Evaluation of nutrient profiling systems of local dishes of Gaziantep and Hatay provinces by different methods
PDF (Türkçe)

Keywords

Traditional Hatay cuisine
Traditional Gaziantep cuisine
nutrient profiling models

How to Cite

Utku Çelik Gençoğlu, H., & Pekcan, A. G. (2024). Evaluation of nutrient profiling systems of local dishes of Gaziantep and Hatay provinces by different methods. Toros University Journal of Food, Nutrition and Gastronomy, 3(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.58625/jfng-2667

Abstract

Introduction and Aim:

The globalizing world, developments in the field of science and technology, and an intense work tempo, particularly a lack of time dedicated to nutrition, collectively contribute to a societal shift towards a "fast food" style of nutrition. These types of foods are energy-dense, low in nutritional value, high in salt and saturated fat, and made by using unhealthy cooking methods. With the consumption of more energy-dense, ready-made products that replace the natural foods found in traditional cuisines, the incidence of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer has been increased in society (1). It is widely acknowledged that nutrition-related non-communicable chronic diseases represent the most significant causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Nutrition-related chronic diseases account for approximately 60% of all deaths worldwide. It has been stated by the World Health Organization (WHO) that nutrients such as fat, saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, sugar, and salt/sodium consumed in excessive amounts from the diet are potential risk factors for development of chronic diseases (2). National and international strategies have been developed to reduce potential risk factors that are previously mentioned. The common objective of these strategies is to facilitate the selection of healthy foods in society, to direct society towards healthy food choices, and to raise consumer awareness in order to promote healthy food choices. In this regard, nutrient pattern plans or profiles are created to enable consumers to make healthy food choices and to clarify the term quality food. Nutrient patterning is the science of classifying or ranking foods according to their nutritional composition for the prevention of disease and promotion of health (3). Nutrient pattern profiles have been developed to assist consumers in food selection, to define the suitability of health claims of products, to ensure better and clearer nutritional labeling, and to evaluate nutritional quality (4). When local cuisines are considered in terms of nutrition and health, they are generally evaluated subjectively in line with healthy nutrition principles. The advent of various nutrient pattern profiles in recent years has facilitated objective evaluation of the nutritional value of foods and beverages. Therefore, this study aimed to objectively evaluate local dishes in Gaziantep and Hatay cuisine using five different nutritional element pattern profiles.

Material and Method:

It is acknowledged that the local dishes that comprise the Gaziantep and Hatay cuisine are not subjected to scientific evaluation in accordance with the principles of healthy nutrition. Instead, they are assessed solely from a gastronomic perspective, with consideration given to their nutritional and health implications. This study was conducted to objectively evaluate the local recipes in traditional Gaziantep and Hatay cuisines with five different nutritional element pattern profiles. In the study, the NRF 9.3 model (Nutrient Rich Foods), FSA-Ofcom-WXY model (Food Standards Agency-FSA), SAIN-LIM system (Two-score nutrient profiling system: score of nutritional adequacy of individual foods-SAIN); score of nutrients to be limited-LIM system), NUTRI-SCORE and Choices Program (International Healthy Choices Model, International Choices Programme) were applied. Under the heading of seven food groups, 48 recipes from Hatay cuisine and 46 recipes from Gaziantep cuisine were evaluated.

The ingredients in each of the recipes of both cuisines were first converted into one serving. For this purpose, the amount included in one serving was calculated by dividing the total number of servings in the recipes. Using the amount of food in a portion, the macro and micronutrient contents of each recipe were calculated with the Nutrition Information Systems Package Program 7.2 (BEBİS 7.2) program. In order to calculate the amount of energy and nutrients content in a portion of the recipes from both cuisines, the parameters commonly used in all models were selected and the amount of salt not included in the standard recipe was calculated as 0.5 g per portion, based on the Turkey Nutrition and Health Survey (TBSA) 2017 (5). The nutritional values of the recipes were calculated using five different nutrient pattern profile models. These models are NRF 9.3, FSA-Ofcom-WXY, SAIN-LIM, NUTRI-SCORE, and International Healthy Choices Model (Choices Programme).

Results:

In accordance with the findings presented in the NRF 9.3 research report, the food groups within the Gaziantep province demonstrated a notable distinction in preference, with appetisers, salads, and spreads receiving the highest scores and desserts and jams receiving the lowest scores. Similarly, within the Hatay province, a clear contrast emerged, with vegetable dishes receiving the highest scores and desserts and jams receiving the lowest scores. The FSA-Ofcom-WXY model indicates that 69.6% of local recipes in Gaziantep and 77.1% in Hatay were classified as healthier. According to the SAIN-LIM model, while 36.9% of local tariffs in Gaziantep were defined as preferable, this rises to 54.2% in Hatay province's local tariffs. A comparative analysis of the various meal tariffs in the Gaziantep and Hatay provinces revealed that 36.9% and 54.2% were classified as A, respectively, while the corresponding figures for category B were 19.6% and 12.5%. Additionally, 32.6% and 18.7% were assigned to category C, and only 10.9% and 14.6% were identified in categories D and E, respectively. According to the International Healthy Choices model, 6.25% of meat dishes, 37.5% of bulgur and rice dishes, and 66.7% of appetizers, salads, and blarneys in Gaziantep were found to meet the criteria. However, vegetable dishes, soups, desserts, jams, and pastries were not suitable. In Hatay province, 80% of vegetable dishes, 40% of bulgur and rice dishes, 8.3% of appetizers, salads, and blarneys, and 33.3% of soups were evaluated in accordance with the criteria of the International Healthy Choices model. However, meat dishes, desserts, jams, and pastries did not meet the criteria.

Discussion and Conclusion:

Local cuisines have been measured and evaluated based on their unique structures, taste, and diversity, as well as their contribution to the nutrition of societies. The cuisines of Gaziantep and Hatay are two traditional cuisines that occupy a significant position within the local culinary landscape, shaped by the distinctive cultural heritage of their respective regions. They have been recognised by the UNESCO Creative Cities Network list for their cultural significance and contribution to global gastronomy (6). Nutrient pattern profiles are scientifically based tools for evaluating food recipes. When the local recipes of Gaziantep and Hatay provinces are evaluated with their nutritional element pattern profiles, the rate of recipes that can be considered healthy choices are high in the groups of vegetable dishes, appetizers-salads-piyazes, soups, and dishes with bulgur and rice. It was found that the rate of recipes that can be considered healthy choices was low in the meat dishes, pastries, and desserts-jams groups. The main reasons are thought to be the high content of saturated fatty acids due to the amount of salt and animal food used in the recipes of the specified groups, as well as the fact that even one portion value is high in quantity. While the local recipes from both provinces were found to be adequate in terms of the five-nutrient profile used in this study and the content of the recommended nutrients, it was also highlighted that there were instances where these recommended nutrients were present in excess. In order to make the contents of the local recipes of Gaziantep and Hatay provinces healthier in the light of scientific recommendations, it is thought that it would be appropriate to re-evaluate the recipes in terms of the sources and portion sizes of the nutrients recommended to be restricted.

https://doi.org/10.58625/jfng-2667
PDF (Türkçe)

References

Gezmen, Karadağ, M., Çelebi, F., Ertaş, & Y., Şanlıer, N., (2014). Geleneksel Türk Mutfağından Seçmeler: Besin Ögeler Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.

WHO. (2021). Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020; 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives.

Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Kaur, A. (2013). Nutrient profiling and the regulation of marketing to children: possibilities and pitfalls. Appetite, 62: 232-5.

Rayner, M. (2017). Nutrient profiling for regulatory purposes. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 76:230–236.

Büyüktuncer, Z., & Yücecan, S. (2009). Türk mutfağının beslenme ve sağlık açısından değerlendirilmesi. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi, 37(1-2):93-100.

Şahin, K., (2012). Hatay Mutfak Kültürü ve Yemekleri. Hatay: Hatay Valiliği Yayını.

Tanrıverdi, M., (2013). Çok Kültürlü Bir Geleneğin Mutfağı Antakya Yemekleri. Hatay: Hatay Keşif Yayınları.

Budak, S., (2008). Antakya Mutfağı. Hatay: Antakya Rotary Kulübü Kültür Yayını.

Öney, Tan, A., (2014). Güneşin ve Ateşin Tadı: Gaziantep Mutfağı (2.bs.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Özsabuncuoğlu, Mermer, Ö. (2011). Dört Mevsim Gaziantep Yemekleri (5.bs). İstanbul: YCM Yayıncılık.

Türkiye Beslenme ve Sağlık Araştırması (TBSA), 2017. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayını.

Drewnowski, A. (2005). Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(4), 721-732.

Drewnowski, A. (2010). The Nutrient Rich Foods Index helps to identify healthy, affordable foods. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91(4):1095-1101.

Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., Boxer, A., & Stockley, L. (2005). Nutrient profiles: development of final model final report. Food Standards Agency.

Darmon, N., Vieux, F., Maillot, M., Volatier, J.L., & Martin A. (2009). Nutrient profiles discriminate between foods according to their contribution to nutritionally adequate diets: a validation study using linear programming and the SAIN-LIM system. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89: 1227-1236.

Dreano-Trecant, L., Egnell, M., Hercberg, S., Galan, P., Soudon, J., Fialon, M., Touvier, M., Kesse-Guyot, E., & Julia, C. (2020). Performance of the front-of-pack nutrition label Nutri-Score to discriminate the nutritional quality of foods products: a comparative study across 8 European countries. Nutrients, 12: 1303.

Roodenburg, AJC., Schlatmann, A, Dötsch-Klerk, M., Daamen, R., Dong, J., Guarro, M., Stergiou, M., Sayed, N., Ronoh, E., Jansen, L., & Seidell, J.C. (2011). Potential effects of nutrient profiles on nutrient intakes in the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, USA, Israel, China and South-Africa. PLoS One, 6(2): e14721.

Hess, J.M., & Slavin, J.L. (2017). Healthy snacks: using nutrient profiling to evaluate the nutrient-density of common snacks in the United States. Journal of Food Science, 82(9): 2213-2220.

Fulgoni, V.L., Keast, D.R., & Drewnowski, A. (2009). Development and validation of the nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. Journal of Nutrition, 139(8): 1549-1554.

Arambepola, C., Scarborough, P., & Rayner, M. (2008). Validating a nutrient profile model. Public Health Nutrition, 11(4):371-378.

Department of Health. (2011). Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance January, UK.

Miller, G.D., Drewnowski, A., Fulconi, V., Heaney, R.P., King, F., & Kennedy, E. (2009). It is time for a positive approach to dietary guidance using nutrient density as a basic principle. The Journal of Nutrition Issues and Opinions. 139: 1198–1202.

Poinsot, R., Vieux, F., Dubois, C., Perignon, M., Mejean, C., & Darmon, N. (2020). Nutritional quality of vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes at school: are nutrient profiling systems sufficiently informative? Nutrients, 12, 2256.

Van Den Assum, S., Schilpzand, R., Lissner, L., Don, R., Nair, KM., Nnam, N., Uauy, R., Yang, Y., Pekcan, AG., & Roodenburg, AJC. (2020). Periodic revisions of the international choices criteria: Process and results. Nutrients, 12(9):2774.

Karakeçili, G., & Çetinsöz, B.C. (2017, 14-15 Nisan). Gaziantep yöresinde bayram yemekleri geleneği. VI. Ulusal II. Uluslararası Doğu Akdeniz Turizm Sempozyumu, Gaziantep, Türkiye.

Taştan, H., & İflazoğlu, N. (2018). Hatay’ın Unesco gastronomi şehri olması ile ilgili yerel restoran işletmelerinin farkındalığının değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 6 (Özel Sayı 3): 384-393.

WHO (2014). Global Nutrition Targets 2025: Policy Brief Series, Geneva.

Mobley, R.A., Kraemer, D., & Nicholls, J. (2009). Putting the nutrient-rich foods index into practice review. American College of Nutrition. 28(4): 427-435.

Quinio, C., Biltoft-Jensen, A., De Henauw, S., Gibney, M.J., Huybrechts, I., McCarthy, S.N., O’Neill, J.L., Tetens, I., Turrini, A., & Volatier, J.L. (2007). Comparison of different nutrient profiling schemes to a new reference method using dietary surveys. European Journal of Nutrition, 46(2): 37-46.

Drewnowski, A. (2007). What's next for nutrition labeling and health claims?: an update on nutrient profiling in the European Union and the United States. Nutrition Today, 42(5): 206-214.

Ducrot, P., Méjean, C., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Fezeu, L., Hercberg, S., & Péneau, S. (2015). Effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labels in French adults: Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study. PLoS ONE, 10 (10).

Talati, Z., Egnell, M., Hercberg, S., Julia, C., & Pettigrew, S. (2019). Consumers’ perceptions of five front-of-package nutrition labels: An experimental study across 12 countries. Nutrients, 11: 1934.

Julia, C., Blanchet, O., Méjean, C., Péneau, S., Ducrot, P., Allès, B., Fezeu, L.K., Touvier, M., Kesse-Guyot, E., Singler, E., & Hercberg, S. (2016). Impact of the front-of-pack 5-colour nutrition label (5-CNL) on the nutritional quality of purchases: An experimental study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13:101.

Egnell, M., Crosetto, P., d’Almeida, T., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Ruffieux, B., Hercberg, S., Muller, L., & Julia, C. (2019). Modelling the impact of different front-of-package nutrition labels on mortality from non-communicable chronic disease. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16:56.

Dikmen, D. (2012). Ambalajlı besinlerin besin ögeleri örüntüsünün ve toplumun sağlıklı beslenme hedeflerine uygunluğunun belirlenmesi (Tez No:307957) [Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi] YÖK Tez Merkezi.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Toros University Journal of Food, Nutrition and Gastronomy

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.