What’s really in our food? A global look at food composition databases and the gaps we need to fix

(Press-News.org) In today’s world, we hear a lot about what we should eat: more vegetables, less sugar and salt, and to obtain locally sourced, sustainable, and nutrient-rich food. But there’s a fundamental question most people don’t think about: How do we actually know what is in our food? The answer lies in food composition databases (FCDBs), which are collections of data about the nutritional content of different foods, from macronutrients like protein and fat, to vitamins, minerals and specialized biomolecules like antioxidants and phytochemicals. 

But a new global review, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, reveals that many of these databases are outdated, inconsistent, or difficult to access altogether—especially in the places that need them most. 

The study, titled The state of food composition databases: Data attributes and FAIR data harmonization in the era of digital innovation, reviewed 101 FCDBs across 110 countries to assess their quality and usefulness. These databases are supposed to help everyone, from dietitians and researchers to governments and consumers, understand food diversity and improve food systems. But the review found that while most databases can be found online (meeting the “Findability” standard), they often fall short in key areas: 

Only 30% of databases were truly accessible—meaning users could retrieve and use the data. 

Just 69% were interoperable, or compatible with other systems. 

Only 43% met the standard for reusability, limiting their long-term value.

More troubling, the databases were not evenly spread across the world. While Europe, North America, and parts of Asia had well-developed food data systems, many countries in Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia had outdated or incomplete data—or no database at all. 

Why does this matter? FCDBs play a vital role in public health, agriculture, and nutrition policy. Without accurate, up-to-date data, it’s impossible to make informed decisions about nutrient deficiencies in national populations; school feeding programs or dietary guidelines; crop breeding strategies for more nutritious foods or labeling laws and food safety regulations. 

The lack of coverage also poses a deeper threat: it hides the richness of local diets and traditional foods, particularly in Indigenous and rural communities. If those foods aren’t included in official databases, they risk being ignored in nutrition programs or policy discussions, and eventually not being cultivated anymore, posing a threat to agricultural biodiversity. 

What’s missing from today’s databases? 

The review outlined several serious gaps that limit the effectiveness of most food composition databases: Instead of analyzing local foods directly, many FCDBs borrow data from other countries. That’s a problem because nutrients can vary depending on climate, soil, cooking methods, and crop variety. Another challenge is that there’s no unified global system for naming foods, defining nutrients, or measuring content. Without standardization, it’s hard to compare or combine data across countries. 

On the other hand, across all 101 databases, only 38 food components were commonly reported—meaning that most databases only track basic information like calories and protein. Modern science shows food contains thousands of biomolecules that can affect health, but most FCDBs don’t include them. 

Another limitation is that databases aren’t regularly updated: About 39% of the databases hadn’t been updated in more than five years (in Ethiopia and Sri Lanka, their database has not updated since its creation, more than 50 years ago). That means they don’t reflect how food systems—and diets—are changing due to climate, migration, and new technologies. Maintaining high-quality FCDBs requires labs, experts, and funding—which many low- and middle-income countries lack. This contributes to a growing gap between regions with the most food data and those with the least. 

While the paper points out these limitations, it also highlights what’s possible when food data systems are done right. The Periodic Table of Food Initiative (PTFI) is a groundbreaking effort managed by The American Heart Association and the Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, and designed to overcome the very challenges most databases face. 

What sets PTFI apart? 

Unprecedented Molecular Detail: 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. 

Truly Global Scope: 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. 

100% FAIR-Compliant: PTFI is designed to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable—the gold standard for data sharing and transparency. 

Open and Standardized: 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. 

This study makes one thing clear: we can’t fix food systems if we don’t know what’s in our food. The current patchwork of food composition databases leaves too many people—and too many foods—out of the conversation. We need global collaboration, smarter technology, and above all, equity in data access and representation. Everyone, everywhere, deserves access to the kind of food knowledge that helps nourish people and the planet. Initiatives like PTFI aren’t just updating databases, they’re redefining how we understand food itself—as a complex, diverse, and dynamic source of health, culture, and resilience. 

 

END