Nutri-Score in the U.S.--A Game-Changer for Healthy Eating or a Recipe for Controversy?

The simple color-coded and letter label is especially beneficial for individuals with limited nutritional knowledge or influenced by common food myths. One large food category that has been portrayed in a new light is cereals. Customer’s assumptions that a cereal might be healthy are debunked with a low Nutri-Score rating due to excessive added sugars and processed grains [2]. The increased transparency of the composition of food items and the influence that this transparency has on consumers to buy the higher rated products has also been impacting food producers. Food companies may be motivated to alter their recipes for lower rated products to strive for a more positive Nutri-Score label so consumers will more readily buy it [2]. Nutri-Score is creating a more concrete status assignment for foods and this spotlight creates an added pressure for food companies to want to be of a higher status. Healthier modifications to products to increase scores will provide rewards to both the company and the consumer. The company can increase profits while knowing that they are providing a healthier food option. The overall health of consumers will likewise increase with the trend towards these healthier options.

While the advantages of the Nutri-Score system scream its success, there are obvious and alarming flaws that must be addressed. The simplicity of Nutri-Score is one of the key selling points but also the root of a large hole in the system. Nutrition itself is a very complex concept that is unique to each individual. While overall reduced caloric intake correlates to a healthier lifestyle, there are many exceptions and caveats to this perspective. Moreover, the Nutri-Score system can instill unhealthy eating patterns in individuals who have eating disorders where the dark red label for high-calorie foods can reinforce certain food avoidances [2]. The process of classifying foods to their appropriate letters and colors also raises controversy.

Many important factors that categorize a food as healthier relative to other foods can be entirely avoided in the Nutri-Score system. Such factors that are dismissed are a food’s vitamins, healthy fats, caffeine, protein content, antibiotics, pesticides, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives [2]. One of the forefront flaws with Nutri-Score is the rating of olive oil. In moderation, olive oil is an essential part of a healthy diet but surprisingly, its Nutri-Score label is a D [2]. The rationale behind this extremely low rating is because of its high-calorie content. An uninformed consumer might get deterred from the D labeling and lose the opportunity to incorporate this healthy fat into their diet. Individuals have stressed this discrepancy in the system and starting in 2021, there have been updates to the Nutri-Score system towards improving the rating of oils. The addition of nuts, legumes, canola, walnut, and olive oils are now being taken into account in product assessment as positive elements [4]. While advancements in oil ratings are moving in the right direction, other holes in the classification process have yet to be addressed. Fatty fish will have a significantly lower rating than lean fish despite the healthy omega-3 fats present in fatty fish [4]. A cola-type beverage, because of its no added sugar, will have a higher rating than a fruit juice despite its lack of nutritional value and added sweeteners, caffeine, and additives [4]. Furthermore, the difference between processed and whole foods is not considered even with the powerful advocacy towards whole foods [2]. With Nutri-Score, whole grain pasta and pasta prepared from ordinary white flour receive the exact same nutritional label [2].

These gaps in the system are not only recognized by the public but also by the food producers themselves. While some companies improve their ratings by genuinely improving the quality of their food, other companies may use these gaps to their advantage. The opportunity to make a food item unhealthier while still earning a healthier score is alarmingly easy with Nutri-Score. Food producers may add artificial fibers or substitute margarine for butter to reduce calories and saturated fat content, earning these foods a higher score [2]. Nonetheless, the substitutions to more artificial and processed alternatives can be deemed even unhealthier than the original product.

Lastly, Nutri-Score is measured on a 100g/100mL unit rather than portion and serving sizes. The inconsistency between these two measures can heavily overvalue or undervalue certain foods. Foods that are intended for small portion sizes, such as oils or dressings, are inflated in their portion size to be 100mL. On the 100mL scale, their nutritional values would appear widely unhealthy and thus be deemed a lower score [4]. On the other hand, foods that are of a larger portion size than 100g, such as ready-to-eat meals, can be sneakily undervalued. Salt and saturated fat content of ready-to-eat meals on a 100g score may seem appropriate but the portion sizes are far greater than 100g [3]. Therefore, the salt and fat contents could actually be threefold the amount used to determine the Nutri-Score rating.

It is pivotal to recognize Nutri-Score’s benefits but also their severe room for improvement. Currently, Nutri-Score is not seen as a harmful system but also not as a system that is maximizing its full potential. Before the U.S. can confidently adopt the Nutri-Score system, several modifications must be implemented. A preliminary step towards an enhanced Nutri-Score system would be well-resourced independent agencies that employ experts to widen the breadth of factors that classify the Nutri-Score assignments. Although the consumer side should remain simple, the algorithm that upholds Nutri-Score should have further degrees of processing to factor in food additives, serving size, and processed foods. While these improvements are necessary, they are not easy to achieve as they require more labor and funds. With zero establishment of the Nutri-Score system in the U.S., this feat becomes less achievable. Nonetheless, the consideration of Nutri-Score in the U.S. is one of great importance because, through enhancements, this system can lead to exponential long-term benefits for public health. In combination with complementary efforts to promote healthy food choices, the U.S. can combat obesity trends with a system like Nutri-Score.