The research, published in the European Journal of Public Health, tested how Portuguese consumers reacted to both labeling systems.

Serge Hercberg, the inventor of Nutri-Score, and other prominent scientists involved in the development of the French FOPL co-authored the study.

Their findings suggest that Nutri-Score is more effective in helping consumers understand the nutritional value of food and make healthier purchasing decisions.

The study involved 1,014 adults in Portugal and compared the two FOPLs across various food categories, including breakfast products, breakfast cereals and added fats.

“Nutri-Score appeared to be a more appreciated and effective tool than Nutrinform Battery for helping Portuguese consumers to choose foods with a better nutritional composition,” the authors wrote.

Participants using Nutri-Score were significantly more successful in identifying more nutritional products.

In a task involving three breakfast-related products, those using Nutri-Score were 28 times more likely to correctly identify the healthiest options compared to those using Nutrinform Battery.

In the “added fats” category, participants in the Nutri-Score group were 17 times more successful in choosing the healthiest fat.

Overall, participants exposed to Nutri-Score were more likely to choose healthier products across all tested food categories.

Regarding olive oil specifically, 83 percent of participants in the Nutri-Score group said they would purchase olive oil more often, compared to 66 percent in the Nutrinform Battery group.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses five coordinated colors and letters to rate the healthfulness of packaged food based on its fat, sugar, salt, and calorie content per 100 grams or milliliters. A “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, while a “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

Nutrinform Battery is a non-directive system that displays numerical information based on recommended portion sizes.

Using battery-shaped icons, it shows the percentage of daily reference intakes for energy, fats, saturated fats, sugars, and salt. It does not rank or color-code foods, requiring consumers to interpret the data themselves.

According to the researchers, 71 percent of Portuguese participants preferred Nutri-Score over Nutrinform Battery.

“Even among those who had initially used Nutrinform Battery, 59 percent switched their preference when shown both labels side by side,” the authors wrote.

Last year, Portugal adopted the Nutri-Score as an optional labeling system for food producers who wish to display it on their packaging.

The new findings are consistent with a 2023 study conducted on Spanish consumers and published in the same journal. Several of the authors, including Hercberg, were involved in both studies.

That earlier research found that Nutri-Score was more effective than Nutrinform Battery in enabling Spanish consumers to rank products according to nutritional quality accurately.

The authors argued that Nutrinform Battery requires “a higher cognitive workload,” which may explain why consumers preferred Nutri-Score.

According to the authors, the battery icon may be counterintuitive because it visually contradicts how people typically interpret battery symbols in everyday life.

In most digital contexts, a fully charged or highly charged battery is associated with something positive, such as full power or readiness.

However, in the Nutrinform system, a less charged battery represents a healthier food choice because it means the product contributes less to the daily intake of fat, sugar, salt or calories.

“By analogy with the electronic devices used daily by many people, graphic representations of charged batteries are more likely to be interpreted as a positive signal or a desirable state to be attained,” the authors wrote.

The research comes as Romania recently joined the list of European countries allowing voluntary adoption of Nutri-Score.

In recent years, both labeling systems have been considered by the European Commission as potential models for a unified E.U.-wide food labeling scheme.

However, a heated debate and deep divisions among member states contributed to the previous European Commission’s failure to advance the initiative. So far, the new commission has not indicated that it will move forward with a bloc-wide labeling system.

The Romanian government announced the adoption of Nutri-Score after concluding a public consultation on the new rules for introducing the FOPL.

The decision brings an end to years of uncertainty about the country’s position on Nutri-Score adoption.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style food label that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate the healthiness of a packaged food item based on its fat, sugar, salt, and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. A “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, while a “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

All Nutri-Score adopters in Romania will act voluntarily. Still, as in other countries adopting Nutri-Score, Romanian regulations require producers who choose to use Nutri-Score on one product to apply it to all products under the same brand within 24 to 36 months, depending on the number of products.

Romanian food producers and retailers will be required to follow the procedures and rules established by Santé Publique France (the French National Public Health Agency), including graphic standards and usage protocols.

Operators who fail to comply with the rules (e.g., providing incorrect nutritional data, misusing the logo) may have their rights revoked, face audits or be subject to sanctions or legal action.

The rules harmonize the use of Nutri-Score across all adopting countries. Alongside France and now Romania, the list includes Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

According to the international food product database Open Food Facts, which contributed to the design of the Nutri-Score label, the FOPL now appears in thousands of supermarkets and retail chains.

In countries where Nutri-Score has not been officially adopted—such as Slovenia, Austria, and Ukraine—some producers and retailers have voluntarily begun displaying it on part or all of their food packaging.

While the number of adopting countries continues to grow, Nutri-Score remains controversial in several parts of Europe.

Government and institutional officials in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Latvia have repeatedly opposed Nutri-Score.

Despite significant differences in how their concerns are expressed, these countries share the belief that Nutri-Score parameters penalize local food specialties or products widely recognized as healthy when consumed in appropriate portions.

Olive oil has long been at the center of the heated European FOPL debate.

While the latest update to the Nutri-Score algorithm raised all grades of olive oil to a “Light-green B,” Nutri-Score founder Serge Hercberg has clarified that olive oil will never receive the highest rating due to its total fat content.

As a result of this debate, Spain has introduced Nutri-Score, and at the same time, it has exempted olive oil producers and distributors from labeling their packaging with the FOPL.

After Nutri-Score was updated, several large food producers began distancing themselves from the logo, starting with the French-based food corporation Danone. More recently, the Swiss giant Nestlé also announced its intention to drop the label from some products in Switzerland.

For a few years, Nutri-Score has been the front-runner of an expected decision by the European Commission on the introduction of a mandatory FOPL across the European Union. The process was stalled in Brussels as the issue was dropped as a legislative priority.

The new European Commission, which formed last autumn, showed no intention to pursue a harmonized FOPL.

The new Romanian decision will become effective 60 days after its publication in the country’s official gazette.

After becoming one of the first major companies to adopt Nutri-Score in 2019, the Swiss multinational food and beverage producer is dropping the traffic-light style nutritional label on some confectionery and drink brands.

A Nestlé spokesperson said the company was removing Nutri-Score from products whose direct competitors were not using the label.

“Support for this nutritional labelling has significantly decreased in the country, and today Nestlé’s local Swiss brands are often the only ones carrying Nutri-Score in the product categories they are present in,” a spokesperson told Just Food.

Instead, the company will print a QR code on the food packaging labels to provide additional information about ingredients and nutritional values.

The announcement comes one month after Swiss supermarket chain Migros abandoned Nutri-Score, citing limited customer benefits despite the high implementation costs.

Previously, rival food manufacturer Danone announced it would drop Nutri-Score labels on many of its products after a change to the algorithm, which resulted in lower scores for several of its products.

Running counter to the trend, French supermarket chain Carrefour would require Nutri-Score labels from its suppliers and calculate its ratings for brands that do not comply. 

The decisions of the supermarket chain and food manufacturers highlight a collective action problem facing Nutri-Score, exemplified by Nestlé’s statement that it still supported the labeling system and would leave it in place on some products in the Swiss market and other markets.

“This decision is specific to the Swiss market and does not affect Nestlé’s support for Nutri-Score in other European countries,” the spokesperson said. “Nestlé continues to support and implement Nutri-Score in other European countries where governments are favorable to this nutritional labelling.”

“The low adoption of Nutri-Score in Switzerland, combined with decreased political support, creates a situation where Nutri-Score can no longer effectively fulfil its primary role of enabling consumers to compare the nutritional value of products within the same category,” the spokesperson added.

Nutri-Score is applied voluntarily in nine European Union countries and Switzerland, but is widely opposed in seven other EU states.

The European Union prohibits member countries from unilaterally implementing a food labeling system. Instead, Nutri-Score had been widely rumored to be the front-runner for a European-wide food label until the commission announced it would delay its plans to adopt a single food labeling system in 2023.

Priorities have since changed in Brussels after the European election in 2024, with some de-emphasis on food labeling from the commission.

The loss of momentum comes despite support from scientists and public health groups who argue that Nutri-Score has “demonstrated its effectiveness.” However, other researchers question the reliability of some studies that have led to this conclusion.

While the Spanish government has recommended the use of Nutri-Score, the food labeling system is vociferously opposed in Italy and Greece. 

The countries’ agricultural associations are concerned about the lower scores for traditional food products, including the ‘Light-green B’ for all grades of olive oil.

Olive oil producers argue that extra virgin olive oil should receive a ‘Green A,’ the highest score, due to its polyphenol content, which is not currently considered by the Nutri-Score algorithm. 

However, Nutri-Score creator Serge Herberg told Olive Oil Times in a 2023 interview that olive oil could never receive a ‘Green A’ because of its fat content.

“I wonder, is it the economic sector that decides how to classify a product, or is it the scientists?” he questioned.

• Just Food
• Food Navigator

This measure made France the latest country to adopt the updated front-of-pack labeling system (FoPL). It took nearly two years of heated debate to secure its approval.

Interestingly, while announcing the decree, Genevard and her colleagues warned that the FoPL “has limitations that it is essential to correct.”

According to the ministers, Nutri-Score penalizes many French specialty foods “although they offer recognized nutritional benefits when consumed according to nutritional guidelines… and as part of a balanced, varied diet.”

“Those foods have earned quality labels on their packages. It is imperative that we protect our culinary heritage,” they remarked.

The ministers emphasized that they will actively work to prevent any harm “for products that are the result of the richness of our terroirs.”

Some notable French specialty food producers, such as cheesemakers, have criticized Nutri-Score since its inception. They voiced even stronger objections after the announcement of the new algorithm.

The French ministers’ concerns closely mirror some of the most significant arguments raised against Nutri-Score’s adoption in other European countries, including Italy.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FoPL that uses five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food is based on its fat, sugar, salt, and calorie content per 100 grams or milliliters. A “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, while a “Red E” denotes the least nutritious.

The update introduces substantial changes, including an improved rating for olive oils. These changes have upgraded all grades of olive oil from “Yellow C” to “Light Green B.”

The updated algorithm makes no distinction between refined olive oil and extra virgin olive oil. This occurs because Nutri-Score does not explicitly consider phenols and other relevant content.

Although these compounds significantly contribute to extra virgin olive oil’s reputation as a healthy superfood, its high-fat content prevented it from achieving the top Nutri-Score rating.

Other foods, such as whole milk, have been downgraded under the new algorithm due to their fat content.

The update has also resulted in lower ratings for several popular products, including those containing alternative sweeteners.

The significant revision of the algorithm prompted the Danone food corporation, an early Nutri-Score adopter, to harshly criticize the system and withdraw its use from a wide range of its products.

While signing the decree, the French ministers emphasized that combating the country’s obesity epidemic remains the primary goal of the new measure.

“One in two French people are overweight or obese today, with very strong social and territorial inequalities,” they noted.

The ministers praised the changes made by food producers to their products to better align with Nutri-Score ratings, “particularly by reducing salt, sugar and fat content.”

Six countries in Europe currently use Nutri-Score: Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Portugal briefly joined the list last April. However, two months later, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries announced that its deployment was de facto illegal and canceled the entire adoption process.

At the time, the Portuguese ministry stressed that any voluntary labeling system in Portugal must rely on models “respectful of Portuguese food products.”

In their announcement, the French ministries specified that “economic actors involved in the process, if they wish, have two years to update their packaging and affix the new Nutri-Score.”

In a letter addressed to more than 550 food producers, Carrefour set a three-month deadline for adopting the front-of-pack label (FOPL).

If suppliers fail to comply, the retailer said it would inform its customers, calculate the Nutri-Score ratings for those products and publish them on its website and mobile application.

“We will be communicating the Nutri-Score of various products sold at Carrefour on our website and the Carrefour mobile application, except in cases where you formally object to this, which will be communicated to our customers,” Alexandre Bompard, president and chief executive of Carrefour, wrote on LinkedIn to the retailer’s suppliers.

This is the first time a retailer has taken such a firm stance with its suppliers regarding Nutri-Score.

Although France adopted Nutri-Score in 2017, its use on packaging remains voluntary, and producers are not legally required to include it. More than 7,000 food products sold by Carrefour already feature the label.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving.

The ‘Green A’ indicates the healthiest option, and ‘Red ‘ denotes the least healthy. All grades of olive oil are rated with a ‘Light-green B.’

Recent research has suggested that Nutri-Score has influenced the composition of food products in France, the first country to adopt the labeling system.

According to the study, food producers are reformulating products to achieve higher ratings on the front-of-pack label.

“Before we ask ourselves whether or not to tax sugary products, let’s start by giving our customers full information about what they consume,” Bompard said.

He emphasized that Nutri-Score’s expanded presence in Carrefour’s offerings is part of the broader Act for Food initiative.

The initiative, launched in 2018, aims to improve the quality-to-price ratio of Carrefour’s products while increasing transparency in food production. The program directly involves food suppliers in these efforts.

“Today, I want to take a step further by providing even more information to our customers about the nutritional profile of the products we sell to help them make choices that lead to healthier and more sustainable consumption,” Bompard wrote.

Among the suppliers targeted by the letter is Danone, the French food multinational, which recently announced plans to reduce the use of Nutri-Score on its packaging significantly.

Danone attributed this decision to the recent revision of Nutri-Score’s underlying algorithm.

“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 company said.

Nutri-Score has been adopted by several European countries, though it remains voluntary for suppliers in all cases.

The Carrefour initiative comes as Nutri-Score’s future in Europe is increasingly uncertain.

As the new European Commission begins its term on December 1st, the new Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, ruled out the E.U. adopting Nutri-Score as a European-wide official FOPL during the upcoming legislature.

• The Canary

Romanian authorities held a public consultation to fine-tune the regulations for introducing Nutri-Score, stating that adopting the FOPL will help Romania align with European Commission recommendations.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

Following recent updates to the Nutri-Score algorithm, all olive oils are now classified as “Light-green B” instead of “Yellow C.”

The Romanian government’s decision follows a temporary ban imposed by the local consumer protection authority last year.

This new approach will allow producers to voluntarily place the Nutri-Score logo on their products. However, retailers are required to display Nutri-Score-labeled foods separately from other products.

A QR code must accompany the logo to give consumers more detailed nutritional information about the product. Failure to include the logo where required will result in significant fines.

Furthermore, the Nutri-Score label will not be applied to foods with Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) certifications.

More specifically, the decree signed by Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu stated that “the provisions of this decision do not apply to traditional Romanian products, locally sourced products, or products with protected geographical indications, designations of origin, or guaranteed traditional specialties.”

According to government documents, many consumers lack the knowledge to interpret nutritional information correctly.

“Studies have shown that Nutri-Score labels can influence purchasing behavior, leading to healthier choices and a positive long-term impact on public health,” government officials noted in the public consultation documents.

The government also highlighted the potential for Nutri-Score adoption to address issues such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

According to the government, food producers will be encouraged to improve the nutritional profiles of their products to achieve better Nutri-Score ratings.

The new rules will come into force 60 days after publication in the official legislative gazette.

Currently, Nutri-Score is used in France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands. Switzerland has also adopted the logo, which originated in France.

However, the FOPL is quite controversial. Several countries have made a concerted effort to prevent its widespread adoption in the European Union, and some early adopters have changed course.

The French multinational food company Danone recently announced that it would remove the Nutri-Score label from many of its products.

According to Danone, the latest revision of the Nutri-Score algorithm unfairly penalizes its drinkable dairy and plant-based products.

During its last mandate, the European Commission hinted that Nutri-Score could be chosen as a European-wide FOPL. However, intense debate led Brussels to temporarily pause the process.

Observers have noted that the outlook may change with the new commission, which officially begins its term on December 1st.

Christophe Hansen, the new European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, is expected to unveil the E.U.‘s new agricultural strategy soon. Some anticipate that the plan will include a proposal for an E.U.-wide FOPL.

Following the latest update to the Nutri-Score algorithm, the French food corporation is removing the FOPL from its drinkable dairy and plant-based products.

The traffic-light-style FOPL uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least nutritious.

The new version of Nutri-Score reclassified drinkable dairy and plant-based products from the general food category to the beverage category.

This change affected the products’ ratings, as the algorithm applies different metrics depending on the category in which the foods are listed.

In this category, products like whole milk were downgraded from “B” to “C” due to their fat content.

After the switch, the ratings of some of those products dropped from “A” or “B” to as low as “D” or “E,” depending on the sugar content or the nutritional impact of alternative sweeteners.

Nutri-Score metrics also consider the function: while solid yogurt is classified as a food typically eaten during meals, drinkable yogurt is categorized as a beverage, assumed to be consumed outside of meals.

Water is the only drink in the beverage category that maintains a “Green A” classification.

“We do not agree with the revision of the algorithm,” Danone told Olive Oil Times. “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.”

Danone is removing Nutri-Score information from several popular brands, such as Actimel, High Pro, Danino, Danone and Activia.

Nutri-Score promoters strongly disagreed with the company’s decision.

“The sugar content of these beverages – drinkable yogurts, sweetened milk drinks (flavored milk) and plant-based drinks (including soy, almond, oat, rice, etc.) – varies considerably between sugar-free and very sweet versions of the product,” Nutri-Score’s organizers wrote in a blog post.

“Some of these products may contain 10 to 13 grams of sugar per 100 mililiters (i.e., the same level as sodas) but were abnormally classified as ‘A’ or ‘B’ with the calculation method for general foods that were initially used,” they added.

Danone’s approach to Nutri-Score may continue to evolve.

“We are also studying the impact of this withdrawal on our other product references and are working with all stakeholders in each market where we operate to identify the best solution,” the company said.

The Nutri-Score update was announced last year following a two-year review by the scientific committee overseeing the FOPL.

Among the many products affected, the review also upgraded all olive oils from “Yellow C” to “Light green B.”

The FOPL’s promoters emphasized that periodic algorithm revisions were planned and anticipated since its debut.

“A nutritional logo, whatever it might be, must be revised regularly based on scientific progress… market developments… experience of its implementation,” they wrote.

While distancing itself from Nutri-Score, Danone also called for the adoption in the European Union of “a harmonized interpretative nutritional information system benefiting all European consumers.”

Nutri-Score has been adopted in six E.U. countries (France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal) and Switzerland.

These implementations are voluntary, meaning that food producers can freely choose whether to apply the logo on their packages.

Several countries oppose the introduction of Nutri-Score as an E.U.-wide FOPL, and last year, the Romanian consumer watchdog formally forbade food producers from displaying the French FOPL on their packages.

Two years ago, Italian Antitrust authorities prohibited the use of French-origin FOPL on various types of food.

• Just Drinks
• Great Italian Food Trade
• Nutri-Score

A new study published in the European Review of Agricultural Economics provides evidence that food producers are changing their products to secure higher ratings from the front-of-pack food labeling system.

“Our paper analyzes the changes to the nutritional values of food,” said Christoph Bauner, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts and co-author of the study. “We do not test the mechanism that causes these changes. So, from a strict statistical sense, we cannot say that Nutri-Score’s impact on consumer choices is the driving factor.”

“Practically, I believe it is very difficult to come up with another plausible mechanism that would lead to the observed results,” he added. “There is literature suggesting that consumers are more likely to opt for products that score better on Nutri-Score, and the link to producer strategies is straightforward.”

Previous research has shown that consumers favor products with higher Nutri-Score ratings.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

“This scientific study is the first to demonstrate the impact of Nutri-Score on the nutritional composition of food products following its national-level introduction,” said Serge Hercberg, a professor of nutrition at Sorbonne Paris North University and founder of Nutri-Score.

The study compared the nutritional profiles and contents of selected food products between 2014 and 2021.

“Our analysis shows a significant improvement in Nutri-Scores of new products, implying that the overall product composition became healthier after the Nutri-Score introduction,” the researchers wrote.

Hercberg emphasized that the study observed a shift toward healthier items. “‘Conversely, this trend was not observed in Italy or the United Kingdom, two countries that have not adopted Nutri-Score,” he said.

Another study recently published by the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity found that displaying Nutri-Score ratings in food advertisements can influence consumer choices.

“All scientific findings on Nutri-Score’s impact confirm that this straightforward transparency tool is crucial in helping consumers make healthier food choices and encouraging manufacturers to enhance the nutritional quality of their products,” Hercberg said.

Bauner noted that while the report focuses solely on the French market, Nutri-Score’s reach expands. “Since identical food products are often marketed in multiple countries, this may lead to added incentives for producers to improve their products’ nutritional profiles,” he said.

However, Bauner added that publishing Nutri-Score labels on a product is still voluntary in France and that by the end of the study period, only about 50 percent of products in France featured one.

“If this percentage increases, then the incentives would apply to more products,” he said. “The percentage of products displaying Nutri-Score could increase, for example, if Nutri-Score becomes mandatory or if consumers interpret the lack of the Nutri-Score label as evidence of an unhealthy product and this becomes evident to producers.”

Bauner emphasized that the study results should not be extrapolated to other labeling systems.

“However, similar impacts have been demonstrated for other front-of-package labels, particularly for the mandatory warning labels in Chile,” he said. “I wouldn’t go so far as to say that just any labeling system will generate similar results as the system’s specifics will influence the underlying incentives.”

Interest in Nutri-Score’s impact on food is growing across Europe. On April 4th, Portugal formally introduced Nutri-Score.

The decision allows producers and retailers to adopt Nutri-Score voluntarily. According to the Portuguese government, introducing the Nutri-Score is a public health measure that promotes healthy nutrition.

Portugal now joins the growing list of European countries that have adopted Nutri-Score, including France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain and Switzerland.

However, a sizeable bloc of countries, including Italy, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Romania, is also opposed to Nutri-Score.

Italy has spearheaded the effort to oppose the European-wide adoption of the FOPL and instead proposed the locally devised Nutrinform Battery.

Instead of rating individual food items, Nutrinform Battery pairs food composition with suggested servings. Its backers argue that this approach promotes healthy dietary habits without prescribing and prohibiting specific food items.

The prolonged and intense debate over adopting a mandatory E.U.-wide front-of-package label, for which Nutri-Score was long viewed as the potential front-runner, has slowed significantly ahead of this year’s European elections.

Nutri-Score advocates hope the new European parliament and commission will rejuvenate efforts regarding the front-of-package labeling initiative.

As new research from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) validated the efficacy of Nutri-Score, another analysis suggested the opposite about the French-born front-of-pack labeling system (FOPL).

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate the healthiness of a packaged food item based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The ‘Green A’ indicates the healthiest option, while ‘Red E’ denotes the least healthy.

In recent years, Nutri-Score has been adopted by several European countries and has long been considered the most likely candidate to become the only mandatory FOPL across the European Union, which is still far from reaching a final decision.

According to the OECD research published in the scientific journal Obesity Review, Nutri-Score appears to be the best option among the currently used FOPLs on the market for combating the obesity epidemic and promoting healthier eating habits.

The OECD research backed by the European Commission affirms that Nutri-Score might prevent nearly two million cases of non-communicable diseases in the E.U. from 2023 to 2050.

According to the researchers, adopting Nutri-Score might lower annual healthcare spending compared to other FOPLs and improve productivity for workers of all ages.

The research is based on a review of the existing literature and a simulation that determines the possible impact of the expansion of the analyzed FOPLs across the entire European Union.

Still, according to a recent paper published by PharmaNutrition, the scientific literature about Nutri-Score is biased and more extensive independent research on the FOPL should be conducted.

The two Dutch authors published their study as a pre-proof article, meaning it was peer-reviewed but could be further revised before official publication.

The researchers wrote that most studies supporting Nutri-Score’s efficacy were “carried out by developers of Nutri-Score, whereas the majority (61 percent) of studies conducted independently from the developers showed unfavorable results.”

The researchers analyzed 104 scientific papers that investigated the efficacy of Nutri-Score. Each was classified as favorable, unfavorable or neutral toward the FOPL.

The paper notes that the studies favorable to Nutri-Score were authored by 52 researchers “employed or connected” with Nutri-Score’s developers, with an additional 19 neither employed nor connected.

Looking at the unfavorable studies, 30 researchers had no connection with Nutri-Score’s developers. Four others did.

“Even though the theoretical effect of Nutri-Score is validated on a multi-nutrient algorithm (FSA-NPS), there is no real-life evidence of any beneficial effects of Nutri-Score on this algorithm across a complete supermarket range,” the researchers wrote.

The FSA-NPS is the nutrient profiling system introduced by the British Food Standards Agency. The development of Nutri-Score was also based on a version of this system, modified for food labeling purposes, known as FSAm-NPS.

The article’s authors, Stephan Peters and Hans Verhagen, stated that the 2021 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, favorable to Nutri-Score adoption, also included contributions from Nutri-Score developers.

Among the authors cited as contributors by the IARC investigating the correlation between Nutri-Score and cancer or mortality was Serge Hercberg.

The emeritus professor of nutrition at Sorbonne University is also a nutritional epidemiology research team member and founder of Nutri-Score.

According to Hercberg, the new article published by PharmaNutrition lacks scientific foundations.

He told Olive Oil Times that the article had “conceptual and methodological problems, incorrect classification of scientific papers, biased presentation and discussion and false accusations and statements.”

Hercberg also warned that “authors attack public researchers and studies published in peer-reviewed journals that are disturbing the interests of food companies, suggesting that academic researchers involved in Nutri-Score’s validation might have conflicts of interest and their conclusions should be disqualified on the pretext that their scientific work led to Nutri-Score’s development a few years ago.”

Hercberg accused the article’s authors of “working for food companies that have been involved in lobbying battles against Nutri-Score for many years.”

He cited the Dutch Dairy Association and the Food Safety & Nutrition Consultancy, two entities mentioned in the paper among the credits of the two authors.

According to Hercberg, the Dutch Dairy Association includes several companies opposed to Nutri-Score, while the consultancy’s clients include the European Association of Sugar Manufacturers.

“It appears that the real objective of the authors is to downplay the link between economic conflicts of interest or study funding from food companies,” Hercberg wrote. “This is a significant oversight, as such conflicts of interest are well known to influence study outcomes.”

Peters told Olive Oil Times how “in the debate, the Dutch Dairy Association is framed by the scientists involved in Nutri-Score as an opponent of Nutri-Score. Actually, we are not.”

“We are completely in line with the opinion of the Dutch food-scientific community,” he added. “We think that Nutri-Score should be in line with food-based dietary guidelines before being introduced and that its effect on consumers should be proven independently.”

Peters said the reasons for their research come from the fact that both himself and Verhagen are “involved in the independent scientific committee of the former Dutch front-of-pack logo Het Vinkje in the Netherlands.”

“This FOPL has been removed from the Dutch market because it was too confusing for consumers,” Peters said. “Now Nutri-Score is being introduced, and we pledge for a sufficiently good scientific substantiation of the logo before introduction.”

“The science behind Nutri-Score is still very biased,” Peters and Verhagen wrote. “Therefore, we advise that independent scientists do future research and that the assessment of its health effects and efficacy are carried out by an independent scientific authority like the European Food Safety Authority.”

The Swiss Council of States, one of the two branches of the parliament, has approved a motion of the Commission for Science, Education and Culture asking representatives to consider the potential negative outcome of Nutri-Score’s adoption.

According to the motion, a healthy diet requires a broad approach to eating and can not rely on scores assigned to single food packages.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

Benedikt Würth, the commission’s representative at the council, told his colleagues that Nutri-Score has several flaws, including the fact that it does not discriminate between ultra-processed and non-processed foods.

Würth added that Nutri-Score does not consider additives, the product’s origin or sustainability.

As a result, Würth said traditional Swiss products, such as cheese, are penalized for their high-fat content, while an ultra-processed alternative may receive a higher score.

Given the endorsement of the motion by the majority of the chamber’s representatives, the motion will soon be discussed at a national level.

The Swiss Federal Council, the national government, sided against the motion underlining that Nutri-Score is voluntary for producers and retailers and does not represent the national nutritional guidelines.

Swiss President Alain Berset warned that should the parliament approve such a position, the country’s adaptation of Nutri-Score might have to be revoked.

Berset’s warning comes a month after the Romanian government banned Nutri-Score.

According to Tassos Kyriakides, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health, the fact that Nutri-Score does not consider food additives and their impact on health is just “one of its flaws.”

“I agree with providing the consumer a clear and concise information on a label,” Kyriakides told Olive Oil Times.

“The problem arises when you apply that across the board for every product, every food, every nutrient, without understanding that it is not just about the calories,” he added. “[The label] should concern the context of how [a specific food] is used.”

“Take a soft drink, one with no calories, as there is no sugar,” Kyriakides continued. “The context is how much you consume of that and what implications it has for your health.”

The Yale professor, among the organizers of the International Yale Symposium on Olive Oil and Health, noted that different labels could be applied to different food to be efficient in helping consumers.

“Take olive oil, with its unique characteristics,” Kyriakides said. “A [vegetable] oils dedicated labeling could help consumers choose among such oils. With Nutri-Score, they must compare olive oil to a soft drink.”

Nutri-Score founder Serge Hercberg explained how the rating system supports consumers’ choices within food categories.

In a 2020 Olive Oil Times interview, he argued that the labels help consumers compare two or more similar offerings.

However, Kyriakides said Hercberg’s argument in favor of Nutri-Score is not as straightforward as it sounds.

“If consumers who do not know about olive oil are exposed to the Nutri-Score labels, they can well think that a soda drink would be healthier than olive oils,” he said.

With the last update to the Nutri-Score algorithm, olive oils are now classified as “Light-green B” instead of “Yellow C.” In a recent statement, Hercberg clarified that olive oil will never get a “Green A” as it is a fat.

That means that 100 milliliters of olive oil cannot qualify for a Green A. Hercberg noted that such a rating does not reduce the proven health benefits of olive oil.

“If the intent is to inform the consumers about healthy choices, then [not labeling it as a Green A] means that you just ignored a big component of what olive oil brings,” Kyriakides said.

The Yale professor also noted how all olive oils are rated “Light green B” by Nutri-Score, meaning the algorithm underlying the FOPL does not consider the bioactive compounds that differentiate that make extra virgin olive oil stand out from all the other grades of olive oil.

“With its rating for olive oil, Nutri-Score is not helping the Mediterranean diet,” Kyriakides said. “People who turn to the MedDiet because they heard that it is healthy soon learn that olive oil sits at its core as a healthy superfood. Then they go in a store and see that it gets maybe a B or more probably a C.”

“The question is the context: how are you consuming [a food such as olive oil]? What are you consuming with that? How did it come to be part of [such consumption]?” Kyriakides added.

“Take olive oil and frying,” he continued. “We know that if you fry your veggies with extra virgin olive oil, compared to any other olive oil, you will absorb nutrients much better. There is synergy there.”

“You have to talk about that synergy, not the stand-alone products,” Kyriakides said. “If you are driven by calories, you miss all of these interactions, and there are many more examples of that.”

“In the intent to create an easy labeling for food products, this is actually creating more confusion,” he added.

Nutri-Score researchers have long argued that the FOPL does not harm the Mediterranean diet.

In a 2022 interview, Hercberg praised the Mediterranean diet and told Olive Oil Times, “the Mediterranean diet favors olive oil among added fats but does not recommend its consumption ad libitum.”

“The Mediterranean diet does not, therefore, under any circumstances… promote cheeses and processed meats,” Hercberg said.

However, Italians disagree. At the forefront of the opposition to the possible introduction of Nutri-Score at a European level, Italian farming associations, food producers and local and national governments have repeatedly criticized the French FOPL.

Recently, the Italian Minister of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry, Francesco Lollobrigida, said Nutri-Score falls short of warning against Italian food products.

In his words, the FOPL does not differentiate quality products. Instead, it “guides and influences [the consumers] in the name of algorithms towards some productions that have little to do with natural processes.”

His words came on the heels of a statement of the Italian farming association Coldiretti according to which the FOPL “only focuses on a very limited variety of nutritional substances (such as sugar, fat or salt) and the energy intake without considering the portions, paradoxically excluding from the diet 85 percent of Made in Italy quality products.”

• TV Svizzera
• Tio 20 Minuti
• EFA News

The decision of the Romanian National Authority for Consumers Protection (ANPC) forbids the Nutri-Score logo from appearing on food packages sold to the public.

“The Romanian decision is not based on science and public health,” Serge Hercberg, Nutri-Score’s founder, told Olive Oil Times. “It is based on the pressure of lobbies.”

“The [ANPC’s] position appears in denial of the many scientific works outlining the efficiency of Nutri-Score in terms of public health,” he added.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving.

The ‘Green A’ indicates the healthiest option, and ‘Red E’ denotes the least healthy. Due to a recent update, all olive oils are now rated as Light-green B.

ANPC’s officials said they imposed the ban on the adoption of Nutri-Score because it has not been approved for use by the country’s retailers.

The Romanian ban resembles an Italian consumer protection authority decision adopted last year, which imposed severe limitations on its use, arguing that Nutri-Score could not accurately inform consumers.

However, Hercberg lamented that the Nutri-Score ban would result in a lost chance for consumers to make healthy choices.

“Instead, consumers are targeted by marketing activities to push them to overeat products which present an unfavorable nutritional composition,” Hercberg said.

Hercberg’s position is shared by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC). “It is regrettable that Romanian authorities are planning to ban the valuable and science-based Nutri-Score in the country,” Emma Calvert, BEUC’s senior food policy officer, told Olive Oil Times

According to Calvert, the delayed introduction of the ANPC ban in Romania, which was decided last year, is due to the expectations that the European Commission will introduce its own food labelling policy.

“It is clear that the proposal’s repeated delays are having multiple negative side effects,” she said. “It is not only denying consumers a useful information tool to help them opt for healthier choices in the supermarket, but it is also depriving operators and national authorities of legal certainty.”

Still, further debate has been triggered by the recent Nutri-Score update, which penalizes artificial sweeteners widely used as sugar substitutes. Water remains the only beverage classified as ‘Green A.’

The update downgrades many low-calorie soft drinks, an outcome which has led to protests from some companies.

In countries where Nutri-Score has been fully implemented, such as France and Germany, the FOPL’s impact on consumers’ choices has been significant.

“We have very encouraging data about the impact of Nutri-Score in France,” Hercberg said. “Sales in supermarkets of food packages with the Nutri-Score logo show a decrease in sales of products ranking D or E and an increase of sales for products ranking A or B.”

“On top of that, we have positive data about the reformulation of food products,” he added, referring to the changes made by producers to some packaged food items in an effort to improve their Nutri-Score rating.

“Studies carried out by Santé Publique France showed that 94 percent of consumers favor the presence of Nutri-Score on the packaging,” said Hercberg, adding that 89 percent of consumers would also like Nutri-Score to be mandatory on all food packages.

“57 percent of the consumers declare that they have already changed at least one of their purchasing habits due to Nutri-Score,” he added

In the last two days, the Nutri-Score blog, supported by more than 300 health researchers and scientists, further fuelled the debate by publishing a research paper titled ‘Why the European Commission must choose the Nutri-Score nutrition label – a public health tool based on rigorous scientific evidence – as the harmonized mandatory nutrition label for Europe.’

The report underlines the reasons seven European countries have so far introduced Nutri-Score. It also dedicates whole chapters “to address questions that may be legitimately raised on Nutri-Score but that are often misused and exploited as fake news by lobbying groups.”

“The major obstacle to a wide adoption of Nutri-Score in Europe is the joint pressure at European Commission level of large food companies opposed since the beginning to Nutri-Score,” Hercberg said, pointing to Coca-Cola, Unilever International, Ferrero and Kraft.

In his opinion, pressure against Nutri-Score comes from “certain agricultural sectors, especially the cheese and processed meat sectors and their powerful European representation Copa-Cogeca,” he added.

After several delays, how and when the European Commission will adopt an E.U.-wide FOPL remains unclear.

Hercberg remarked how the delays in such a decision come from the involvement of several politicians “close to the lobbies” and “the lobbying actions of the Italian government, accelerated since Italy’s last elections, and some other countries, such as Romania.”

“[They are] deploying the most absurd and dishonest arguments to prevent the choice of Nutri-Score,” he concluded.

• Europa FM

Serge Hercberg, a French nutritionist at Sorbonne Paris North University, told the Spanish news agency EFE that since the only macronutrient present in olive oil is fat, it would be impossible for it to receive an “A” grade.

However, he added that this does not diminish olive oil’s importance to human health or the Mediterranean diet.

Hercberg indicated that the heart-healthy nature of olive oil’s monounsaturated fats was the main reason why all categories of olive oil will be upgraded from the “Yellow C” to the “Light-green B” when the algorithm underpinning the FOPL system is updated this year.

“I read a lot in the Spanish press that the olive oil sector wants the A rating,” he told EFE. “I wonder, is it the economic sector that decides how to classify a product, or is it the scientists? Tomorrow Coca-Cola will say that it wants an A or a B and Nutella from the Ferrero group that it wants a better evaluation.”

José Penco, director of the Spanish Association of Olive Municipalities (AEMO), was quick to retort: “it is not acceptable to compare olive oil with Coca-Cola or Nutella nutritionally. Furthermore, we find it impossible to believe that this phrase was pronounced by a scientist.”

In a comment published on LinkedIn, Penco added that the request for olive oil to be rated as a “Green A” should not be considered a request of the olive oil sector.

“It is not the economic sector that decides or proposes how to classify extra virgin olive oil; it is the multitude of studies and clinical trials published that show that extra virgin olive oil is the healthiest among all known fats,” Penco wrote.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

According to Euroactiv, Hercberg said Nutri-Score labels could not provide consumers with all possible health and nutritional information about any single food item.

For example, Nutri-Score does not indicate whether foods are ultra-processed, contain pesticides or where the food was grown or produced.

Additionally, Nutri-Score does not recommend serving sizes of the labeled product. Still, Hercberg said that Nutri-Score is currently the most efficient labeling system.

“We are not able to add all these elements in a single label,” he said. “You must accept the idea that segmented and complementary information should be given.”

Penco said these types of statements from Hercberg galvanize the olive oil sector to continue lobbying against the widespread introduction of Nutri-Score.

“We are proud of the work we have done to halt the proposed front-of-pack Nutri-Score labels, even more so when we read such statements,” he said.

Nutri-Score is currently among the FOPL systems being studied by the European Commission ahead of its much-delayed plans to introduce a mandatory pan-European food label, which is not expected before 2024.

• EFE

The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), the European Heart Network (EHN) and the Consumers Organization (BEUC) noted that the latest data shows over half of E.U. adults and one-third of children currently living as overweight or obese.

They argued that such conditions place “these citizens at significant risk for various non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.”

In their letter, the three organizations also stressed recent studies that confirmed obesity onset is earlier and the chances of living with obesity are much higher in lower-income households.

“While no policy tool can solve the issue of unhealthy food environments by itself, front-of-pack nutritional labelling, underpinned by robust independent scientific evidence, is an intervention which has been recognized by health experts as one which can tangibly help make the healthier choice the easier choice for consumers,” the signatories wrote.

The heated European Union FOPNL debate has highlighted divisions among member states. These differences of opinion are the main reason for the delays. The discussion has mainly focused on what kind of food labels should be introduced.

According to the open letter, the new labels should be mandatory for food producers, use interpretative color codes and be based on uniform reference amounts of 100 grams and 100 milliliters to “allow consumers to compare products according to their amounts of critical nutrients, notably saturated fat, sugars and salt.”

In the signatories’ view, such labels should be considered a tool to boost consumer education and dietary recommendations.

The promoters of Nutri-Score, the French-born front-of-pack food label, cheered the open letter initiative on its blog. In Nutri-Score’s view, its platform corresponds with the open letter’s description of the suggested labels.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPNL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate the health of a packaged food item. The rating is based on the food’s fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100 gram or milliliter serving. A “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and a “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

• The open letter
• The Nutri-Score blog entry

The latest news was announced by a European Parliament member (MEP) during the national meeting of Coldiretti, an agricultural association, in Rome.

“The European Commission has canceled its legislative proposal for an E.U.-wide food labeling system which includes Nutri-Score as one of the potential candidates,” said Paolo De Castro, member of the agricultural and rural development commission of the European Parliament.

According to De Castro, the withdrawal from the agenda means that the matter will not be discussed again before 2024, when elections are due.

“This means that this commission and this parliament will not be able to propose or to turn any proposed food label into law,” he added.

The delay in the legislative process for a harmonized and mandatory food labeling system for the entire European Union does not come as a surprise after comments from Italian and European politicians last month.

A decision on the matter was first expected by the end of the year and was recently postponed to the second half of 2023 . The main reason for the delay resulted from significant differences among E.U. members in the approach to food labeling.

While several different labeling platforms have been taken into consideration, Nutri-Score was long considered to be the front-runner after widespread voluntary adoption by a handful of countries, including France and Germany and major food producers.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style front-of-pack label that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

The announcement from De Castro comes days after the advisory body of the French Ministry of Health, the National Conference on Health (CNS), published an opinion asking for the immediate adoption of Nutri-Score throughout Europe.

The CNS experts called on the European Commission and the European Parliament “to protect the health of people living in the European Union, present and future generations, and to adopt a mandatory nutritional labeling, that is understandable by as many of our citizens as possible, especially the most vulnerable, and that has been scientifically proven to be effective.”

The CNS added that Nutri-Score’s adoption should happen “by the foreseen deadline (2022)” as “mandatory Europe-wide nutrition labeling.”

Before the CNS released its opinion, 23 MEPs wrote an open letter to the European Commission, appearing to criticize Nutri-Score while asking for a different approach.

According to the signatories, whichever nutritional label is chosen should be “simple” but not “simplistic.” It should also have to avoid any “judgment of value of the foods” and offer “information on calories and nutrients per serving.”

The letter also asked the commission to consider how the label assesses non-nutritional contents, such as whether or not a food is processed.

According to De Castro, the de facto delay in the E.U. adoption process is good news, as it will allow more time to understand the different opinions on the subject.

“As a matter of fact, I do not think we need a single harmonized system,” he added. “There are so many cultural differences and different lifestyles to find a comprehensive system to include them all successfully.”

• Il Sole 24 Ore
• Ansa
• Nutri-Score

The app aims to promote and defend traditional food products with the Made in Italy certification, which Italian agriculture unions, politicians and food business lobbyists argue is under attack from Nutri-Score, a front-of-pack-food labeling (FOPL) system.

The ministry is expected to set aside €100 million from the 2023 budget to promote traditional Italian food production, with 10 to 15 percent of the funds dedicated to the new mobile app. The budget would have to be renewed again for 2024.

The decision comes months after Italy’s market watchdog declined to approve a privately-developed mobile app until the creators lowered the influence of Nutri-Score on its food rating.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving.

The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy. All grades of olive oil are rated as “light-green B” after the latest update to the algorithm.

While the Nutri-Score labeling system remains among the potential candidates for a European Union-wide food rating platform, officials in Brussels recently suggested that it is unlikely that any existing FOPL would be adopted as an E.U. standard.

However, this announcement has not stopped the Italian pressure campaign to eliminate Nutri-Score from contention.

At the November 21st E.U. Agrifish Council, which routinely brings together the ministers of agriculture of all 27 member states, Italy’s Francesco Lollobrigida attacked Nutri-Score again.

While speaking to his peers, he said his country’s priority is to “preserve a food system which has grown through time” and branded Nutri-Score “a tool which is misleading with respect to the goals it sets.”

Previously, Lollobrigida lambasted Nutri-Score at a wine production event in Italy for giving higher ratings to processed food products than traditionally-produced ones.

“The traffic light model desired by the E.U. seems more a means to orient or, rather, disorient the market and consumption, favoring some sectors against others, discriminating those of quality and, for example, the Italian ones,” he said.

Most members of the new government support his position. While speaking at an event for Italian food producers earlier this month, the Italian minister of foreign affairs, Antonio Tajani, described Nutri-Score as a “colossal mistake that is part of an attack on Mediterranean cuisine. It’s harmful to the health of citizens and consumers.”

“We act at a European level; the government does so with great determination to defend the quality of our products against the incomprehensible choice of wanting to put those labels on products on sale,” he added.

At the same event, the Italian health minister, Orazio Schillaci, said that “front-of-pack labeling systems such as Nutri-Score or traffic light systems represent a simplification characterized by the absence of education toward healthy eating habits.”

Over the last few years, since its debut in France and the following adoption in other European countries, Nutri-Score has been backed by thousands of nutritionists and health experts across Europe.

Several studies have indicated the possible benefits for consumer health that would come from its introduction.

A final decision from the Italian government on the financing of the new anti-Nutri-Score app should come before the end of the year.

• Domani
• Ansa

The Change.org petition has already received more than 35,000 signatures and is supported by 35 French health associations. Many signatories are physicians involved in cancer, heart health, food addiction and consumer behavior research.

The petition’s authors wrote that Nutri-Score has “demonstrated its effectiveness” in the five years since it was adopted on a voluntary basis in France and other European countries.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is, based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving.

The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy. All grades of olive oil receive the “Light-Green B” rating after the latest update to the Nutri-Score algorithm.

The petition’s promoters pointed out that no food companies were in favor of Nutri-Score when it was first proposed in 2014, but since then, more than 800 brands have voluntarily adopted the FOPL.

However, they added that many leading global brands continue to oppose and lobby against Nutri-Score, including Coca-Cola, Ferrero, Mars, Lactalis, Mondelez and Kraft.

For the past few years, Nutri-Score was widely seen as the front-runner of about a half-dozen FOPLs to be selected for mandatory adoption across the European Union.

However, criticism of Nutri-Score has crescendoed over the same period reaching its climax at a recent European Parliament roundtable event.

Italian politicians and European agricultural associations have long argued that Nutri-Score unjustly punishes farmers and fails to consider traditional food products’ roles in local culinary cultures.

After the event, one commission official told a food industry media outlet that no existing food label would be adopted by the European Commission, which would create its own based on the existing FOPLs.

Separately, Italy’s permanent representation to the E.U. said the commission would delay the decision to adopt a mandatory food labeling system until the second half of 2023.

According to the French petition signatories, Nutri-Score should be adopted for all food packages on sale without exception “to guide our choices in a reasoned way, with full knowledge of the facts.”

“We consider this to be a consumer right and a duty of economic operators,” they added.

To that end, the petitioners asked the French government to protect Nutri-Score in Europe, called for the European Parliament to adopt Nutri-Score and demanded food producers to adopt Nutri-Score “to respond to consumer demand for true nutritional transparency on the composition of foods.”

The executive governing body of the European Union is also unlikely to recommend a single existing label, a commission spokesperson said.

Instead, the commission will submit a new proposal for overall nutritional food labeling in Europe by the end of the year and make a final decision by the end of the second quarter in 2023.

The announcement was made after Nutri-Score, a traffic-light-style front-of-pack-label (FOPL) widely considered the front-runner, was criticized by food industry groups and Italian politicians at a roundtable debate of nutrition science held at the European Parliament.

Stefano Verrecchia, the Italian ambassador to the E.U., said Nutri-Score ignored national dietary traditions and “artificially” classified some foods as healthy or unhealthy.

However, a European Commission spokesperson told Food Navigator the food labeling proposal is “scheduled for adoption in the coming months.”

“The commission is still assessing the outcome of the past impact assessment and consultations it held with member states and stakeholders,” the source added. “No decision has been taken yet on how sustainable food labeling will be exactly framed and regulated.”

However, the spokesperson suggested that none of the front-of-pack schemes currently under consideration would be adopted, with elements from each incorporated into a completely separate FOPL.

“The different options which the commission will put forward will build on already existing formats already developed in the European Union, such as Nutri-Score (France), Nutrinform Battery (Italy) or the Keyhole (Sweden),” the source said.

Since its voluntary introduction in 2017, Nutri-Score has become a polarizing topic in the 27-member bloc. France and Belgium have adopted voluntary use of the FOPL, with Spain, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg announcing the future implementation of the FOPL.

Its supporters, which include a coalition of 300 European scientists and health professionals, believe Nutri-Score is the only FOPL with proven efficacy in helping consumers make healthy choices.

However, Italy has spearheaded the efforts to derail the adoption of Nutri-Score, both nationally and on the European level.

Politicians, agriculture unions and other food industry lobbyists argue that low Nutri-Score ratings for olive oil and traditional cheese and meat products will hurt farmers. However, a survey of French consumers found that Nutri-Score ratings did not penalize traditional food products.

Regardless, Italy’s anti-trust authorities prohibited Nutri-Score ratings on some products in August.

The month before, the county’s market watchdog declined to approve a new food rating mobile application in the country until it lowered the influence of Nutri-Score ratings on its algorithm.

Serge Herberg, a nutrition professor at the Université of Sorbonne Paris Nord’s medical school and co-creator of Nutri-Score, lamented the recent commission announcement.

He did not withhold his criticism on what he believes is a concerted food industry effort to sabotage the debate over nutrition labeling in comments to Food Navigator.

“[The nutrition science roundtable debate contained] all the usual fake news disseminated against Nutri-Score, especially cheese and processed meats sectors and their representatives and lobbies,” he said.

“There is a lot of disinformation trying without any scientific basis to discredit Nutri-Score with a total negation of the science,” Hercbeg added.

“If the European Commission favors science and public health, Nutri-Score should be chosen,” Hercberg concluded. “If not, considering that Nutri-Score is too ‘polarizing,’ we may consider that the European Commission has yielded to the agri-food lobbies.”

• Food Navigator
• Italian Permanent Representation to the E.U.

They fear that sales would be impacted negatively if the controversial food rating system is made mandatory by the European Commission. Nutri-Score ratings are currently voluntary in France.

The new offensive against Nutri-Score comes on the heels of the recent update to the algorithm used to determine ratings.

The National Council of PDO-Certified Specialties (CNAOL) asked the French government to ensure that cheese makers would be considered in the update.

However, it did not help the ratings of most cheeses, including those with a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) certification, which is reserved for traditional food specialties. Some ratings were even revised downward due to fat and salt contents penalized by Nutri-Score.

“It’s disastrous,” council chairman Hubert Dubien said. “The modifications have made nothing better. It’s even worse for some [cheeses].”

Cheese producers have criticized the algorithm update, arguing their traditionally-produced products should not receive the same rating as processed foods, including frozen pizzas and vanilla ice cream.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

The creators and backers of Nutri-Score said the rating system is meant to help consumers make choices among products in the same category, such as edible oils, and is not meant for cross-comparisons.

In response to the Nutri-Score ratings, the council released a document demonstrating the cultural qualities of PDO cheese production.

The document showed that nearly 78 percent of PDO cheeses are made from raw milk, meaning the milk is not heated above 40 ºC before production. They also stated that 28 of 46 PDO kinds of cheese are exclusively made with raw milk.

Producing cheese with raw milk preserves its micro-organisms, which influences the final taste of the cheese. The council argued that these micro-organisms are the essence of local cheese traditions.

Meanwhile, in Italy, a member of the previous government, which lost power in the September elections, said Nutri-Score is unlikely to be adopted by the European Union as its mandatory FOPL.

Stefano Patuanelli, the former agriculture minister, told Il Sole 24 Ore that “when we were put in charge [of the ministry], the fight against Nutri-Score seemed without hope. Instead, we can say that if the game has ended, it has ended for the traffic-light labeling system.”

Italy has long been home to some of Nutri-Score’s most outspoken critics, with many rallying behind the rival Nutrinform Battery FOPL.

According to Patuanelli, the European health commission’s general direction has already said that a traffic light FOPL does not provide enough information to consumers.

However, the European Food Safety Agency and Joint Research Center found that FOPLs like Nutri-Score might influence consumers to make healthier choices.

The European Commission said it will adopt a mandatory pan-European FOPL before March 2023.

• The Times
• Les Echos
• Il Sole 24 Ore

Politicians, food and nutrition experts and other stakeholders warned against the European Union-wide adoption of the FOPL. The European Commission is expected to announce a mandatory uniform FOPL by March 2023.

Nutri-Score remains the front-runner after both the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Research Center found that FOPLs like Nutri-Score might influence consumers to make healthier choices.

However, organizers of the roundtable said that “the hope is that the commission and parliament will avoid taking a paternalistic and ideological approach and rather work to improve consumer knowledge and freedom and, above all, take into consideration the cutting-edge scientific research in the field of nutrition.”

According to the nutrition scientists in attendance, the latest studies show the need to adopt a FOPL that recognizes the individual needs of each consumer and raises awareness about the nutritional qualities of the food.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is, based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100-gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

Michele Carruba, director of the obesity research center at the University of Milan, and Ramon Estruch, senior consultant at the internal medicine department of the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, emphasized the relevance of considering the physiological characteristics and the preferences of each person.

Other participants, such as Horst Heitz from Taxpayers of Europe and Véronique Willems from SMEunited, a business association, said any FOPL needs to take individual food cultures into account and should not be a barrier to free trade among E.U. member states.

“What must urgently be avoided are approaches that force small producers to abandon their entrepreneurial and cultural traditions in favor of a process of alimentary amalgamation that benefits the big multinationals,” they said.

Pietro Paganini, economic analyst and chair at Competere, the policy institute that organized the roundtable, said food labels “summarize core principles for the European Union, such as knowledge, education and freedom.”

“Education is the core of a healthy and balanced diet,” he added. “That is what allows any individual to make conscious choices. The matter is not only what we eat but also how much, when and where, as diseases such as obesity are linked more to our habits and way of life than to eating specific foods.”

Instead, Paganini said science is moving in the direction of personalized diets, arguing that everybody processes foods differently and, therefore, one set of recommendations is not the best approach to nutrition.

Herbert Dorfmann, president of the European parliamentary association, said, “it is not easy to define what is healthy and what is not… To function, labels must be simple.”

However, he added that Nutri-Score is too simple, implying that its purpose of comparing foods of the same category is not intuitive and could therefore impede consumer understanding of how they should eat.

Despite his concerns, Dorfmann acknowledged that a pan-European FOPL would likely cause some food producers to change the ingredients of processed foods to make them healthier.

“Still, such a label has no meaning when simple products such as tomatoes or potatoes or when European-certified food specialties are considered,” he said.

Georgios Krytsos, a member of the parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee, said, “Nutri-Score is concerning, as its deployment can create confusion among consumers.”

He warned that food producers might try to manipulate the system by swapping ingredients such as sugar for artificial sweeteners, which would improve the rating without making the product healthier.

Krystos added that any FOPL should be mindful of traditional diets, which he argued create a culture of healthy eating instead of a prescription of what to eat and what not to eat.

The Greek MEP said basing Nutri-Score ratings on 100 milligram or milliliter serving sizes opens the door to further confusion, as many food items are consumed in far larger or smaller quantities normally.

Closing the event, Jordi Cañas, a member of the international trade and the employment and social affairs committees, said, “our ultimate goal is to promote health through education and gathering sufficient information.”

“For that to be useful, information needs to be accessible,” he concluded. “That means that labeling must guarantee an informed decision. Otherwise, it will not be used.”

Stella Kyriakides confirmed in a speech to European agricultural ministers that the official regulation for a common food labeling platform is close to being published.

Kyriakides praised the efforts of European countries that have already deployed FOPLs that help consumers make healthier choices. However, she warned that so many disparate labels increased costs for businesses and contributed to confusion among consumers.

“Many of you have introduced national recommendations or legislation on front-of-pack nutrition labeling, the origin of certain foods and labeling alcoholic beverages,” she said. “However, they are not aligned. This can lead to consumer confusion, barriers to free movement of goods and extra company costs.”

Kyriakides said the European Commission’s decision was being shaped by research undertaken by different European institutions and the recommendations made by consumers, farming associations, food producers and other stakeholders who participated in the public consultation.

Kyriakides added the final decision “takes on board” the European Food Safety Authority’s opinion about the role of the Mediterranean diet in preventing and mitigating a series of widespread diseases.

The European Commission is also considering the results of an E.U. Joint Research Center study, which found that consumers prefer effectively simple and colored FOPLs published on the product packaging (as opposed to a QR code), such as Nutri-Score.

The push toward a common and mandatory food packaging label is part of the broader Farm-to-Fork Strategy announced two years ago by the European Commission to promote sustainability and environmentally-friendly food production practices.

Front-of-pack food labels are also considered crucial for the goals of the Commission’s Beating Cancer plan.

Based on the findings of the JRC report, Nutri-Score appears to remain the most probable candidate among the FOPLs being considered for E.U.-wide adoption.

Nutri-Score is a traffic-light-style FOPL that uses a combination of five coordinated colors and letters to rate how healthy a packaged food item is based on its fat, sugar, salt and calorie content per 100 gram or milliliter serving. The “Green A” indicates the healthiest option, and “Red E” denotes the least healthy.

The food rating system has gained wide acceptance in a number of European countries. Still, it has come under intense criticism in Italy, where it is believed that adopting Nutri-Score would hurt traditional producers.

There had also been widespread opposition from olive oil producers and their allies in Europe’s three largest producing countries. However, a revision in the algorithm improved olive oil’s score from a “Yellow C” to “Light green B” and has largely assuaged concerns.

The European Commission is expected to announce its final decision before March 2023.