Nutri-Score’s struggle for universal acceptance

When it comes to nutrition labelling system Nutri-Score, finding agreement on its adoption has turned out to be much harder than was anticipated when it was introduced seven years ago.

There had been hopes among the scheme’s advocates that Nutri-Score could one day be adopted by the EU as the mandatory front-of-pack label to use across the bloc.

However, the use of Nutri-Score remains voluntary in only a handful of EU member states, some major manufacturers refuse to use the labels and the deadline Brussels set itself to unveil the type of scheme it would roll out passed almost two years ago with no announcement (and still none).

A colour-coded system on nutritional quality, Nutri-Score was launched in France in 2017 in a bid to give consumers an at-a-glance ranking of the nutritional credentials of a product on a scale running from A to E.

It has been adopted by six EU member states – France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg and The Netherlands – plus non-EU member Switzerland. However, it is not mandatory that manufacturers based in those countries use the labels on their products.

A number of food manufacturers and retailers have adopted the scheme. But any early momentum back has stalled because, several observers believe, it has not been introduced at an EU- level on mandatory basis.

“After France adopted it there were another seven member states which said they would endorse it but they have waited for the Commission. The momentum was halted by the Commission,” Emma Calvert, senior food policy officer at BEUC – the consumer lobby group that is an umbrella body for more than 40 organisations across the EU, says. 

But after the recent elections to the European Parliament, a new European Commission is set to start work on 1 December, which advocates hope will give fresh impetus to Nutri-Score. Calvert is “cautiously optimistic”.

She says: “Something we will be watching closely is the first 100 days of the [new] Commission. [EC President] Ursula von der Leyen has tasked the commissioners with coming forward with a vision for food and agriculture.”

When contacted by Just Food, a European Commission spokesperson said: “The Commission will continue work on food labelling, with particular attention to minimising the related burdens and finding balanced and pragmatic solutions for producers and consumers alike. Any decision regarding possible next steps will be taken by the new Commission.”

In her mission brief sent to Christophe Hansen, the Commissioner-Designate for Agriculture and Food, von der Leyen made no mention of nutrition labelling. She wrote: “You will prepare in the first 100 days a vision for agriculture and food, working under my guidance and in coordination with other members of college. This should look at how to ensure the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of our farming and food sector within the boundaries of our planet. It should also look at food waste and promotion of cutting-edge science, innovative technologies and emerging products in the agrifood sector.”

Some industry watchers wonder how easy it would be to introduce a labelling scheme across the EU because of the opposition Nutri-Score has attracted in some member states.

Italy is leading the charge here. Rome has been a vocal critic of Nutri-Score, believing the labels unfairly penalise certain products popular in its country. Meanwhile, in June, Portugal’s new government halted the planned introduction of the front-of-pack labels in the country.

Julia Buech, a senior consumer foods analyst at Netherlands-based financial-services group Rabobank, says: “The ultimate pressure on EU members, manufacturers and those less enthusiastic retailers, would presumably come from the EU implementing Nutri-Score on a bloc-wide basis but I suppose there is still little immediate prospect of that unless the new Commission takes a more pro-active approach to the issue.”

In a recent research paper on the subject, she wrote: “Some EU members argue that the label unfairly penalises products that symbolise national identity, such as certain cheeses and deli meats, due to the amount of saturated fat and salt they tend to contain, as well as limited room for reformulation. Italy, one of the fiercest opponents of the scheme, recently even proposed a constitutional amendment that would significantly complicate the implementation of Nutri-Score.”

Jack Bobo, director at the Food Systems Institute at Nottingham University in the UK, argues there are flaws in the way Nutri-Score classifies products.

“Nutri-Score faces significant challenges that make it unsuitable as a mandatory labelling scheme across Europe. For example, in some instances it fails to fully consider traditional dietary patterns and risks unfairly penalising certain products, potentially leading to misleading recommendations for consumers,” he says.

“Reaching agreement on Nutri-Score at the EU level has been challenging because it touches on deeply rooted differences in dietary traditions, cultural preferences and national food industries. Each country has its own perspective on how nutrition should be evaluated and communicated, making consensus on a single, standardised system difficult to achieve.”

Things became more complicated in late 2023 when the creators of Nutri-Score changed the algorithms behind the labels to reflect current scientific findings and to distinguish healthy foods more clearly from unhealthier ones.

In particular, changes to how milk-based beverages containing sugar were judged hit a nerve with some manufacturers.

In September, Danone, an early adopter and staunch supporter of the scheme (it once called for Nutri-Score to be mandatory across the EU), revealed plans to remove the labels on its dairy and plant-based drinks sold in Europe. 

The Activia and Alpro brands owner was unhappy with changes made to the scheme that placed dairy and plant-based beverages in the same category as soft drinks.

Danone insisted it would only remove the label from its dairy and plant-based dairy drinks but said the change created “a major inconsistency”. It added: “This development gives an erroneous view of the nutritional and functional quality of drinkable dairy and plant-based products, not in line with food based dietary guidelines in Europe.”

The French dairy giant said it still wants “the adoption, at EU level, of a harmonised interpretative nutritional information system benefitting to all European consumers” and added: “We are open to further dialogue and collaboration to promote healthy food choices.”

However, Buech at Rabobank suggests its withdrawal from displaying the label on some of its products could be unworkable.

“Danone’s intended partial exit is problematic and unlikely to succeed in this form,” she wrote.

“According to the principles of the scheme, companies are not supposed to cherry-pick and only report scores on products that suit them. Once Nutri-Score is introduced, the registered brands are obligated to use it for all product categories.” 

Another problem for Nutri-Score to solve then. However, this month, the scheme was given a boost when Carrefour, France’s largest supermarket group and a long-time supporter of Nutri-Score, put pressure on suppliers over using the labels.

Carrefour demanded branded suppliers include Nutri-Score labels on product information displayed by the grocer online. If brands fail to tell Carrefour the Nutri-Score of each product, the retailer will calculate the information itself on the basis of the available data.

“Carrefour will then indicate on the product sheet of each reference concerned the brands that refuse to participate in the approach,” the retailer said. It has given its suppliers three months to comply with its request.

“To facilitate comparisons between one product and another, and to be fully effective, the Nutri-Score must be adopted and used widely,” Carrefour stated. 

Other large European supermarket groups, including Auchan, Delhaize, Aldi, and Lidl, have adopted the scheme, so this could be a development to watch.

Buech at Rabobank described the move as “very interesting” but suggested carrot as well as stick is probably the best approach. 

She says: “The ‘name and shame’ approach might work for Carrefour – it did similar with regards to shrinkflation, aiming to make suppliers re-think their pricing policies – and perhaps other big retailers, but overall, some ‘carrot’ should facilitate collaboration on this controversial topic, in the absence of a mandatory label.”

Which brings us to the question of whether such nutrition labels are necessary at all. Do they actually influence consumers in making healthier choices?

Bobo is unconvinced “Nutrition labelling has not proven particularly effective at changing consumer behaviour on its own in the past. While it’s still an important tool for promoting informed choices, we should be realistic about its impact and avoid overestimating its ability to drive significant dietary changes without broader supportive measures.”

However, Calvert at BEUC sees them as an essential weapon in the fight against obesity.

“We want what’s best for consumers,” she says. “If there was a better label out there we would go for that but Nutri-Score has shown it is helping consumers to make changes.”

“If it’s not Nutri-Score it [an alternative labelling system] has to at least retain some of its key principles in being independent, having unique references and being colour coded. It needs to take the burden away from consumers to make calculations in supermarkets.

“And it needs to be backed up by robust scientific evidence. Those are key principles.

“We will be pressing the new commissioner on health. The levels of obesity in the EU are shocking and we need to move beyond awareness raising campaigns.”

A 2023 report – entitled Why the European Commission must choose the Nutri-Score nutrition label – highlighted “very strong arguments in favour of choosing Nutri-Score”.

It was based on the opinions of 316 scientists and health professionals working in the fields of nutrition, obesity, public health, preventive medicine, endocrinology, oncology, cardiology, paediatrics, psychology, European law and social marketing.

But, for all that, Buech at Rabobank suggests the piecemeal adoption of Nutri-Score may be the situation going forward.

“For the time being, with more retailers likely to set, and work towards, self-imposed health targets, I think we’ll see the adoption rate of Nutri-Score increase further. But, without eventual EU regulation on this matter, this won’t be all-encompassing, and therefore not enough to be truly meaningful from a consumer guidance point of view,” she says.

It would seem to be one step forward, two steps back at times for Nutri-Score but Calvert at BEUC prefers to accentuate the positive.

“We’ve been very frustrated by the delay [in the EC implementing the scheme],” she says.

“All we’ve had as updates is that it’s ongoing and that they will continue to investigate the different labels on the market.

“I don’t think it has been completely shelved but we need clarification soon from the new Commission.”