Beyond the Food Label: Nutrient Profiling the Indian Nutrient Databank Comparing WHO South-East Asia and NRF 9.3 Scores to Inform Public Nutrition Policy
| dc.contributor.advisor | Drewnowski, Adam | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gurudatta, Greeshma | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-09-16T18:32:38Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026-09-16 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026 | |
| dc.description | Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2026 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study applied different nutrient profiling models to the Indian Nutrient Databank (INB), to classify and describe Indian foods. The INB is a database of home-cooked recipes and dishes (rather than packaged, branded products) including 1014 foods, 940 of which met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Foods were organized using a novel “What We Eat in India” food categorization scheme (broad food groups, each with more specific subgroups) comprising of 11 food groups and 28 subgroups[PC1.1]. Two nutrient profiling (NP) methods were applied: the dichotomous (pass/fail[PC2.1]), meaning a food is classified as passing or failing category-specific nutrient thresholds, World Health Organization for South-East Asia Region (SEARO) NP model and the continuous Nutrient Rich Food (NRF) 9.3 nutrient-density score. The WHO model uses 100 g as the base of calculation; the NRF 9.3 system uses 100 kcal. Under the WHO SEARO model, only 27.1% of foods passed; total fat was the leading driver of failure (52.2% of foods), followed by total sugar (30.5%). Under NRF 9.3, most foods scored negative (mean -39.0; 20% positive), indicating most foods had more factors to limit (Fat, sugar and sodium) then nutrient to consume. Vegetables were the only food group with a positive mean. The two models showed agreement on 80.1% of foods. Some foods eaten in small portions were penalized in the WHO SEARO model because of the per 100 g basis. These findings show that NP models can be applied to recipes for home-cooked foods and not just to packaged processed foods as home preparation does not inherently confer a more favorable nutrient composition[PC3.1]. Further, the base of calculation (100 g vs 100 kcal) can alter nutrient density scores, as can the choice of index nutrients; nutrient profiling models should credit beneficial (encourage) nutrients as well as flag nutrients to limit, rather than accounting for only one side of a food's nutrient content. NP models that include typical recipes can provide a more complete basis for nutrition policy in India. | |
| dc.embargo.lift | 2028-09-05T18:32:38Z | |
| dc.embargo.terms | Restrict to UW for 2 years -- then make Open Access | |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier.other | Gurudatta_washington_0250O_30254.pdf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1773/57849 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.rights | none | |
| dc.subject | Indian home cooked recipes | |
| dc.subject | Nutrient profiling | |
| dc.subject | Nutrient rich model | |
| dc.subject | WHO SEA nutrient profiling | |
| dc.subject | Nutrition | |
| dc.subject | Public health | |
| dc.subject.other | Nutritional sciences | |
| dc.title | Beyond the Food Label: Nutrient Profiling the Indian Nutrient Databank Comparing WHO South-East Asia and NRF 9.3 Scores to Inform Public Nutrition Policy | |
| dc.type | Thesis |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- Gurudatta_washington_0250O_30254.pdf
- Size:
- 385.78 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
