Analysts warn many global food composition databases are outdated, inconsistent and inaccessible

A recent global review reveals that many food composition databases (FCDBs) are outdated, inconsistent, or difficult to access altogether — especially in the places that need them most. These collections of data typically summarize the nutritional content of different foods, from macronutrients like protein and fat, to vitamins, minerals, and specialized biomolecules like antioxidants and phytochemicals.

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.

The report finds only 30% of databases were truly “accessible” — meaning users could retrieve and use the data. Just 69% were interoperable or compatible with other systems. Meanwhile, 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parts of Asia had well-developed food data systems, many countries in Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia had outdated or incomplete data — or no database at all.

“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,” urges the research team.

“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 Periodic Table of Food Initiative (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.”

Offering a standardized approach to global food quality research, PTFI has mapped the composition of over 500 foods while examining their different components and health implications. The initiative is managed by The American Heart Association and the Alliance of Biodiversity and CIAT. 

Implications on decision-making

Food composition databases are designed to help dietitians, researchers, governments, and consumers understand food diversity and improve food systems.

“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,” says the research team.

“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 is lacking?

The review published in Frontiers in Nutrition outlines 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.

This is 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,” warn the researchers.

There is no unified global system for naming foods, defining nutrients, or measuring content.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,” notes the research team.

Another limitation is that databases are not regularly updated: About 39% of the databases had not been updated in more than five years. In Ethiopia and Sri Lanka, for instance, local databases have not been updated since their 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,” warn the paper authors.

“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.”

What sets PTFI apart?

While the paper clarifies these limitations, it also highlights what can be possible when food data systems are designed right. The PTFI is managed by The American Heart Association and the Alliance of Biodiversity and CIAT, and was created to overcome the challenges most databases face.

PTFI goes beyond the 38 commonly tracked nutrients. Using advanced techniques like metabolomics and mass spectrometry, food is analyzed for over 30,000 biomolecules. 

Unlike most databases focused on national diets, through its Centers of Excellence around the world PTFI is profiling foods from every continent, with special attention to underrepresented and Indigenous foods that are often left out of traditional systems.

PTFI is also designed to be “Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable” — which it touts as the “gold standard for data sharing and transparency.”

All of PTFI’s data is freely available online, using globally accepted protocols so that anyone — from a government to a food start-up — can use it.

In April, Nutrition Insight explored how the initiative aims to translate food composition data into actionable insights with Selena Ahmed, PTFI’s global director based at the American Heart Association, and Mariana Barboza, research program manager for the Innovation Institute for Food and Health at the University of California, Davis, US.