The Tufts Food Compass is a comprehensive nutrient profiling system developed by researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. This system aims to provide a single, objective score for nearly any food item, guiding consumers, policymakers, and the food industry toward healthier dietary choices. It synthesizes complex nutritional science into an easily understandable metric for widespread application.
How the Food Compass Works
The Food Compass assigns a score ranging from 1 to 100, with 100 representing the most healthful food. This score is determined by a unique algorithm that assesses foods across 54 attributes within nine distinct domains. These domains include nutrient ratios, vitamins, minerals, food-based ingredients, additives, processing, specific lipids, fiber and protein, and phytochemicals. Each attribute contributes to the overall score, with beneficial attributes scoring from 0 to 10, harmful attributes from -10 to 0, and attribute ratios from -10 to 10.
The algorithm calculates an average score for each domain, and these domain scores are then summed to produce the final Food Compass Score. While all nine domains contribute to the final score, not all are weighted equally in the calculation. For instance, the domains of specific lipids, fiber and protein, and phytochemicals contribute half the weighting compared to the other six domains. Foods are assessed per 100 kilocalories, providing a standardized basis for comparison across diverse items.
Understanding the Food Compass Scores
The Food Compass categorizes foods into three main groups based on their scores. Foods scoring 70 or higher are categorized as those to be encouraged, indicating high healthfulness. Examples in this top tier include most raw fruits like raspberries and avocados, which receive a perfect score of 100. Whole-oat cereals also score highly, reaching 95.
Foods with scores between 31 and 69 are designated for moderate consumption. This category includes items like a baked potato (69), some cheeses (29-44), and low-sodium bacon (31).
The lowest category comprises foods with scores of 30 or below, recommended for minimization. This group includes items like ground beef (26) and cured pork chops (20).
Criticisms and Controversies
The Food Compass has faced considerable public and scientific scrutiny since its introduction, primarily due to its unconventional scoring outcomes. A significant point of contention arises from the system’s weighting, which critics argue can result in highly processed, fortified foods receiving higher scores than many minimally processed, whole foods. For example, Frosted Mini-Wheats, a processed cereal, scores 87, while ground beef, a less processed food, scores 26.
The system’s approach to animal products has also drawn criticism, particularly the low scores assigned to items like eggs, cheese, and beef. These lower scores are attributed to the system’s emphasis on limiting saturated fat content, which critics argue overlooks the broader nutrient density of these foods. For instance, a boiled or poached egg scores 51, placing it in the moderate consumption category, while cheddar cheese scores 28, suggesting it should be minimized.
Concerns have also been raised that the algorithm may not adequately penalize foods for being “ultra-processed,” leading to processed items with added vitamins and minerals outranking more natural options. This has led to questions from critics regarding the potential for industry influence on nutritional science, especially given that some companies whose products score highly have provided financial support to Tufts University.
The Intended Purpose and Application
Beyond individual consumer guidance, the creators of the Food Compass envision its application in broader public health and policy initiatives. The system is designed to inform public policy decisions, such as setting nutritional standards for federal food programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). By providing an objective measure of food healthfulness, it could help shape the types of foods accessible through these programs.
The Food Compass is also intended to guide institutional food choices, establishing healthier menus and procurement guidelines for schools, hospitals, and corporate cafeterias. It aims to influence the dietary patterns of large populations. Additionally, the Food Compass seeks to incentivize food manufacturers to reformulate their products, encouraging them to create items that achieve higher scores by improving their nutritional profiles.