As I lazed on the couch last night, half-watching The Replacement Killers and half-reading National Geographic, I was surprised to learn that many grocery stores will soon unveil an implementation of a 100-point scale for assessing the nutritional quality of foods, in yet another effort to get recalcitrant Americans to eat better.

This scale, called the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (patent pending), supposedly takes 30+ different factors into account in its calculations, including positive items like nutrients, and negative aspects such as high sodium. The theory behind this system is that it will enable the "average" consumer (verbiage from the ONQI website) to better assess the myriad of (supposedly) overwhelming items available in the supermarket.

I was certainly surprised to learn that a fried egg scores an 18, just under instant chocolate pudding at 20. Or that sodium-free club soda scores a 56. (Is that even a food?)

Although I'm sure the developers of this scale mean well, I simply don't see that this new approach will be any more helpful to decreasing American obesity or increasing healthy eating than any of the other food crazes that have swept our country. Moreover, this supposedly simple scale is utterly confusing, given some of the ratings (condensed split-pea soup, with ham-- 32; whole chicken with skin--28. Maybe this shows my bias, but a home-cooked chicken, skin or no, is simply better for you to eat than a can of industrially processed peas,pork, and salt.)

The fact is, the best lesson for anyone looking to eat better is simple: eat from the edges of the supermarket (produce, dairy, meat) and avoid processed or packaged foods.

Unfortunately, I guess, that's not patentable.

Or, in the immortal words of Michael Pollan: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.