Nutri-Score pros and cons overview
- Nutri-Score helps consumers compare nutritional quality across food products
- Studies found Nutri-Score improved understanding versus several rival labels
- Critics argue the algorithm can misclassify foods and nutrients
- Algorithm revisions sparked disputes over dairy ratings and fairness
- Evidence suggests Nutri-Score drives reformulation, though bias concerns persist widely
Nutri-Score, the popular front-of-pack labelling scheme used on products across Europe is widely seen as accessible and easy to understand, but it’s not without its controversies
Not long ago, many believed that the EU would make it mandatory across the bloc. However, last year the European Commission failed to confirm its future.
So, what are the arguments for and against using Nutri-Score?
Pro: Accessible to consumers
Several studies have found that Nutri-Score is accessible to consumers compared with similar labelling schemes, allowing them to easily understand the nutritional characteristics of the food in question.
A Europe-wide study found that Nutri-Score compared favourably to several other front-of-pack labelling schemes, including the UK’s Multiple Traffic Lights system and Australia and New Zealand’s Health Star Rating, in terms of how much they improved the understanding of a product’s health content.
Participants were asked to estimate food nutrient quality based on the various front-of-pack labels, with products lacking a label as a control. Nutri-Score was consistently the most successful in leading people to the right answer, even in the UK, where the Multiple Traffic Lights system instead of Nutri-Score is in place.
A further study with Moroccan consumers confirmed that this understanding is not confined to Europe, where the front-of-pack labelling scheme is already rolled out. Participants were asked to rank food by its nutritional quality using one of five front-of-pack labels, and Nutri-Score was associated with the biggest increase in being able to categorise foods.
Con: Algorithm criticised as ‘scientifically flawed’
Despite the fact that Nutri-Score is widely used across Europe, it has seen its fair share of criticisms, including being described as ‘scientifically flawed’.
Dr Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, has taken aim at the classification, saying that by counting calories as a negative factor, it rewards foods with more water and less fat.
According to Mozaffarian, it can lead to less healthy products, such as soda, being awarded a higher score than healthier products like olive oil.
It also does not consider the harms of ingredients such as refined grains, starches and flours, says Mozaffarian, and omits the benefits of seafood, fish, yoghurt and fermented foods.
Pro: Open to revision
Nutri-Score’s algorithm is occasionally updated to better align with dietary guidelines in countries engaged with the system.
“Nutri-Score has got a good process in place for revising the model,” says Mike Rayner, professor of population health at Oxford Population Health.
This allows it to keep up to date with evolving views on nutrition throughout the countries in which it has been rolled out.
However, these revisions are not always greeted with enthusiasm.
Con: Accused of penalising certain food groups
Renewed controversy has engulfed Nutri-Score since a change in its algorithm was seen by many as penalising dairy products.
The change, which took place in 2024, meant that dairy products, which were previously classified as food, entered the beverage category. This meant that liquid dairy products were demoted, with semi-skimmed milk moving from A to B and whole milk from B to C. In the beverage category, only water gets an A.
Dairy companies were not happy. French giant Danone announced that it was scrapping Nutri-Score from its products soon after the algorithm change.
More recently, Lactalis, another French dairy major, took Nutri-Score to court. Its case at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) not only challenged France’s adoption of the algorithm changes but criticised the legal basis of the classification itself.
Before this controversy arose, Nutri-Score was already a hotly debated topic due to Italy’s opposition to its uptake.
Italy has criticised Nutri-Score for allegedly penalising traditional Italian foods, many of which do not receive a good Nutri-Score rating.
Pro: Linked to reformulation
Some studies have suggested that Nutri-Score plays a role in pushing food companies to reformulate, in order to improve the health quality of their products.
One, published in the journal Nutrients in 2024, found a reduction in salt, sugar and saturated fatty acid content between 2019 and 2021. This led to these food products improving their Nutri-Score rating.
These changes are not causally linked to Nutri-Score, however, and Nutri-Score was not implemented in all the countries studied. The study’s authors only speculate that Nutri-Score might be an incentive for the reformulation. Some of the funders of this study are involved in the development of Nutri-Score, although they were not involved in conducting the study itself.
Another study the same year compared reformulation in France, which had adopted Nutri-Score, to the UK and Italy, which had not.
The study finds evidence of ‘bunching’, which is when food manufacturers reformulate their products up to the cut-off point for a better Nutri-Score rating, but no more. This implies, the authors suggest, that Nutri-Score was the motivation for such reformulation.
Con: Rows around bias rage on both sides
How do we know Nutri-Score is effective? There have been numerous studies on the topic, but this is not the end of the debate.
Both studies criticising Nutri-Score and studies presenting it in a favourable light have been called out for bias.
For example, a review of 149 scientific papers suggested that a study is 21 times more likely to have an unfavourable perspective on Nutri-Score if its authors are linked to the food industry or if they declare a conflict of interest.
Conversely, another large review suggested that a paper was far more likely to have a positive view of Nutri-Score if it was written or co-written by one of the Nutri-Score developers themselves. The majority of studies carried out independently from the Nutri-Score creators – around 61% – generally had unfavourable views.
While Nutri-Score is no longer slated to become Europe’s compulsory front-of-pack label, it remains a major influence on food choices across the region—making it essential to weigh both its strengths and shortcomings
