Common food nutrition labels may be based on 50 year-old data

We often hear advice about healthy eating: reduce sugar, increase vegetables, eat local. But one question rarely gets attention: how do we actually know what nutrient data our food contains?

The answer lies in food composition databases (FCDBs). These databases list the nutrients in food: proteins, fats, vitamins, and more. They also include complex compounds like phytochemicals and antioxidants.

Food composition databases help guide nutritionists, policy makers, researchers, and even farmers. But how reliable are they?

A new review published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition highlights a major problem. Many FCDBs are outdated, incomplete, or hard to access. This issue hits hardest in regions that need nutritional insights the most.

Global status of food data

The researchers reviewed 101 FCDBs from 110 countries, and their findings raise concerns.

Many FCDBs can be found online, but that’s not enough. Only 30% of databases are truly accessible. Just 69% can work with other systems. Only 43% allow data to be reused easily. These weaknesses reduce their long-term value.

The problem is not evenly spread. Europe, North America, and parts of Asia have better data systems. But many countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America lack updated or complete databases.

Why this matters

Food databases are essential for crafting policies, health programs, and food safety rules.

Without reliable food data, countries cannot detect nutrient gaps or create effective school meals. Breeding crops for nutrition or enforcing labeling laws becomes impossible.

There is also a cultural cost. Many Indigenous and rural communities have rich food traditions. If these foods do not appear in databases, they risk being excluded from nutrition programs and policy debates. Eventually, they might disappear from farms and markets too.

Food databases lack local data

The review highlights several major gaps. Many FCDBs rely on borrowed data from other countries. That creates problems. A food’s nutrient content can vary depending on the soil, climate, crop variety, and how it’s cooked.

There is also no global agreement on food names, nutrient definitions, or measurement units. That makes international comparisons difficult.

Most databases list just 38 food components. But modern research shows food contains thousands of biomolecules with health effects.

Another concern is how rarely databases get updated. About 39% have not been revised in over five years. Some, like those in Ethiopia and Sri Lanka, have not been updated since they were created over 50 years ago.

Cost of not updating food data

Food systems are changing rapidly. Climate shifts, migration, and technology are altering what people eat. Old data cannot reflect those changes. To maintain reliable FCDBs, countries need labs, specialists, and steady funding.

Many low and middle-income nations do not have these resources. The gap between well-covered regions and underrepresented ones keeps growing. But there is hope. The review also points to an initiative doing things differently.

Profiling foods from every continent

The Periodic Table of Food Initiative (PTFI) stands out. Managed by The American Heart Association and the Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, PTFI tackles the very problems holding back most FCDBs.

What makes it unique? PTFI goes far beyond the 38 commonly tracked nutrients. Using advanced techniques like metabolomics and mass spectrometry, food is analyzed for over 30,000 biomolecules.

Unlike most databases focused on national diets, PTFI is profiling foods from every continent, with special attention to underrepresented and Indigenous foods that are often left out of traditional systems.

It is designed to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable – the gold standard for data sharing and transparency. All of PTFI’s data is freely available online, using globally accepted protocols so that anyone, from a government to a food startup, can use it.

Improving global nutrition

The study makes one thing clear. We cannot improve global nutrition if we do not understand our food at the molecular level. Right now, outdated and uneven food databases keep many people in the dark.

Better food data means better policies, healthier people, and stronger food systems. Initiatives like PTFI show that change is possible. They help us view food not just as calories or nutrients but as a source of cultural identity, health, and resilience.

We need global cooperation, advanced technology, and fairness in data access. Everyone should have the right to know what’s in their food and to have their food traditions valued and preserved.

The study is published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–