BNI of generic brands (description)

Some potato chips⁵ are sold under a generic brand (eg, a supermarket brand) while others are sold under proprietary brands, with the latter having a somewhat better standing in regards to perceived quality. Thus, it is of interest to test whether such characteristic informs about overall nutritional balance (BNI) and, thus, whether it may help choose more balanced products. As part of his research on the nutritional balance of potato chips, Perezgonzalez (2012)³ also assessed whether generic and proprietary brands differed in regards to overall nutritional balance. This article provides descriptive information both about the sample of products under research (foodBNI) as well as about a hypothetical diet based on those products (dietBNI).

foodBNI

Proprietary brands were more abundant than generic brands, overall. Even so, the distribution of nutritional balance in the two groups was quite similar: they appeared as highly unbalanced⁶, clustering around BNI 80 and with their medians located at around BNI 82⁷. They also showed a perceptible skewness towards higher levels of unbalance, with means located around BNI 86. Indeed, the 68% of generic products in the middle of the distribution had a nutritional balance somewhere between BNI 79.58 (P₁₆) and BNI 98.29 (P₈₄), while the middle 68% of named products had a nutritional balance somewhere between BNI 79.41 (P₁₆) and BNI 98.62 (P₈₄). In both cases the means were off-centered towards the 84^th percentile.

Illustration 1: Kind of potato chips
	Generic brand
Unbalance	No	Yes
=0
>0
≥10
≥20
≥30
≥40
≥50
≥60	1
≥70	9	3
≥80	23	9
≥90	9	1
≥100	5	1
≥110	1	1
≥120
≥130
≥140
≥150
≥160
≥170
≥180
≥190
≥200

Median	82.95	82.38
SPR	9.61	9.36
P₁₆	79.41	79.58
P₈₄	98.62	98.29
RSkew	6.07	6.56

Mean	86.70	85.86
StDev	10.74	9.84
zSkew	2.39	3.57
zKurt	0.47	2.88

dietBNI

As part of two hypothetical diets where the corresponding generic and named products contributed the same weight of chips, the resulting nutritional composition of such diets would still be highly unbalanced, of around BNI 70 for both diets.

Potato chips	Protein	Carbs	Sugar	Fat	Sat.fat	Fiber	Sodium	BNI
Named brand (unest.)	6.1	50.7	1.8	32.4	11.1	0.0	654.8	85.15
Named brand (est.)	6.1	50.7	1.8	32.4	11.1	4.4*	654.8	70.49

Generic brand (unest.)	5.2	50.3	1.3	33.1	14.3	0.0	589.3	84.06
Generic brand (est.)	5.2	50.3	1.3	33.1	14.3	4.4*	589.3	69.40
() Fiber content estimated from USDA database⁴.*

Research approach

Exploratory study for mapping the nutritional balance of potato chip products⁵ sold under generic and proprietary brands in New Zealand.

Sample

Stratified sample of 63 potato chip products (Perezgonzalez, 2012a²), including diverse flavors and other relevant categories. Of these products, 15 were from generic brands and 48 were from proprietary brands. The products were collected in a convenient manner from three major national supermarket chains. The final sample covered a large proportion of the population of potato chip products available in such supermarkets.

Illustration 2: Potato chips sold under generic brands
Product 100g	BNI	Generic
Bluebird Light Plus sour cream & chives	65.36	No
Copper Kettle Chips vintage cheddar & red onion	71.86	No
Copper Kettle Chips wood fired BBQ	71.91	No
Copper Kettle Chips sea salt	73.04	No
Heartland Potato Chips sour cream & chives	77.31	No
Eta Kettles honey soy chicken	77.99	No
Eta Kettles ready salted	79.09	No
Pams Kettle Fried Chips ready salted	79.09	Yes
Pams Classic chicken	79.24	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut chicken	79.48	No
Heartland Potato Chips chicken	79.58	No
Eta Kettles BBQ	79.75	No
Pams Classic salt & vinegar	79.84	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut sour cream & chives	80.00	No
Heartland Potato Chips shouthern salt	80.05	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Thick Cut sour cream & onion	80.07	No
Eta Kettles Krinkle Cut black pepper & salt	80.16	No
Bluebird Thick Cut crispy bacon	80.51	No
Eta UpperCuts Delicut sea salt & balsamic vinegar	81.04	No
Pams Classic sour cream & chives	81.21	Yes
Signature Range Crinkle Cut sour cream & chives	81.21	Yes
Signature Range Crinkle Cut chicken	81.39	Yes
Pams Classic cheese & onion	81.53	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Delicut chargrilled chicken & herb	81.59	No
Bluebird Thin Cut stuffed baked potato	81.70	No
Bluebird Original ready salted	82.09	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Thin Cut ready salted	82.17	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut ready salted	82.38	No
Solay Potato Crisps sea salt	82.38	No
Pams Classic ready salted	82.38	Yes
Signature Range Crinkle Cut ready salted	82.38	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut spring onion	82.65	No
Pams Classic green onion	82.65	Yes
Signature Range Crinkle Cut green onion	82.65	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Thin Cut chicken	82.68	No
Freedom Foods potato chips no added salt	83.23	No
Eta UpperCuts Delicut sweet chilli relish	83.73	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut the works	83.80	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Thick Cut ready salted	83.96	No
Eta Kettles Krinkle Cut rack of ribs	84.27	No
Solay Potato Crisps sour cream & chives	84.41	No
Eta UpperCuts Delicut sea salt	84.49	No
Pams Classic BBQ	85.26	Yes
Eta Kettles roast lamb & mint	85.47	No
Eta Kettles spare ribs	87.12	No
Countdown Crinkle Cut Jumbo Bag ready salted	90.99	Yes
Heartland Potato Chips green onion	92.46	No
Bluebird Original salt & vinegar	92.61	No
Copper Kettle Chips sea salt & vinegar	92.73	No
Bluebird Local Harvest chicken	94.29	No
Bluebird Thick Cut sour cream & chives	96.03	No
Bluebird Local Harvest salt & vinegar	98.26	No
Bluebird Thin Cut chicken	98.35	No
Heartland Potato Chips salt & vinegar	98.60	No
Bluebird Original chicken	98.77	No
Bluebird Original green onion	100.15	No
Eta Kettles Krinkle Cut extreme salt & vinegar	105.29	No
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Thin Cut salt & vinegar	105.88	No
Eta Kettles salt & vinegar	107.57	No
Pams Kettle Fried Chips salt & vinegar	107.57	Yes
Solay Potato Crisps salt & vinegar	109.54	No
Signature Range Crinkle Cut salt & vinegar	110.47	Yes
Eta UpperCuts Spuds Ripple Cut salt & vinegar	115.85	No

Variables

Variables of interest for this research were the following:

Weight contribution of seven nutrients (protein, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, saturated fat, fiber and sodium) to 100g of a food product.
The Balanced Nutrition Index (BNI) of each food product, as calculated from above variables.
Aggregated information for the sample of products (foodBNI).
Aggregated information about the individual nutrients for the simulation of a potato-chip-based diet (dietBNI).

Materials & analysis

Relevant data were collated after purchasing the food products or by capturing such information from the producers' websites if this information was available and was deemed reliable. The data were then assessed using the Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™) technology (see Perezgonzalez, 2011¹). Missing data for fiber was estimated from USDA's database (2011⁴).

SPSS-v18 was used for the computation of the BNI, and for descriptive statistical analyses.

Author

Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2012). Massey University, Turitea Campus, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. (JDPerezgonzalez).

Want to know more?

BNI analysis of individual products: You can access either the BNI™ database or the 'BNI™ journal (2012, issue 5) - Tasty taytos' for individual nutrition analyses of each food product in the sample.
Wiki of Science - BNI of kinds of potato chips (further knowledge): Two Wiki of Science pages provide further introductory and inferential information about the nutritional balance of kinds of potato chips.
Wiki of Science - Nutritional balance of potato chips: This Wiki of Science page provides an introduction to the BNI of potato chips, irrespective of brand.