Nutri-Score proves effective, so why hasn’t the EU made it mandatory?

Despite clear evidence that Nutri-Score helps consumers make healthier choices, food industry lobbying has stalled EU action—experts now call for bold, transparent steps to put public health first.

Perspective: Ten years of Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Europe. Image Credit: Markus Mainka / ShutterstockPerspective: Ten years of Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Europe. Image Credit: Markus Mainka / Shutterstock

In a recent perspective article in the journal Nature Food, nutrition and public policy experts discussed the decade-long journey of front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) in Europe, emphasizing its importance for promoting healthier diets. While the European Union (EU) proposed introducing legislation for harmonized, mandatory FOPL by 2022, this did not take place, which the authors attribute partially to sustained lobbying efforts by stakeholders with conflicts of interest, including segments of the food industry and some EU member states. Now, experts advocate for a FOPL scheme based on evidence-based, transparent processes that intend to reduce power imbalances, support informed public engagement, and rebuild trust in the system.

Types and History of FOPL

FOPL is widely recognized as a cost-effective “best buy” strategy to improve public health and has been recommended by the World Health Organization. By providing clear and easily understandable nutrition information on food products, it supports consumers in making healthier food choices while encouraging manufacturers to improve the nutritive value of their products.

There are several types of FOPL. These include endorsement logos, which highlight healthier choices (e.g., the Nordic Keyhole); traffic light labels, which use color coding for nutrient content and are used widely in the United Kingdom; warning labels, which alert consumers to high levels of unhealthy ingredients and are implemented in Chile, Israel, and across Latin America; summary-graded labels such as the Health Star Rating in Australasia or Nutri-Score, which provide overall ratings on healthfulness; and non-interpretive labels (e.g., Italy’s NutrInform Battery), which present numerical nutrition data without evaluation.

In 2011, the EU mandated that nutrition labeling should be shown on the back of packaged foods. Subsequently, public health strategies proposed a harmonized FOPL system to be adopted across the EU, but competing interests delayed progress. Nutri-Score, although officially adopted in several EU countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain, remains a voluntary labeling scheme, not yet mandatory in any EU member state.

Scientific Support for FOPL

The Nutri-Score, in particular, has been widely studied. First introduced in 2014 as a color-coded summary grading system, its effectiveness in guiding consumer choices has been assessed through rigorous research. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that Nutri-Score is the only EU FOPL with “strong scientific evidence” demonstrating its superiority to other labels.

It was adopted in France in 2017 and subsequently in several other European nations, leading to dedicated transnational governance mechanisms, including a steering committee of public authorities and a scientific committee to update its classification algorithm. These mechanisms ensure that Nutri-Score evolves based on emerging scientific evidence and remains relevant across diverse food environments.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has conducted comprehensive reviews of FOPL, concluding that color-coded and summary labels are the most effective. Modelling by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that EU-wide Nutri-Score adoption could prevent nearly two million cases of diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) between 2023 and 2050.

Multiple studies, including randomized trials and real-world experiments, have shown that the Nutri-Score improves the nutritional quality of purchases and reduces calorie, sugar, and fat intake. These benefits could also enhance workforce productivity, with an estimated annual gain of 10.6 full-time workers per 100,000 individuals due to lower NCD rates.

Industry Resistance Through Lobbying Efforts

Despite strong evidence, some food industry stakeholders oppose the Nutri-Score, fearing it could negatively impact consumer attitudes toward their products. Industry-funded research has sought to promote alternative labels, such as NutrInform Battery, and discredit Nutri-Score by questioning its algorithm and consumer acceptance. These studies often diverged from established scientific frameworks (e.g., Grunert and Wills’ model) and instead prioritized consumer “liking” over objective performance metrics.

Studies with conflicts of interest were found to be 21 times more likely to report unfavorable results for the Nutri-Score. Additionally, industry lobbying has emphasized economic concerns, particularly for traditional and local food products, framed as a threat to small producers and national culinary heritage, despite limited evidence of adverse economic impacts. The paper also notes that some of these arguments fall under broader "food patriotism" strategies that aim to sway public and political opinion.

Challenges for Policymaking

While evidence-based policymaking is critical in public health, different stakeholders use scientific findings selectively to support their agendas. The European Ombudsman criticized the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture (DG AGRI) for holding disproportionate meetings with industry representatives, contributing to delays in FOPL legislation.

Lobbying efforts, particularly from food industry bodies and governments like Italy, have influenced the EU’s failure to meet its original timeline for FOPL legislation. The Ombudsman urged “pro-active transparency” to document meetings and mitigate corporate influence on policymaking. The paper highlights that addressing these power imbalances is essential to ensure that policymaking serves public health rather than vested economic interests.

Benefits for All Parties

EU Treaties emphasize openness and transparency in decision-making, especially in policy areas like diet-related disease prevention. Clear and standardized labels provide critical nutritional information that allows consumers to make informed and healthier food choices. A unified system would also benefit food businesses, as it would reduce the costs of labeling, simplify regulations, and ensure fair competition across the EU.

Meanwhile, for member states, a mandatory FOPL system would support efforts to combat obesity and chronic diseases linked to diet through evidence-based policies. The EU would also align with global commitments to healthier food environments under the WHO’s NCD prevention framework.

Conclusions

While FOPL strategies have strong scientific backing, the authors raise concerns that industry resistance, amplified by lobbying and instrumentalized evidence, has hindered adoption. They call for greater transparency, stricter regulations on conflicts of interest, and governance structures that prioritize independent science to ensure policies prioritize public health over economic interests. Ultimately, the authors argue that overcoming corporate resistance and adopting an EU-wide, mandatory Nutri-Score system would represent a major advance in public health and consumer protection.

Journal reference:
Priyanjana Pramanik

Written by

Priyanjana Pramanik

Priyanjana Pramanik is a writer based in Kolkata, India, with an academic background in Wildlife Biology and economics. She has experience in teaching, science writing, and mangrove ecology. Priyanjana holds Masters in Wildlife Biology and Conservation (National Centre of Biological Sciences, 2022) and Economics (Tufts University, 2018). In between master's degrees, she was a researcher in the field of public health policy, focusing on improving maternal and child health outcomes in South Asia. She is passionate about science communication and enabling biodiversity to thrive alongside people. The fieldwork for her second master's was in the mangrove forests of Eastern India, where she studied the complex relationships between humans, mangrove fauna, and seedling growth.

Citations

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

  • APA

    Pramanik, Priyanjana. (2025, March 16). Nutri-Score proves effective, so why hasn’t the EU made it mandatory?. News-Medical. Retrieved on March 17, 2025 from https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250316/Nutri-Score-proves-effective-so-why-hasne28099t-the-EU-made-it-mandatory.aspx.

  • MLA

    Pramanik, Priyanjana. "Nutri-Score proves effective, so why hasn’t the EU made it mandatory?". News-Medical. 17 March 2025. <https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250316/Nutri-Score-proves-effective-so-why-hasne28099t-the-EU-made-it-mandatory.aspx>.

  • Chicago

    Pramanik, Priyanjana. "Nutri-Score proves effective, so why hasn’t the EU made it mandatory?". News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250316/Nutri-Score-proves-effective-so-why-hasne28099t-the-EU-made-it-mandatory.aspx. (accessed March 17, 2025).

  • Harvard

    Pramanik, Priyanjana. 2025. Nutri-Score proves effective, so why hasn’t the EU made it mandatory?. News-Medical, viewed 17 March 2025, https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250316/Nutri-Score-proves-effective-so-why-hasne28099t-the-EU-made-it-mandatory.aspx.

Comments

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.