Food Quality

The quality of food should concern every consumer, as it determines:

• taste of the food,
• the content of nutrients (= nutritional quality),
• impact on health,
• possibilities of manipulation with food in the kitchen.

The fact is, it is an intangible and therefore difficult-to-define concept, because it depends on:

1. What criteria we choose for evaluating quality.
These criteria should be measurable, which is the basis for a debate on whether or not food is of good quality. Most commonly, one deals with sensory properties, chemical composition, physical properties, the amount of microbiological and toxicological contaminants, shelf life, packaging, and labeling.

2. What significance or importance is attached to the individual criteria.
Every product has characteristics that attract a consumer more than others. For example, packaging and labeling of foods or their taste play a much larger role in the majority of the population's product selection than nutritional values or monitoring the content of additives. [1] Differences in preferences also exist in legislation, where safety and hygiene are most important, while a significant part of the population considers the content of nutrients more important, while others consider the freshness factor.

The term quality is sometimes confused with the term grade, often used interchangeably. Grade is a set of properties a product has (or should have) to fulfill the functions it is intended for (grade therefore leans more towards criteria set by legislation and falls under legislative supervision).
Food quality refers to all the requirements that the consumer has to be satisfied. The meaning of this term leans more towards subjective evaluation.

In practice, we may also encounter the term "safe food," which is more related to hygienic and health safety. Safe food must meet chemical, physical, and microbiological requirements set by legal regulations, meaning it must not harm the consumer's health. The fact is that finished products undergo a series of checks before entering the distribution network, and their safety is monitored even during distribution and sale to the final customer.

Let's look more closely at the general requirements for perceiving and assessing food quality.

1. Packaging

It fulfills three functions:
   1. Protective.
   2. Commercial (marketing).
   3. Informational.

There are rules set by legislation that manufacturers must comply with. This means that a product's packaging must contain a certain range of information, which is essentially the only serious source of information available to the consumer for the given product:

- Origin – The origin of the food generally does not always have to be indicated; it is mandatory only for some foods (meat, olive oil, honey, etc.).

- Name of the type, group, or subgroup of foods – for example, long-lasting baked goods.

- Information about the quantity of the product – in units of volume, weight, or number of pieces. For solid foods in brine, it is necessary to state the total weight and the weight of the solid food.

- Shelf life – This refers to the indication of the shelf life date, by which the food remains safe.

- Batch – This refers to the quantity of identically type units produced under the same conditions (from the same raw material, at the same time).

- Composition – This refers to the composition of the food, the use of all ingredients and added substances, food supplements, allergens, etc.

- Information on storage manners – it is stated in cases where improper storage can devalue the food.

- Instructions on use – it is stated in cases where there is a danger to food safety or where improper use might devalue the food.

- Information on food intended for special nutrition – such as gluten-free food, infant food, for diabetics, etc.

- Information on potential adverse health effects – stated when food contains substances that could pose a hazard to people with specific conditions or excessive consumption (e.g., warning that excessive consumption may cause laxative effects).

- Information on ionizing radiation treatment.

Even though many consumers find this a lot of information, or perceive it as dry and uninteresting, it pays to monitor it in practice. For a person who takes nutrition seriously, this is important information. The good news in this field is that with the development of a civilized society, the spectrum of this information is gradually expanding, thus continuously improving information on food quality. However, this does not mean that everyone processes such readily available information, as many people do not "waste time" studying this information when choosing suitable foods.

Most important are the details on composition, where one can see a list of ingredients that make up the product, in descending order. In this way, for instance, consumers can see if the food contains added sugar or identify the range of used additives.

2. Nutritional Value

Nutrition value is determined by the food's composition. For each consumer, different pieces of information are significant - some target energy value, others the presence of macronutrients, salt, or specific substances (antioxidants, etc.).

3. Sensory Quality

Assessed based on appearance, smell, taste, and consistency. Consumers typically make decisions based on taste and smell, from which the strongest feelings arise.

4. Shelf Life

Two terms are commonly used:

A) Minimum shelf life date.
This is the minimum period during which the food is safe. After this period, the food can still be sold, but in a store, it must be offered separately with information about the expired shelf life, and it must still be safe.

B) Use-by date.
Indicated on foods that are prone to rapid spoilage, with the inscription "use by." Foods cannot be sold after this date has passed.

5. Additives

These are of natural or chemical origin as a part of modern food processing technologies. They are used to extend shelf life, improve appearance, taste, smell, consistency, etc. These substances are indicated with the letter E and a numerical code, which is internationally valid.

6. Convenience

Many people perceive the convenience of food manipulation as part of quality criteria, most notably in pre-prepared foods (semi-finished products, etc.). These products, though nutritiously poorer due to technological modifications, save the consumer time and energy spent on meal preparation. [2]

And precisely their nutritional potential is a significantly problematic factor, as recent scientific research unequivocally points to the fact that the degree of food industrial processing results in changes in their composition, which fundamentally reflects on health when such foods become a frequent part of our diet. In context with this, a new food classification system based on the processing level has emerged. It's called NOVA and divides foods into four groups [3]:

The problem is that consumption of these foods makes up to half of the caloric intake in Western countries and is shown to significantly contribute to the development of many lifestyle diseases. Some experts are even convinced that these foods meet the criteria for defining addictive or toxic substances (content of sugars, additives, trans fats, etc.).

Transferred into practice, this means (= all renowned experts agree) that limiting the consumption of heavily industrially processed foods, or ideally eliminating them from the diet, is an absolute foundation for successful prevention of a wide range of lifestyle diseases - most commonly cited are type II diabetes, further cardiovascular diseases, and on a general level, diseases associated with a pro-inflammatory environment in the body. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

In practice, institutions and companies strive to implement a system that would serve as a simple indicator of food quality. While these efforts are commendable on the one hand, as they aim to make it easier for consumers to select (purchase) suitable foods, on the other hand, it becomes evident that finding a universal key to serve as a universally valid evaluation tool is very difficult if not impossible.

One typical example is the internationally used "Nutri-score." This system translates the nutritional value of a product into a code consisting of 5 letters (A-B-C-D-E), where each has its color (dark green, light green, yellow, orange, red). The code is calculated based on the assessment of composition and nutritional data in 100 g/ml of food/drink.
It uses a scale from -15 (best) to +40 (worst).

Points are added for increasing content of:
- energy,
- saturated fats,
- sugar, 
- salt.

Points are deducted for a higher percentage of:
- fruit,
- vegetables,
- legumes,
- nuts,
- walnut, olive, and canola oils,
- proteins,
- fiber.

At first glance, this appears to be a truly simple and transparent system, but a deeper analysis reveals quite significant weaknesses:
The system is based on a very simple algorithm, thus not accounting for the content of vitamins and minerals, which is a rather important factor for evaluating nutritional quality.
It produces controversial results, for example, olive oil, smoked salmon, or some cheeses receive letter D (second-worst), while French fries or chips fall into categories A-B.