Nutriscore ''the downside''

Nutriscore ''the downside''

Nutriscore works on points, where the negatives add points and positives deduct points. This suggest that a lack of a certain positive (e.g. fibers) can be compensated by having less from the negatives:

•           Energy
•           Saturated fat
•           Sugar
•           Salt

In this case target 2 in 1 would be the easiest: reducing fat and reducing calories at the same time: as every gram of fat will bring about 9 Kcal, carbohydrates and proteins contribute 4 Kcal. Lower calorie nutrionals are fibers, polyols which roughly are calculated at 2 Kcal.

So theoretically replacing fats would have the highest effect, if done by carbohydrates a reduction of 50% of calories per gram of taken out fat could be possible, but by fibers close to 80% might be possible.

There is however a limit on the amount you can take away in fat in our bakery products in order not to effect taste and/ or structure of your finished product. T overcome the structural effect of assuming a fat reduction of about 30%; several emulsifiers can aid in distributing the remaining fat so that it will hardly (or even not at all) be noticed. The most used emulsifier in e.g. biscuits for this purpose would be DATEM or E472e; allowing you in the example to take out about 5-6 grams of fat, cutting calories around to 30 Kilocalories per 100 gram if you choose to compensate for the input by a low calorie bulk ingredient. To make a significant impact additional reduction is required…5-10% calorie reduction is not much.

So other reductions might be required, but consider the potential shelf life conflict that arises on reducing salt and sugar. By using other salts (such as potassium chloride or Magnesium chloride, a combination or a natural source ( ‘seasalt’; with a combo of potassium, magnesium and sodium based chloride)) functionality and taste can be (partly) compensated. Sugar alternatives are partly constrained in use, and dosage (as some can facilitate a laxative effect).

Recent posts