Nutri-Score: a useful tool or a misleading label?

Nutri-Score is often presented as a simple way to make healthier choices at the supermarket. With a letter from A to E and a colour ranging from green to red, consumers can supposedly see at a glance how healthy a product is. What many people do not realise, however, is that Nutri-Score was originally developed in France. The system was introduced in 2017 as part of a broader strategy to combat obesity and lifestyle-related diseases. The idea was that consumers often have little time to study detailed nutritional tables and therefore need a simple tool to help them when shopping.

Nutri-Score is based on an existing scientific model that assesses foods based on positive and negative nutritional values. Products are deducted points for factors such as calories, sugar, salt and saturated fat, whilst ingredients such as fibre, protein, vegetables, fruit and pulses earn bonus points. Based on this calculation, a final score between A and E is assigned. Several European countries have now adopted the system in the hope of encouraging consumers to make healthier choices.

Although the aim behind Nutri-Score is understandable, there are also some reservations about the way the system works in practice. One of the key points is that manufacturers are not obliged to display the Nutri-Score on their packaging. Use of the label is voluntary. Manufacturers can therefore decide for themselves whether to display the score on their products. This creates a situation where products with a favourable score are often prominently labelled, whilst products with a less attractive rating are sometimes found on the shelves without a Nutri-Score. For consumers, this does not always make a fair comparison any easier.

Furthermore, the Nutri-Score appears to be more susceptible to manipulation than many people realise. Because the calculation method is public, manufacturers know exactly which variables they can tweak to achieve a better score. A small adjustment in the amount of sugar, salt or fat can sometimes be enough to give a product a more favourable rating. That does not automatically mean that a product has actually become healthier. Some manufacturers seem to be optimising primarily for the algorithm behind the Nutri-Score, whilst the product may still be highly processed.

The packaging itself can also cause confusion. When the calculation method is updated or a recipe changes, manufacturers often still have large stocks of packaging material. To avoid waste, these old packages are regularly used up first. As a result, consumers may encounter products for months with an outdated Nutri-Score or even without a Nutri-Score, whilst the current rating has since changed. In theory, the system is intended to provide clarity, but in practice it can actually cause confusion.

Added to this is the fact that a complex nutritional profile is reduced to a single letter. However, health cannot always be summarised as an A, B, C, D or E. Products are assessed per 100 grams or 100 millilitres, whilst the portions people actually consume vary widely. Furthermore, the score says little about how natural or highly processed a product is. As a result, some products can achieve a relatively good Nutri-Score whilst still consisting mainly of processed ingredients.

The Nutri-Score was therefore created as a genuine attempt to help consumers make healthier choices. That aim is understandable, and in many cases the label can be a useful tool for comparing similar products. At the same time, it is important to realise that the system is not mandatory, that manufacturers can influence their score, and that old packaging sometimes remains in circulation for a long time. Anyone wishing to make informed choices would therefore be wise to use the Nutri-Score as a guide, but not as the sole measure of a product’s healthiness.