I REALLY do not like this scale. I think they mean well, but the article is very much right in that many naive shoppers woudl look at it and see the low numbers as unhealthy when compared to kale, even an ordinary apple seems unhealthy. I do see the point that they are trying to make but it does not really specify a scale in which you should limit certain items. If i were a naive shopper I could look at that and think I should never have something like swiss cheese or olive oil when those things are healthy when they aren’t eaten in excess. I just think they could have adopted a better scale. I was actually at Hyvee yeserday shopping and they use the NuVal ranking. I think I prefer that ranking better. Both are not perfect but I feel the nuval is truer to product value. From what I have seen it tends to rank fruits and veggies on the high side.

Oh my, 2 nutrition degrees and this system confuses me. I think we have to go back to common sense and personal research. Any idea when this will be implemented? Thanks for the information!

I like this system, i have seen it in my local WFM and it makes sense. Nowhere in the material I have seen would you come away thinking that you should from now live on a diet of kale and sprouts alone as they do a top50 list for each food category!!! I like it because it gives me, a normal shopper some idea of what you can prioritise from the different food categories.

I have to agree with Lauren and Heidi — this system is very confusing. The formula is (apparently) nutrients divided by calories — plus bonus points for a high ORAC score. And they tout it as being “simple”. Problem is, though, that this stuff — isn’t simple. We don’t eat single foods, we don’t eat kale the same way we eat walnuts or olive oil. Can I interpret these scores to mean that a “1000″ is 7 times better for me than a “130″? (And if I can’t do that, what’s the value of the scoring?)

What is unclear to me is if and how WF is scoring prepared foods… a can of soup, loaf of bread, box of cereal, quart of ice cream. The real strength of scoring programs is guidance on those foods that we can’t immediately discern are healthy — or otherwise.

Whole Foods needs to educate consumers as to how to use this system — because it certainly is not a guide to a healthy balanced diet. And they need to make the scoring system transparent. I’d like to know if a manufacturer throws in a bunch of micronutrients — beyond 100% of the DRI/RDI, does the score jump through the roof. I want to know how sat fat/transfat/all other fats are weighted. And how about sodium? No penalty points? (Seems not to be, given that feta cheese scores higher than lowfat yogurt.)

It’s not just about nutrient density, is it?

I also do not like this scale. I’m not sure there should be one, because as others stated it can be confusing/misleading.

Olive oil, which is full of good antioxidants, a 9 (on par with ice cream???) and iceberg lettuce a 110 rating? Come on. Iceberg lettuce has very little in the way of nutrients. Olive is one of the best plant sources of good fats.

I also think this scale knocks vital protein sources like meats. It seems like this system is pushing vegetarian lifestyle way too avidly. Though meats aren’t full of phytonutrients or antioxidants like fruits or vegies you cannot dispute the ability of complete protein sources to help regulate metabolism and build lean muscle.

Pretty poor job on WFM’s part to hastily implement something like this. I’ve seen it in use in their Columbus/Dublin store.

By the way, I like nutritiondata.com’s nutrient density numbers much better. There is much more substance behind their numbers.

They also have a much larger database and the numbers make much more sense. Not only this, but they include ratings on inflamation factor, glycemic load, nutrient completeness (nutrient quality), and amino acid score (protein quality).

Protein completeless is a crucial factor when judging meat sources. Ignoring that on this ANDI scale when comparing them to fruits and veggies is disingenuous and a sneaky way to push a vegan agenda if you ask me.

Are these guys getting money from PETA by chance?

The new scales seem to be something that are fun to follow for the moment. Most of the healthiest people that I know tend to stay away from this kind of thing. They just buy what is in season, get a variety, exercise regularly, and stay away from the bad stuff.

That philosophy is arrived at with no cost or complicated research projects. Just sound thought.

i happen to really like the system. i’m able to choose a few vegetables for juicing, that are much more dense in nutrients – and i would have never guessed that collard greens was packed w/ nutrients, over broccoli. now, i still get broccoli, along with whatever else i want. but when it comes to juicing, picking the most dense foods is important! it helps with a few choices in my foods – thanks for giving us the ANDI scale – before we had to run off of our own research – this is a nice addition to that!

and remember – it’s easy to just eat in season and workout – but if you’re sick, like i am, it’s important to be able to adjust our diet in order to get better. i have to get the most nutrients i can from juicing, and the less work my body can do getting those nutrients, the better! i don’t think it’s motivated to push people away from meat – probably just open up the option/healthy option of what you can do wiht veggies -it helps the small farmers, and it is healthy. more veggies for me, meant that i dropped all of the food w/ preservatives etc. i still eat fish/eggs, but i have more options for my veggies now – and this helps when i’m low in my vitamins

I’m curious how hemp seeds land on this scale. I’m encouraged because my company was the first company (or at least Hemp Company) out there to actually list and use the words “Nutrient Density” right on the label of my raw organic fine grind hemp protein in amber glass. I know it’s an extremely nutrient dense superfood, but when I looked at the scales, it listed just flax seeds (no distinction of ground vs. sprouted vs. whole) and it also doesn’t seem to list Hemp Seeds which I think is a real shame. I wonder if it’s not listed because we can’t grow it in the US or if it was just an oversight. bummer, I’d like to see that.

Ever since Whole Foods opened just down the street from me (first store in Cleveland), I have been a regular customer. In addition to food labels, I have used nutritiondata.com to analyze foods for quite a while. As a math/science teacher I understand the dangers of ratios and scaled data. I am in agreement with Heidi, Lauren, Mark, Greg, and Jason – - and note with fear the use stated by Sara indicating she uses it to see which veggies/fruits to juice, since there is nothing in the scale to indicate actual amount of nutrients, or which kind! As this scale is based on ratio of a ratio then scaled, I find the math questionable as a viable measure – - but I will read Dr. Fuhrman’s patent-pending scale when I find it, then make a more informed decision. I agree with Mark’s concern about adding micro-nutrients just to get the score up. Frankly, my multivitamin in a glass of distilled water should be off the chart!!

Then there’s the WFM healthy foods initiative. Wonderful, but when I went to the store’s introduction to their Healthy Foods Nutrition Center last week,(centered around the Engine 2 diet), I was sorely disappointed to see it is Vegan. I have nothing against Vegan or Vegetarian, but humans are, by design, omnivorous and I don’t want to be pushed away from that by my supermarket, (Doctor and nutritionist, yes, but my supermarket?). Toward more veggies? YES! Toward less processed? YES! Even toward Organic? OK. Note that as my need is for low sodium, low/no red meat, low carb load – - and the prepared foods at WFM have no info on that – - I can’t justify eating any (they said the chef’s change the recipe to taste so amounts can’t be given).

Yes, I still use WFM as my market and deeply appreciate their efforts to get all folks moving toward a healthier diet – - but aren’t most of us who frequent their establishment already thinking and concerned?

I was given a handout at whole foods with a list of the top ANDI scores in various categories. When I got to the fruit section, I was shocked to find strawberries at the top. In terms of highest pesticide and fungicide residue, conventionally grown strawberries are generally ranked number 1 or 2 in virtually every survey I’ve ever seen. I can’t afford to buy all organic, but I specifically avoid conventionally grown foods that top out the pesticide scales such as strawberries, peaches, celery, grapes, and peanuts (or peanut butter).

I think that to encourage people to eat strawberries (and other foods) based solely on the nutrient value without taking into account pesticide load is misleading and bad policy on the part of both WFM and Eat Right America. Strawberries may come out at the top of this scale, but without a specific notation that says “organic only due to pesticide concentration”, those who follow the ANDI recommendations are not getting the full information they need.

People! Use some common sense. (and I say that in a loving way, of course) The ANDI scale specifically claims which nutrients that it is measuring (see above). It is up to the individual to find the right balance of veggies, fats, carbs etc.. The scale doesn’t suggest polarizing your diet to include only those foods with the highest rating. It is simply giving people an idea of the nutritional value of certain foods. The more we know, the better decisions we can make. It doesn’t mention anything of conventional foods vs. organic foods because that is not the emphasis. It is not measuring all of the additional “…cides” you’re buying with conventional foods because the message is about nutrient density, not toxin density. I believe in accountability on the part of the research and the folks (WFM, in this case) who support it, and it might not be a perfectly holistic science (which you have to admit, there is absolutely none!) but for goodness sake it is a step in the right direction. At least it gave me a newfound appreciation for watercress! Thumbs up for ANDI. I want to see more.

I’ve been comparing it to this tool:
http://efaeducation.nih.gov/sig/kim.html

I’d like to see more research supporting the ANDI weightings for all the factors. The NIH tool is much simpler (not a polished commercial tool, it’s basically a spreadsheet application ranking omega-3 versus omega-6 — but that approach has the research documented.

Ok, this program is not for everyone, how about folks that are eating great foods like parsley, and other herbs. Including herbs in this program would have been good.

We should all strive for a small “victory” garden, so as to include super foods like parsley…..

If you have a small or large yard, try working in the soil, a small garden plot of 4×20 is a great start, and an easy reach across. This garden should be planted with foods like Parsley, chard, spinach, lettuces, arugala and other easy to grow items, you will supplement your food supply.

And then if you want to expand the garden think trees that bear fruit, Edible Landscape (google that) is the future and was the past! A time honored garden.