Difference between revisions of "Nutri-Score does not distinguish between white and brown rice"

From Open Food Facts EN
Jump to: navigation, search
(Adapting conclusion)
(Status)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Although this is a comment on the dutch TV news, it might be relevant to other countries and languages. It is an argument that could be used other suppliers as well.
 
Although this is a comment on the dutch TV news, it might be relevant to other countries and languages. It is an argument that could be used other suppliers as well.
 
== Status ==
 
== Status ==
Draft (nl) - [[Factcheck: witte versus bruine rijst]]
+
* Draft (nl) - [[Factcheck: witte versus bruine rijst]]
 +
* Draft (en) - [[Analysis of the rice category]]
 +
 
 
== Date ==
 
== Date ==
 
5 june 2019
 
5 june 2019

Latest revision as of 09:47, 12 June 2019

Trigger

When writing the wikipedia-entry on Nutri-Score, I noticed a comment by an industry representative that Nutri-Score is not good, because it could not distinguish between white and brown rices. So I though is that true? OFF can help to resolve the question.

Brown rice has indeed Nutri-Score A. For white rice it can be either Nutri-Score A or Nutri-Score B, that depends on the amount of fibre: sometimes it is 0g and more often even not mentioned. However any fibre gives white rice a Nutri-Score A.

It is interesting that she picks this category and downplays the importance of Nutri-Score based on this extremely small sample. There are 22.000 categories now on OFF. And if the industry really thinks that fibre is important, they should put it in the list of nutritionel values and add a label "source of fibre" (only 3 do this).

Author

On slack: aleene, with help of Inge.

Languages

Although this is a comment on the dutch TV news, it might be relevant to other countries and languages. It is an argument that could be used other suppliers as well.

Status

Date

5 june 2019