New nutrition score makes nutritious products more visible

In an article recently published in the leading Journal of Nutrition, the authors propose a new nutrition score designed to assess food on multiple levels: not just on energy or on one or more individual nutrients, but on the combined nutritional value of all beneficial components.[1] The core idea matters from all sorts of perspectives: a food is only truly valuable if it does good on several fronts at once.

Towards a smarter Nutri-Score

The new Nutritional Value Score (NVS) was developed to rank foods better according to their nutrient density. This means the score looks at how many useful nutrients a product provides relative to the whole. Think of vitamins, minerals, protein and n-3 fatty acids (essential polyunsaturated fatty acids) – and not just "how much is in it?", but above all "what does it contribute?". Nutrients are given the most weight when deficiencies in them are most widespread and have the greatest consequences for public health.

That is a big difference from systems that mainly look at one or more negative factors, such as sugar or fat. A product can be low in sugar but also not very nutritious.

Widely established nutrition scores such as Nutri-Score greatly simplify nutritional value. That is inherent to such scores, but important nuances can get lost: nutrient density, the bioavailability of nutrients, and the fact that some energy-rich products actually contain many valuable nutrients. Especially for products such as nuts, fish, dairy or organ meats, such a label can give too narrow a picture of their real nutritional value.

These consumer-facing systems are usually intended as a comparison tool within a single product group, while consumers quickly see the label as an overall verdict on health. Moreover, it is rarely clear what that product group is.

Many commonly used nutritional value indexes calculate nutritional value per calorie. This can underestimate the value of nutritious but energy-rich products.

Just as striking is that many systems do not take into account differences in the bioavailability of important nutrients, such as iron, zinc and essential amino acids. In addition, many indexes also include nutrients of limited public health relevance, including phosphorus and dietary cholesterol.

Finally, the health focus is often on limiting nutrients rather than on nutrient ratios – and the latter are often better predictors of health outcomes.

How the score is built

The NVS rewards food not so much because it happens to have one strong point, but mainly when it performs well on several nutritional dimensions at once. The more positive properties come together, the higher the score. The score works as a weighted combination of seven normalised nutritional characteristics. Vitamins and minerals receive the greatest emphasis, at 20% each, followed by protein at 12.5% and n-3 fatty acids at 10%. Other components make up the rest of the score.

Normalisation means that each nutrient is put on a common scale, so that vitamins don't automatically dominate everything just because they are measured in different units from protein or fat. Without normalisation, a score could become skewed and rate a food unjustly high or low. With normalisation, the system can determine which product offers the best overall package of nutritional value.

• A handful of nuts can provide relatively large amounts of healthy fats and some minerals.
• A portion of legumes can provide plenty of protein and minerals.
• Vegetables can be rich in vitamins and minerals, but contain less energy and protein.

What scores well?

In short, the score shows where foods are strong on several fronts at once. The best performers were organ meats, dark green leafy vegetables, fish and shellfish. Soft drinks, grain-based baked goods, instant noodles, packaged ultra-processed snacks and refined grains scored lowest. Not very surprising for many, but the reasons for high scores vary:

• Salmon scores highly thanks to protein combined with n-3 fatty acids.
• Lentils score highly thanks to protein, minerals and fibre-rich nutritional quality.
• Many dark green vegetables score thanks to vitamins and minerals.
• Fortified dairy scores well thanks to a combination of protein, calcium and other micronutrients.

It is also important that no single food scores highly on all components. Spinach, with the third-highest score, scores highly on most components but has an n-3 score of only 10. The foods with the highest vitamin scores are organ meats and dark green leafy vegetables, including spinach. The foods with the highest overall nutritional value scores are fish and shellfish (especially dried varieties), dried okra, organ meats, dark green leafy vegetables and game.

Not unimportant for paleo fans: foods of animal origin, especially organ meats, generally score better on the NVS scale than on the Nutri-Score scale. Starchy staples (especially refined grains), fruit, legumes, nuts and seeds, and vegetables other than dark leafy greens, on the other hand, generally score better on the Nutri-Score scale.

Implications

The NVS is not designed as a front-of-pack label. It produces a continuous score that, for now, is mainly intended to inform policy and programme decisions. Translating the NVS into a consumer label would require simplification, and that is still some way off.

In the meantime, the development of scores like the NVS does make us think about the definition of healthy food. Instead of asking "is this low in fat?" or "is this low in sugar?", an essential question is: "How much real nutritional value does this product offer as a whole?"

The added value of this question lies in the shift from an anti-negative to a pro-positive evaluation of food. Many labels and rating systems mainly tell you what to limit. Scores should perhaps rather indicate what you should value.

In short, scores are not just a calculation tool; they reflect a way of thinking. Their development invites us to see nutrition as the sum of valuable contributions, where the best products are not merely "less bad", but actually bring a lot of good.

Reference

[1] Beal, Ty, and Flaminia Ortenzi. "Nutritional Value Score Rates Foods Based on Nutrient Density and Noncommunicable Disease Prevention." The Journal of Nutrition (2026): 101443.