Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 14;16(6):827.
doi: 10.3390/nu16060827.

The Nutri-Score Scale-A Tool for Assessing the Nutritional Quality of Processed Meat Products Available on the Polish Market

Katarzyna Czech-Załubska  1 , Anna Didkowska  1 , Daniel Klich  2 , Agnieszka Jackowska-Tracz  1 , Joanna Zarzyńska  1 , Krzysztof Anusz  1
Affiliations

The Nutri-Score Scale-A Tool for Assessing the Nutritional Quality of Processed Meat Products Available on the Polish Market

Katarzyna Czech-Załubska et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Although meat and meat products are important sources of protein in the human diet, consumption appears to be a predisposing factor in the onset of several civilisation diseases, particularly red meat and its products. One way to reduce diet-related diseases is to guide consumers towards consciously purchasing healthier foods by including a nutrition declaration on product labels, such as by using a "front-of-pack" (FOP) labelling system. This study aimed to determine the Nutri-Score classes for processed meat products, distinguish products that are potentially better for consumers, and determine whether the refined algorithm significantly contributed to a change in product classification. An analysis of the labels of 1700 products available on the Polish market indicated that most processed meat products qualified as class D and E. Comparing the refined Nutri-Score calculation algorithm with the original algorithm resulted in a slight change in product allocation. Poultry products were ranked more favourably than red meat products. The most significant change in product allocation (by 35.2%) was achieved by reducing salt content by 30% and fat content by 10%. Among the processed meat products, some are more highly ranked and are hence considered better from a nutritional perspective than others in that group.

Keywords: Nutri-Score; Polish market; front-of-pack labelling system; processed meat products.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Technological and assortment groups of processed meat products analysed during the research.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Nutri-Score distribution among yjr analysed processed meat products from the Polish market.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overall distribution of products within the different food groups according to the refined algorithm. Horizontal lines represent the cut-offs of the five-category Nutri-Score. The box boundaries indicate the 25th percentile (lower boundary) and 75th percentile (top boundary), and the line within the box marks the median. Whiskers (error bars) at the bottom and top of the box indicate the minimum and maximum values.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average nutritional value in grams per 100 g of processed meat products according to their type.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The average number of points awarded in particular categories during the assessment of nutritional value according to the Nutri-Score algorithm.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Nutri-Score distributions in the four food groups of smoked meats, sausages, offal meats, and other meat products: (a) smoked poultry meats, (b) smoked red meats, (c) poultry meat sausages, (d) red meat sausages, (e) offal poultry meat products, (f) offal red meat products, (g) other poultry meat products, and (h) other red meat products.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Nutri-Score distributions in the four food groups of smoked meats, sausages, offal meats, and other meat products: (a) smoked poultry meats, (b) smoked red meats, (c) poultry meat sausages, (d) red meat sausages, (e) offal poultry meat products, (f) offal red meat products, (g) other poultry meat products, and (h) other red meat products.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Modifications in product allocations between the Nutri-Score classes depending on the selected formulation change scenario.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Probability (and CIs) of flavour enhancers being present against salt content in the meat products.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Geiker N.R.W., Bertram H.C., Mejborn H., Dragsted L.O., Kristensen L., Carrascal J.R., Bügel S., Astrup A. Meat and Human Health—Current Knowledge and Research Gaps. Foods. 2021;10:1556. doi: 10.3390/foods10071556. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Laskowski W., Górska-Warsewicz H., Kulykovets O. Meat, Meat Products and Seafood as Sources of Energy and Nutrients in the Average Polish Diet. Nutrients. 2018;10:1412. doi: 10.3390/nu10101412. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thornton P.K. Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biol. Sci. 2010;365:2853–2867. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0134. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Daniel C.R., Cross A.J., Koebnick C., Sinha R. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:575–583. doi: 10.1017/S1368980010002077. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pan A., Sun Q., Bernstein A.M., Schulze M.B., Manson J.E., Willett W.C., Hu F.B. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011;94:1088–1096. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.018978. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.

LinkOut - more resources