ANDI Scores

Do you know what ANDI scores are?

I had to go to Whole Foods the other day because I needed a loaf of sprouted grain bread and Whole Foods or Fairway are the only places I know of that sell it. I am sure there are other smaller health food stores, but when I need something, I just need it—okay? I don’t want to have to search around at 10 stores or spend 30 minutes on the internet trying to find a place. Anyway, I go into whole foods and I see a sign showing the ANDI score of every vegetable in the produce section. ANDI stand for Aggregate Nutrient Density Index. This is a system that scores food items based on their, what else, nutrient density. For example, soda gets a 1 and a bunch of Kale gets a 1000.

This just brings up a whole host of questions in my mind. I almost don't even know where to begin. I did find a great article on thatsfit.ca about the scoring system. The system was invented by Dr Joel Fuhrman in the late 1990's as a way to identify foods that are nutrient rich but low in calories. Basically, a high ANDI score is a way to identify a food that is a good 'bang for your buck' in nutrient/ caloric terms.

At first glance I thought this would be a great easy system. And then I started looking around. I found kale, that got that high score of 1000, Bok Choy got an impressive 824 and radishes got a surprising 554. But then something funny started to happen...I got into the sweeter and higher carb vegetables like carrots (336) and butternut squash (136) and potatoes (43) and the numbers all went down so low. Is Whole Foods trying to suggest that Kale has more value in our diets than carrots on purpose? Or are they just doing it inadvertently?

I do get the point, Whole Foods is trying to steer customers toward healthier foods, more fruits and vegetables, and items that have more nutrients. However there are some major flaws to the ANDI scores.

The ANDI system measures a whole host of vitamins and antioxidants, Calcium, Caretinoids, Folate, Iron, B Vitamins, Vitamins C and E, among several others. But it does not differentiate among the vitamins in the scoring process, nor does it offer the consumer a way to easily diversify their nutrient intake. One could say that this is because the system does not want to FAVOR any vitamin over any other. It does not take into consideration that some vitamins like iron or beta carotene are available in such low calorie foods like kale while other caretenoids are found in higher calories veggies like carrots or butternut squash that happen to include sugar. Kale might be higher in it's nutrient content per calorie than any other food, but it does not contain ALL the nutrients one needs in a day. So in my opinion any food nutrient guide that allows for a perfect score for one food that doesn't have all your RDAs for all nutrients is a flawed guide.

The system overall rates all foods, not just whole foods. So my second biggest issue is that Whole Foods is only labeling vegetables, pitting plums against peaches and tomatoes against potatoes. But while Fuhrman's guide does give soda an ANDI score of 1 (actually .6 to be more exact) none of the soda's sold by Whole Foods have their ANDI scores displayed like all their healthy counterparts do in the produce section. Does anyone else see the irony in this?? Whole Foods has adopted a system that gives high/ low marks to all foods and then only displays the results of the healthiest foods in their stores, produce? This robs the consumer of the ability to make clear decisions across all food products in the store. All it does is make some vegetables look less desirable than others. In a country where we need to eat more vegetables, like 3 or more time more than we are currently eating every day, we need to do everything we can as a culture to promote any whole fresh vegetables to be consumed, not make you feel guilty for eating zucchini because it only gets a 43 (zucchinis are still healthy by the way).

My third biggest issue with this system is really more of an issue with Whole Foods. Each produce item's ANDI score is clearly labeled with the number on that laminated sheet that they use to tell you tidbits about the kind of veg you are buying. You see that and a very short description talking about the guide. The one page sheet explaining the index was displayed by the escalator that one uses to enter the produce department. You can see it as you are descending, but once you are down stairs, a post blocks it from view and you have to crane your neck over some cheese display to get a good look at it. At least that is what it was like at Union Square. This means they are doing a good job telling people what the scores ARE but not a good job telling people what the scores MEAN. If I have learned anything in the last few years reading about nutrition and our eating habits in the US I have learned that left to our own devices Americans will instinctively attach good/ bad status to high/ low scores on any scale. The Whole Foods customer is absolutely doing this. Don't kid yourself.

This is a shame because I visited Dr Fuhrman's website and it does seem like he has the right idea about nutrition. His food pyramid is right in line with my own beliefs. And I don't even want to bring up the issue of personal/ corporate responsibility. If Whole Foods is going to adopt a nutrient index it should be prepared to educate their customers. Especially since they have adopted an index that gives a lower score to Olive Oil (9) than to White Pasta(18), Potato Chips(11), or American Cheese(10). It might even be a help if we ate the same serving of white pasta as olive oil, but of course that is not taken into consideration.

We can make numbers say anything. If you don't believe me, ask the guys that used to run Enron. But as consumers we must drill into what the numbers are saying. In my opinion, ANDI scores give us some interesting information. But it is not really ALL the information that I need to make wise decisions for me and my family on what to eat.

So if I can't use the system to decide what to eat, what is it for?