Food Rating Systems: Why They Judge Like “Sharmajee Ka Ladka”

In every Indian neighborhood, there’s always that one comparison: “Sharmajee ka ladka went to IIT, then IIM, and now works at a Big 4.” Parents love using him as the gold standard.

Turns out, food rating systems today judge our food in the same way.

Protein powders, avocado salads, and energy bars with dates are the “Sharmajee ka ladka” of food ratings. They get A+ scores—while other everyday foods get graded down, regardless of context, affordability, or actual health impact.

But here’s the big question: What really is the basis of rating foods?

The Flaws in Current Food Rating Systems

Most food rating apps, APIs, and packaged food labels simplify nutrition into a single letter or score. Sounds helpful, right? Except it hides the complexity of calories, nutrition data, food context, and affordability.

1. Preservatives & Sugar Substitutes

Why does adding a food preservative or artificial sweetener reduce the rating of a food?

• These same preservatives and substitutes (sucralose, stevia, aspartame) are approved by global health regulators.
  
  
• Evidence shows they are safe in normal use.
  
  
• From a weight loss and calorie-tracking perspective, foods with sweeteners can actually be better than those with natural sugar, since they lower calorie load.
  
  

Example:

• A protein bar with dates = Rated A
  
  
• The exact same bar with sucralose = Rated C
  
  

👉 From a calorie deficit perspective (the real key to fat loss), the one with sucralose is more effective!

2. Calories vs “Health Halo”

A chocolate with dates is rated A, while one with sugar is rated C. But both have almost the same calories. The difference? Dates are marketed as “natural” and “diabetic-friendly.”

That doesn’t change the energy balance—and for weight loss, calories matter more than labels.

3. Demonizing Palm Oil

Snacks made with palm oil are often rated low, called “unhealthy” or “poison.” But nutritionally, palm oil is no worse than ghee, butter, or sunflower oil.

• Palm oil simply makes packaged foods more affordable for 98% of India.
  
  
• Should affordability reduce a food’s score? Or should the system also consider accessibility and practicality?
  
  

4. The Protein Bias

Let’s be real—food rating systems heavily favor protein. Anything without protein is downgraded. But not all foods are meant to be protein-rich.

• A paratha is a source of carbs and energy, not protein.
  
  
• A laddu is cultural, seasonal, and celebratory—not a “muscle food.”
  
  

Context matters. Not every dish has to be a protein bar.

What a Better Food Rating System Should Look Like

Here’s what a scientifically fair, consumer-friendly food rating should include:

1. Scientific Evidence
   
   
   
   • No arbitrary downgrades for sugar substitutes or preservatives unless there is strong evidence of harm.
     
     
   • Ratings should align with global nutrition science, not consumer bias.
     
     
2. Usage & Context
   
   
   
   • A food should be rated based on its role in a diet.
     
     
   • Example: A biscuit is a snack, not a protein source. Don’t rate it like a protein shake.
     
     
3. Affordability & Accessibility
   
   
   
   • If 95% of the population can’t afford “A-rated” foods, are ratings truly fair?
     
     
   • A ₹10 snack with palm oil might be more valuable for the average Indian than a ₹200 kale salad.
     
     
4. Regulation & Transparency
   
   
   
   • Who decides these ratings?
     
     
   • Are they reviewed by FSSAI, WHO, or unbiased scientific panels?
     
     
   • Or are they driven by marketing and FMCG lobbying?
     
     

Why This Matters for Consumers & Brands

As calorie-tracking, nutrition APIs, and food databases grow in India, consumers depend on these systems to guide their weight loss, calorie control, and healthy eating habits.

But if ratings are biased or misleading:

• Consumers make poor choices (avoiding safe sweeteners, demonizing affordable foods).
  
  
• Brands lose trust (confused customers avoid their products despite being perfectly safe).
  
  
• Restaurants & food companies struggle to communicate nutrition honestly.
  
  

Final Thoughts

Food ratings can be powerful, but only if they’re:
✅ Evidence-based
✅ Contextual
✅ Affordable and fair
✅ Transparent in regulation

Otherwise, they’re just like Sharmajee ka ladka—setting an unrealistic standard, ignoring diversity, and leaving the rest of us feeling “less than.”

It’s time to rethink how we rate food. Not just by nutrients on paper, but by science, context, and accessibility.

‍