PLBuyer: Nutritional Scoring Tool Introduced - and Challenged

The simplicity of the ONQI rating system, along with its being independent are appealing. Point systems offered by manufacturers could be seen as being biased.

Consumers want more information about the healthfulness of food. This system offers that opportunity. Consumer reaction will tell us whether or not ONQI will succeed.

Max Goldberg, Founding Partner, The Radical Clarity Group

Topco's program seems okay, but so do most of the others out there. No doubt there will be still more. As for when retailers might adopt a single standard, I will again trot out my favorite little Russian saying, "When the lobster whistles on the hill." But I wish FMI would put this on its "to do" list anyway, and at least make an effort.

Warren Thayer, Editor & Managing Partner, Frozen & Dairy Buyer

Another label to confuse an already confused customer? There needs to be one universal standard that vendors subscribe to and that customers can easily understand.

Doron Levy, President, TheMortgageMachine.ca

It sounds like ONQI (the first thing is a new name) answers half the question. If it could be combined with some kind of "JD Powers Award" for how customers liked the product, then you would have the total answer. Consumers know that ice cream is not the best thing for them, but they don't want to trade taste and overall satisfaction for a ho-hum experience. If you're going to break the rules you want to really enjoy it.

Having said that, any quantitative product evaluation will help private label. By giving the consumer an unbiased measure of product quality they will be able to remove hype from their decision making. The challenge of course is that those products with a high ONQI may not be the most satisfying and those with the worse ONQI will simply not publish it. It will take a lot of effort to make people aware and responsive to this new information.

Bill Bittner, Principal, BWH Consulting

If we can keep the consumer in a constant state of anxiety over every single thing they eat, do we win?

'SMWeiss'

With food scientists constantly updating and changing the different benefits that different foods offer, from vitamins & minerals to antioxidants to phytochemicals, I wonder how realistic it is to have a single score per food item. While there are those that appreciate a simple, easy to understand scoring system, sooner or later people will realize that everyone is unique and therefore will have unique needs. Regardless of the score of peanut butter, if you're allergic, you won't buy it.

While I believe having a dialogue about the benefits that different foods provide is the right dialogue, the final solution will likely need more than a single score system.

'kekus'

Seems like a candidate for government endorsement and enforcement, eventually. It looks like a way to make the nutrition facts already required actually mean something to consumers.

I observe other shoppers when I'm at the grocery store, and rarely see anyone spending time reading labels at shelf. Are they waiting until they get home to decide whether or not to consume their purchases? My own unscientific research leads me to hypothesize that a time-saving nutrition label would be a great idea. The cereal aisle is already headed in that direction.

'BrandWatcher'

ONQI is another business in a long history of food certification. Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, kosher and halal inspection, Guiding Stars: they're all marketing levers used to increase sales. Given the wide variety of audiences, no single endorsement works for everyone or every product. If the fees are low, and there's room on the label, the CPG firm can get many certifications and endorsements. There's an apple juice brand with 2 different kosher certifications. Maybe RetailWire could run a contest: who can find the product with the most endorsements on 1 package? First prize: you have to eat it. Second prize: you have to eat more of it.

Mark Lilien, Consultant, Retail Technology Group