Comments and proposals

EUROCODE 2 – SOME COMMENTS TO THE MODIFIED CORE CLASSIFICATION PRESENTED AT THE COST ACTION 99 MEETING IN WAGENINGEN 24-26 OCTOBER 1998

We welcome the revitalization of the Eurocode 2 as a food classification system for food consumption data relevant for European studies in nutritional epidemiology. We also support the overall objectives to identify and classify the foods that are nutritionally important in the diet of various European countries as well as in ethnic diets. However, after having made an attempt to use the modified core classification on the Norwegian diet, we think that the Eurocode 2 still need some refinement, and possibly some rethinking.

Our main concern is that the hierarchy contains too many small food groups at the sub-group level (group level 2), whereas many of the larger food groups at this level need to be subdivided at a level 3 (new?). We also think that the mixed products may be classified by the existing facet/descriptor system. In addition, we have added a few ethnic foods that are important in the general Norwegian diet or in certain geographical areas. These foods have distinct nutritional composition, but appears not to be covered by the present classification system. At the moment, we have no comments on how to classify the recipes.

Even though Norway participated in the trial years ago, we have no longer a description of the full system. Thus some of our suggestions may violate established and agreed coding rules, but as already mentioned, we hope that views from "outsiders" may throw some fresh light on the usefulness of the modified classification system.

Our suggestions for the proposed three level grouping system (plus a fourth level for the specific food items) are summarized in the tables below. We have deliberately used common names on the food groups, thinking that the scientific names may be found in the detailed coding list accompanying the Eurocode manual.

Where appropriate, we have listed storage codes from the existing system for reference, but all groups should be listed in the proposed logical order. It is important that the system is able to include new groups in the future. Thus "someone" should be responsible for allocating new storage code numbers, these may not be logical. If a coding support software is developed (preferably one that allows definition of alternative coding orders), hopefully most of the original coding numbers may be kept.

Substitute foods may be placed on level 3 in the level 2 group where it is used as a substitute. In addition, most food groups should end with an unspecified group, as survey respondents are not always able to tell what kind of meat, fish etc they have been eating. It is important to bear in mind that the main purpose of the Eurocode is to classify food consumption data, and that the obtained details depend heavily on the dietary survey method that has been used to collect this information. At level 2 the above suggestions may reduce the number of categories by about one third.

As already mentioned, since we don’t have access to the full description, we have not reviewed the appropriateness of the numerous facets descriptors. But as a general comment we would like to point out that much of the finer details concerning for example thermal and non-thermal processing will not come out of the dietary research methods commonly used in large studies. In the tables we have used the following abbreviations for the five facets.

Editorial note For documentation of the Eurocode descriptors currently defined, see The Descriptor System, version 93/1.

A	thermal treatment
B	non-thermal treatment
C	preservation/packaging
D	component added
E	component removed

1. Milk and Milk Products

2. Eggs and Egg Products

3. Meat and Meat Products

Note: Specific cuts of carcase meat, chicken breast etc should, if available, be placed on the food item level.
Offal have quite different nutritional composition from carcase meat.

4. Fish and Fish Products

Note: Fish should be classified in level 2 as broad categories according to fat content and color of the flesh.
Common family names should be used at level 3 with scientific names as scope notes.

5. Fats and Oils

6. Grains and Grain Products

Note: Flours and other dry grain products should be separated from bread because of weight differences and use. Should rice and pasta be coded as dry or cooked weight?

7. Pulses, Seeds, Nuts and Products

Note: Cocoa based milk drinks is included in 1.1

8. Vegetables and Vegetable Products

9. Fruit and Fruit Products

10. Sugar, Chocolate and Related Products

11. Beverages (Non-milk)

Note: As already mentioned, cocoa based drinks should be placed in the fluid milk group, and the pure juices should be moved to the vegetable and fruit groups respectively.

12. Miscellaneous Foods

Note: The "other products" holds very small amounts and are usually recipe ingredients, i.e not visible in dietary surveys. Note that non-dairy coffee cream is grouped as a cream substitute. Even though redcurrant jelly may be used as a sauce in some countries, it should be placed in 10.6 due to its high content of sugar. In Norway redcurrant jelly is mainly used as a sandwich, waffle or muffin spread.

13. Products for Special Nutritional Use

Note: Common foods with less/more fat, sugar, energy than in comparable traditional foods, f.ex artificially sweetened drinks should be placed within the appropriate level 1 groups.