In Europe, there is a “Nutri-Score” right on the front of the packaging. Colorful letters tell the customer if the food/product is A-B (Good/Organic) or D-E (Bad/ultra-processed). I’m a teenager and have more knowledge of nutrition than a lot of people my age, it makes me sad, but that is why this could be a great system. Not only to educate but to use colorful signs to promote simple and clean ingredients in everyday products, especially food. A lot of people don’t check the nutrition label (on the back), but the scoring on the front could make the consumer think twice about eating that chocolate bar. If the product is run through the correct regulations (which also needs to be monitored because big brands could pay off companies or use loophole terms to get better rankings) then I think this could be a good system. Lots of people are uneducated on this massive epidemic of sneaky, ultra-processed foods, and this might be one step closer to getting more people aware, and brands to use better ingredients so they can get a higher ranking.
Initially I like the idea but have some reservations. From what little research I have done on Nutri-Score and NOVA, a different food rating system, they both focus on nutritional value only.
From the article " Guide to understanding the Nutri-Score and NOVA Classification.".
“The Nutri-Score has been subjected to scientific scrutiny through epidemiological studies on the basis of real-life situations and has proved to be a praiseworthy tool that aims to guide consumers towards making healthier choices – which could contribute to curb the current trend in disease and obesity. However, the minimalist nature of the Nutri-Score is viewed by many as much a weakness as a strength as it does not take into account the degree of food processing, nor the presence of additives such as artificial sweeteners and coloring. Yet the health potential of foods lies beyond its nutritional composition; it also (and mostly) depends on the physical structure, the bioactive compounds and the degree of transformation of the food- all of which has an impact on metabolism (satiety, speed of food release, etc.).”
(Note: I am not sure I understand the part about not taking into account food processing, but it is their article.)
Also the systems do not seem to take into consideration sickness potential, raw milk ( can carry dangerous germs such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Campylobacter, and others that cause foodborne illness, often called “food poisoning), prepackaged salads ( raw vegetables - processing, not the ingredient cause the problems), and cost, ease of use, taste ( Why does McDonald sell so many burgers - (fast, taste good, and until recently they were inexpensive), etc…
It is always still up to the consumer, but if a system could be developed that eliminates all of the “backroom deals” inherent with big money and big corporations, and give the consumer really good information, I am 100% behind your proposal.
I agree! I think if there were already regulations in place for some absurd ingredients and ways foods are grown, more bans on certain foods would take care of a lot of concerns. Instead, it should be scored on the quality, type of food, and levels of processed food classification. For example (A) for bananas, dates… and (D) for sugar, food dyes … and how is the item cooked. Fried food or baked? Baked is better! There are tons of different factors, I think the reason why the Nutri-score stood out to me is how visible it was on the package hopefully leading to be a good tool for people who don’t know much about what is in their food. Without educating others no change will be made!
Thank you so much for taking the time to look into my idea!
I think your idea is an excellent one. Bob also brings up some interesting points about how we might ‘fine tune’ the scoring to include other health factors, but in order to get some sort of elementary system off the ground while keeping the business interests from distorting the values for corporate gain, I think starting out with nutritional metrics for score derivation would be an excellent beginning. We should be able to spot the color-coded numbers on the packaging from two feet away, presented in clear view (not microscopically on the underside of the package, half-concealed beneath folded cardboard flaps) This sort of system would tie nutritional benefits to corporate profits and create added competition in the food market space.
Side note : For example, we could assign a negative numerical weight to genetically-modified ingredients (as a percentage of net total dry weight of product), or a bright red color to foodstuffs that have been modified to include mRNA vaccines or other lab-driven artificial medicinal properties. I would like to see even a thin bar underneath the score that shows the manufacturing company’s overall average score of all of its products over X # months, further incentivizing them to clean up their act and keep it clean. Just examples, of course. 
Another idea needed is to somehow determine the rating in relationship to the whole container, not just the serving size. Potato chips are not bad for you if you only eat 1 serving, (3 chips), it’s just that there are 194 servings per 10 oz. bag, and as Lay’s used to say, “You can’t eat just one”. It’s deceptive adverting…