such as the examples shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 are
useful for that purpose. FIG. 5 shows a first example matrix for
general foods and beverages and FIG. 6 shows a second matrix for
meats, poultry, seafood, dairy and nuts. In the example matrixes,
seven primary nutritional elements of interest for any food product
are shown in the first column, and weightings are assigned to the
values of those nutritional elements dependent upon the particular
value or range of the value. Each element value range is weighted
by assigning a numerical point value to it. For instance, a general
food and beverage product having less than 120 mg of sodium and 3
grams of dietary fiber would be given a "0" and a "2" point,
respectively. This continues for all of the nutritional elements
established by the advisory panel. Detailed descriptions of the
particular nutritional elements used in the weighting matrices of
FIGS. 5 and 6 are provided herein. Additional optional nutritional
elements that may be considered but not specified in the examples
presented herein are also described in detail herein. The relative
overall nutritional value of a particular food product may then be
established using these matrixes, or ones like them, and carrying
out the scoring step 209.
[0037] The following detailed descriptions of the nutritional
elements preferably considered in assigning nutritional food
groupings are generally available from the product's Nutrition
Facts panel and are the subject of the matrixes of FIGS. 5 and 6.
Weightings of each are also described. [0038] 1. Trans fat--As of
Jan. 1, 2006, this element must be listed as trans Fat on the
Nutrition Facts panel of a product. If trans Fat is not listed on
the Nutrition Facts panel, but the words "partially hydrogenated"
(vegetable oil) appear in ingredient list, then food should be
awarded -2 points for this element. Trans Fats are included in the
model of the present invention because the Institute of Medicine
has concluded that there is no safe level of trans fats in the
diet. Moreover, numerous studies have shown that trans Fats have
adverse effects on blood lipids--raising LDL ("bad") cholesterol,
and lowering HDL ("good") cholesterol, thereby increasing the risk
of heart disease. FDA labeling regulations allow any amount <0.5
g to be listed as 0 grams on the Nutrition Facts panel. However, a
product must truly contain no trans Fat (0 grams listed on the
Nutrition Facts panel and the words "partially hydrogenated" do not
appear in ingredients) to get the best score (0 points). Foods that
list having 0 grams of trans Fat on the Nutrition Facts panel but
still contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are awarded -1
point. [0039] 2. Saturated fat--listed as Saturated Fat on
Nutrition Facts panel. In the general foods and beverages matrix of
FIG. 5, the food product must contain .ltoreq.1 g of this element
in order to receive the highest possible points, which is
consistent with the American Heart Association (AHA) certification
standards and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for a
food to be designated as healthy or low in saturated fat. In the
meats, poultry, seafood, dairy and nuts matrix of FIG. 6, the
criterion (.ltoreq.1.5 g) to receive the highest possible points is
more stringent than the AHA certification standards for meats and
seafood, and the FDA healthy criteria. Consumption of saturated fat
is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. [0040] 3.
Cholesterol--listed as Cholesterol on Nutrition Facts panel. In the
general foods and beverages matrix of FIG. 5, products must contain
.ltoreq.15 mg of cholesterol (5% DV) in order to not be penalized
with negative points. This criterion is more stringent than the AHA
certification standards and the FDA criteria for a food to be
considered healthy or low in cholesterol. Likewise, in the meats,
poultry, seafood, dairy and nuts matrix of FIG. 6, the criterion to
receive the highest possible points (.ltoreq.60 mg) is stricter
than the AHA certification standards for these types of foods, and
the FDA healthy definition. [0041] 4. Added sugars--refers to
added, caloric (nutritive) sweeteners only. This term does not
apply to naturally occurring, endogenous sugars or artificial
sweeteners. Sugars must be identified as an ingredient using one or
more of the keywords listed below. If a sugar or sweetener keyword
is flagged then the gram value listed as Sugars on the Nutrition
Facts panel is multiplied by 4 to arrive at the kilocalories
contributed by free sugars. This number is then divided by the
total number of kilocalories to obtain the percent of kilocalories
contributed by sugars.
[0042] Added sugars: [0043] Sugar [0044] Corn syrup [0045] High
fructose corn syrup (HFCS) [0046] High dextrose corn syrup [0047]
Dextrose or glucose [0048] Fructose or levulose [0049] Honey [0050]
Lactose [0051] Maltodextrin [0052] Maltose or malt sugar [0053]
Maple syrup or maple sugar [0054] Molasses [0055] Sucrose [0056]
Raw sugar [0057] Granulated sugar [0058] Brown sugar [0059]
Confectioner's sugar [0060] Dehydrated, evaporated or concentrated
cane juice [0061] Dehydrated, evaporated or concentrated beet juice
[0062] Invert sugar [0063] Turbinado sugar [0064] Sugar alcohols
[0065] Erythritol [0066] Hydrogenated glucose syrup [0067] Isomalt
[0068] Lactitol [0069] Malitol [0070] Maltitol [0071] Mannitol
[0072] Sorbitol [0073] Sorbitol syrup [0074] Xylitol [0075] Xylose
[0076] Tagatose [0077] Trehalose Foods are awarded the highest
possible points if they contain no added sugar. The remaining
criteria are based on the World Health Organization's
recommendation to limit added sugars to .ltoreq.10% of total
kilocalories, and the Institute of Medicine's recommendation to
limit added sugars to .ltoreq.25% of total kilocalories. In the
general food and beverages model (FIG. 5), any food item which
contains over 50% of kilocalories from added sugar receives minus
(-) 10 points to prevent it from receiving a star rating. [0078] 5.
Dietary fiber--listed as Dietary Fiber on Nutrition Facts panel. In
the general foods and beverages matrix of FIG. 5 products must
contain .gtoreq.3.75 g of fiber (15% DV) in order to receive the
highest possible score of 3. This threshold exceeds the FDA
standard for a food to be considered a good source of fiber. The
fiber element is removed from the meats, seafood, poultry and dairy
matrix of FIG. 6 as these foods do not naturally contain fiber.
[0079] 6. Added Sodium--listed as Sodium on Nutrition Facts panel.
This element does not penalize foods which naturally contain low
levels of sodium (i.e. green, leafy vegetables, and dairy
products). The sodium content of foods is only evaluated if
additional sodium (as sodium chloride) has been added to the
product by a food manufacturer or processor. Thus the keyword
"salt" must be listed as an ingredient. If this keyword is flagged,
then the gram value listed as sodium on the Nutrition Facts panel
is evaluated. For all foods and beverages, the criterion
(.ltoreq.120 mg-5% DV) for a product to be awarded the highest
possible points is slightly more conservative than the FDA standard
for a food to be considered low in sodium, and far exceeds the AHA
certification standards and the FDA healthy criteria. The remaining
cutoffs for fewer points are based on multiples of the 5% DV
benchmark. Any food item which contains over 600 mg of sodium per
100 kcal serving is given minus (-) 10 points to prevent it from
receiving a star rating. [0080] 7. Nutrient Density--pertains to
any vitamin (i.e. Vitamin A, Vitamin C) or mineral (i.e. Calcium,
Iron) that is permitted to be listed on the Nutrition Facts panel.
These are typically the last nutrients listed in the nutrient
section (often just below the last wide black bar), and are always
followed by a percentage. A manufacturer may opt to list any for
which the food item is a significant source.
[0081] Vitamins: [0082] Vitamin A [0083] Vitamin C [0084] Vitamin D
[0085] Vitamin E [0086] Vitamin K [0087] Biotin [0088] Thiamin or
thiamine [0089] Riboflavin [0090] Niacin [0091] Vitamin B.sub.6
[0092] Folic acid or folate [0093] Vitamin B.sub.12 [0094]
Pantothenate or pantothenic acid
[0095] Minerals: [0096] Calcium [0097] Chromium [0098] Copper
[0099] Fluoride [0100] Iodine [0101] Iron [0102] Magnesium [0103]
Manganese [0104] Molybdenum [0105] Phosphorus [0106] Potassium
[0107] Selenium [0108] Zinc The criterion used to receive the
highest possible points in this element is based on the AHA
certification standards and FDA healthy criteria, but is more
conservative in that the food must contain .gtoreq.10% of the DV
for two nutrients, rather than one. Moreover, the AHA and FDA
standards include fiber as a nutrient, while the present invention
includes fiber separately with its own weighting points. [0109] 8.
Whole grain--products which contain .gtoreq.51% whole grain
ingredients by weight are currently considered to be whole grain by
the FDA. To determine whether a product is whole grain, the product
must have .gtoreq.1.5 g fiber per 100 kcal serving and contain at
least one of the following key words in the ingredients:
[0110] Whole grains: [0111] Amaranth [0112] Brown rice [0113]
Buckwheat or kasha, buckwheat groats [0114] Cracked wheat or bulgur
or bulghur [0115] Emmer [0116] Farro [0117] Grano [0118] Kamut
[0119] Millet [0120] Milo [0121] Oatmeal [0122] Popcorn [0123]
Quinoa [0124] Sorghum [0125] Spelt [0126] Teff [0127] Triticale
[0128] Wheat berries [0129] Whole wheat (flour) [0130] Whole oat
(flour) [0131] Whole (grain) corn or cornmeal (yellow and white)
[0132] Whole rye [0133] Whole or rolled oats [0134] Wild Rice Whole
grain foods are awarded bonus points in keeping with the AHA, the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and Healthy People 2010
recommendations, which all recommend three servings of whole grains
per day. Whole grain foods are associated with many long term
health benefits including reduced risks of heart disease, diabetes,
stroke, and many forms of cancer.
[0135] The following are detailed descriptions of nutritional
elements that may optionally also be considered, with currently
known limitations in doing so noted. However, the present invention
contemplates the development of a matrix or matrixes incorporating
weightings for such optional nutritional elements as any
limitations noted are resolved. [0136] 1. Protein--may be included,
but is not currently for several reasons. Protein is not a focus of
any of the major health organizations nor is it included in any of
their dietary recommendations. The 2005 US Dietary Guidelines for
Americans likewise do not include specific recommendations for
protein. In the US, people generally over consume this
macronutrient. Thus, protein deficiency is extremely rare.
Additionally, protein is found in negligible or trace amounts in
many foods (i.e. produce, sweets). Thus it makes more sense to
consider protein as a component of the total diet, rather than as a
percentage of individual foods. Finally, there is presently no long
term data on the safety and health effects of increased protein
intake as recommended by many recent fad diets. [0137] 2. Total
fat--as is the case for protein, total fat is not a component of
the dietary recommendations of the major health organizations and
is thus not currently included in the weighting matrix described
herein. Focus has shifted away from total fat as many studies have
now shown that it is the type of fat in the diet, rather than the
total amount, that is linked with disease. In particular, trans
fats and saturated fats are associated with increased risk for
certain diseases while mono- and polyunsaturated fats are
associated with reduced risk. The key is to substitute these latter
"good" fats for the former "bad" fats. [0138] 3. Omega-3 fatty
acids--these important nutrients are not included as an element in
the scoring algorithm primarily due to feasibility issues. Omega-3
fatty acids are not currently listed on the Nutrition Facts panel
for food products. Moreover, they cannot be found in the ingredient
list if they naturally occur in a product (i.e., salmon, walnuts).
While the AHA does recommend including at least two servings of
fish per week (particularly fatty fish) to provide omega-3 fatty
acids, they do not include omega-3 fatty acids per se in their food
certification program, nor in their dietary recommendations. The
scoring algorithm may be modified to include these nutrients, as
they have documented anti-inflammatory and disease-fighting
properties, as information becomes more widely available. [0139] 4.
Monounsaturated fat--was omitted from the current algorithm as it
is not consistently listed on all products. (It is optional for
manufacturers to list this nutrient on the Nutrition Facts panel.)
However, the process of the present invention may be modified to
incorporate such information as it becomes available. [0140] 5.
Phytochemicals (i.e., polyphenols, lycopene)--were omitted from the
scoring algorithm for several reasons. There are many
phytochemicals known to have positive health effects and it is not
possible to create an objective and exhaustive list. Moreover, some
manufacturers create brand specific versions of phytochemicals, and
then give them a trademarked named which is used exclusively on
their products. One example is NutraFlora.RTM. (similar to inulin)
which is used in Silk soy milk brand products. Capturing all of
these keywords may be difficult for purposes of completeness.
Limited food data on particular phytochemicals may be found in the
USDA special interest databases. However, these databases are very
limited (<1000 foods each); thus, inclusion of this data would
unfairly award bonus points only to foods for which such
information is provided. As this data has not been incorporated
into the main USDA nutrient database, it has not been included in
the example scoring algorithm described herein. Further, there are
no standard dietary recommendations or requirements for
phytochemicals at this time. Thus any criteria used to assign
points in the scoring algorithm would have to be arbitrarily set.
However, the current algorithm could be modified to include such
phytochemicals. [0141] 6. Phosphates (phosphoric acid)--are too
pervasive in the food supply, and the evidence linking excessive
phosphorus consumption from soft drinks with diminished bone health
is equivocal at this time. Moreover, phosphoric acid is found
predominately in dark colored soft drinks but not in light colored
beverages. Thus inclusion of this element would make
lighter-colored sodas appear healthier than darker ones. However,
the current algorithm could be modified to include such additives.
[0142] 7. Live, active cultures--are omitted from the model as a
positive point because it is not possible at this time to ensure
that products listing these in their ingredients were meeting the
government-stipulated standard of identity. Per the FDA standard of
identity, in order for a refrigerated product to be called
"yogurt," it must be produced by culturing permitted dairy
ingredients with a bacterial culture, which contains Lactobacillus
bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. In addition to the use
of bacterial cultures required by the FDA standard of identity,
live and active culture yogurts may contain other safe and suitable
food grade bacterial cultures. Yogurts containing live and active
cultures must contain 100 million cultures per gram at the time of
manufacture, and frozen yogurt products must contain 10 million
cultures per gram at the time of manufacture. After reviewing
numerous yogurt items it was discovered that there are many
labeling differences among manufacturers. A number of manufacturers
list cultures in the ingredients; some do not list any cultures but
have opted to use the National Yogurt Association (NYA) Live &
Active Cultures seal which ensures the FDA standard; and some use
both. For example, the manufacturer of one sample lists the six
cultures used in their manufacturing and they meet the standard
(verified by calling their corporate office), but do not display
the NYA seal. Conversely, the manufacturer of a second sample does
not list the cultures in the ingredient panel, but does use the NYA
seal. However, the current algorithm could be modified to include
live, active cultures. [0143] 8. Phytosterols
(stanols/sterols)--the model omits as a positive point phytosterols
at this time, but could be modified to include them. The FDA
standard of identity and the scientific literature suggest that the
level of phytosterols needed to promote health could not be derived
from the Nutrition Facts Panel or ingredient list at this time and
that phytosterols, when added to food items such as margarine and
yogurt ("functional foods"), serve the primary purpose to act as a
cholesterol lowering agent. [0144] 9. Nitrates/nitrites--could be
used to reduce the algorithm score when listed in the ingredients.
At this time, however, the scientific literature suggests that the
negative risk associated with additive dietary nitrite/nitrate
consumption is inconclusive and that the necessary data cannot be
derived from the Nutrition Facts Panel or ingredient list.
Additionally a number of manufacturers have begun adding sodium
erythorbate or sodium ascorbate, antioxidants that inhibit the
nitrosation effect of nitrites on secondary amines, thereby
possibly reducing the negative risk associated with these
additives.
[0145] The scoring step 209 performed through the scoring function
50 preferably includes carrying out an algorithm to generate a
single numerical value or score based on the weighting points
assigned to the nutritional elements. The algorithm is a selectable
equation to determine a single score, which score is then assigned
a star designation. Specifically, using the scoring algorithm of
the scoring step 209 and either or both of the matrixes of FIGS. 5
and 6, the score for a particular food item is the total of the
points assigned by the matrix. A group assignment designation step
210 of the method 200 of FIG. 3 uses a chart, such as the chart of
FIG. 7, to assign group designations on the zero-to-three stars
format described herein based on the score calculated. Other group
assignment designations may be employed without deviating from the
scope of the invention.
[0146] Three example food products, each having its own particular
nutritional values, shown herein illustrate the scoring algorithm
using the matrixes of FIGS. 5 and 6, and the chart of FIG. 7. The
three examples are presented in table form herein, with Tables 1A
and 1B developed for a cereal product, Tables 2A and 2B for a soup
product, and Tables 3A and 3B for a popcorn product. For each of
the example products, the nutritional information taken from the
product's Nutritional Facts Panel is presented, along with the
nutritional information standardized/normalized to a 100
kilocalorie serving size, in the A table. The standardized
nutritional values for each product are then matched to the point
scoring matrix of the applicable ones of FIGS. 5 and 6, the points
established, and a final score are presented in the B table.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1A Nutrition Facts Panel Manufacturer Serving
Size: Standardized Serving Size 110.0 kilocalories 100.0
kilocalories (110.0 kcal) (100 kcal) Nutritional Element Name
Quantity (as shown) Quantity (as standardized) Saturated fat 0 g 0
g Trans fat 0 g 0 g Cholesterol 0 mg 0 mg Sodium 280 mg 254.6 mg
(12% of total DV) (11% of total DV) Dietary fiber 3 g (11%) 2.73 g
(10%) Sugars 1 g 0.9 g Protein 3 g 2.7 g Kilocalories (kcal) 15
13.6 from fat Total fat 2 g (3%) 1.8 g (3%) Potassium 95 mg (3%)
86.4 mg (3%) Total carbohydrate 22 g (7%) 20 g (6%) Other
carbohydrate 18 g 16.4 g Vitamin A 10% 9% Vitamin C 10% 9% Calcium
10% 9% Iron 45% 41% Vitamin D 10% 9% Copper 2% 2% Magnesium 10% 9%
Niacin 25% 23% Phosphorus 10% 9% Vitamin B12 25% 23% Vitamin B6 25%
23% Zinc 25% 23% Riboflavin 25% 23% Thiamin 30% 27% Folic Acid 50%
45%
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1B Element Nutritional Standardized Quantity
No. Element from Table A Points 1. Trans fat 0 g 0 2. Saturated fat
0 g 0 3. Cholesterol 0 g 0 4. Added sugar 3.6% -1 5. Dietary fiber
2.73 g 2 6. Added Sodium 254.6 mg -2 7. Nutrient density 8
nutrients (10% of DV) 3 8. Whole grain Yes 1 Total score 3
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2A Nutrition Facts Panel Manufacturer Serving
Size: Standardized Serving Size 200.0 kilocalories 100.0
kilocalories (200.0 kcal) (100 kcal) Nutritional Element Name
Quantity (as shown) Quantity (as standardized) Saturated fat 2 g 1
g (10% of DV) (5% of DV) Trans fat 0 g 0 g Cholesterol 10 mg (3%) 5
mg (2%) Sodium 1090 mg (45%) 545 mg (22%) Dietary fiber 3 g (12%)
1.5 g (6%) Sugars 0 g 0 g Protein 6 g 3 g Kilocalories (kcal) 70 35
from fat Total fat 8 g (9%) 4 g (6%) Total carbohydrate 26 g (9%)
13 g (4%) Calcium 2% 1% Iron 2% 1%
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 2B Element Nutritional Standardized Quantity
No. Element from Table A Points 1. Trans fat 0 g 0 2. Saturated fat
1 g 0 3. Cholesterol 5 mg 0 4. Added sugar 0% 0 5. Dietary fiber
1.5 g 1 6. Added Sodium 545 mg -3 7. Nutrient density 0 nutrients
(0% of DV) 0 8. Whole grain No 0 Total score -2
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3A Nutrition Facts Panel Manufacturer Serving
Size: Standardized Serving Size 110.0 kilocalories 100.0
kilocalories (110.0 kcal) (100 kcal) Nutritional Element Name
Quantity (as shown) Quantity (as standardized) Saturated fat 0 g 0
g Trans fat 0 g 0 g Cholesterol 0 mg 0 mg Sodium 250 mg 227.3 mg
(10% of total DV) (9% of total DV) Dietary fiber 4 g (16%) 3.64 g
(15%) Sugars 0 g 0 g Protein 3 g 2.7 g Kilocalories (kcal) 15 13.6
from fat Total fat 2 g (2%) 1.8 g (2%) Total carbohydrate 20 g (7%)
18.2 g (6%) Iron 4% 4%
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 3B Element Nutritional Standardized Quantity
No. Element from Table A Points 1. Trans fat 0 g 0 2. Saturated fat
0 g 0 3. Cholesterol 0 mg 0 4. Added sugars (N/A) 0 5. Dietary
fiber 3.64 g 2 6. Added Sodium 227.3 mg -1 7. Nutrient density 0
nutrient (0% of DV) 0 8. Whole grain Yes 1 Total score 2
[0147] Based on the scoring shown, the first food product, the
example cereal, has a score of 3, and from FIG. 7 as a "general
food", is to be designated in the grouping presenting a two-star
value. The second food product, the example soup, has a score of
-2, and from FIG. 7, is to be designated in the grouping presenting
a no-star value. Finally, the third food product, the example
microwave popcorn product, has a score of 2, and from FIG. 7, is to
be designated in the grouping presenting a one-star value.
[0148] As indicated, the steps of weighting of values (step 208)
and scoring and grouping them (steps 209 and 210) may be performed
by the scoring function 50 by including the recommendations of a
panel of experts in nutrition. This panel includes nutritionists,
researchers, doctors, professors, or others knowledgeable about
nutrition. The panel reviews the gathered nutritional data as
necessary for accuracy and provides advice about any changes and or
updates based upon the expertise of its members. The panel also
provides advice about the scoring and grouping system, including
developing or improving the method or algorithm for determining the
importance of particular nutritional elements. The panel may
provide its input regularly, periodically, or on an ad hoc basis.
This advice may be used to revise and update the scoring and
grouping system and the grouping designations of products as
necessary to keep them current.
[0149] It is to be understood that the number and type of the
primary nutritional elements and the secondary nutritional elements
may be different from the example sets shown in the matrix of FIG.
5, preferably dependent upon the recommendations of the advisory
panel. Moreover, the number of weighting sets may be increased or
decreased and the particular nutritional value ranges identified
may be adjusted. Further, the scoring algorithm may be changed to
adjust the importance of the primary or secondary nutritional
elements. The representative matrix and scoring algorithm discussed
herein is meant to be exemplar and not exhaustive.
[0150] Returning to FIG. 3, the step of assigning a group
designation 210 includes selecting the appropriate designation from
a predetermined list based upon the results of the scoring step
209. Designations may be as simple as the three-star system as
described herein or may involve alternative designations. The
groupings are then reported through the reporting function 60. The
reporting step 212 involves the transmission of the groupings in
usable form either in electronic form, orally, or in a written
document. The reporting step 212 may be performed remotely or
locally. The form of the report includes the designation assigned
pursuant to the group assignment designation step 210 and may
additionally include the output of the weightings of individual
nutritional components and the details of the calculation of
scorings using the algorithm of choice. The designations associated
with the calculated scorings are then displayed 214 at the point of
sale for the consumer to observe.
[0151] The steps described herein may be carried out through the
identified functions of the system 10 as electronic functions
performed through the computer system 100 based on computer
programming steps. The functions configured to perform the steps
described herein may be implemented in hardware and/or software.
For example, particular software, firmware, or microcode functions
executing on the computing devices can perform at least the data
gathering function 20, data filtering function 30, data storing
function 40, scoring function 50, and reporting function 60.
Alternatively, or in addition, hardware modules, such as
programmable arrays, can be used in the devices to provide some or
all of those functions, provided they are programmed to perform the
steps described.
[0152] The steps of the method of the present invention,
individually or in combination, may be implemented as a computer
program product or as computer-readable signals on a
computer-readable medium, for example, a non-volatile recording
medium, an integrated circuit memory element, or a combination
thereof. Such computer program product may include
computer-readable signals tangibly embodied on the
computer-readable medium, where such signals define instructions,
for example, as part of one or more programs that, as a result of
being executed by a computer, instruct the computer to perform one
or more processes or acts described herein, and/or various
examples, variations and combinations thereof. Such instructions
may be written in any of a plurality of programming languages, for
example, Java, Visual Basic, C, or C++, Fortran, Pascal, Eiffel,
Basic, COBOL, and the like, or any of a variety of combinations
thereof. The computer-readable medium on which such instructions
are stored may reside on one or more of the components of system 10
described above and may be distributed across one or more such
components. Further, the steps of the method represented in FIG. 3,
may be performed in alternative orders, in parallel and
serially.
[0153] It is to be understood that various modifications may be
made to the system 10 and related method without departing from the
spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, other embodiments
are within the scope of the claims appended hereto.
* * * * *