We are promoting a petition in support of the NutriScore system, whose great effectiveness–in encouraging balanced food choices, so also the health of consumers–has exacerbated opposition from agribusiness lobbies. (1)
The rhetoric of the contras is based on false arguments, to the critical analysis of which two scientific studies are dedicated (2,3) where the liaison between Ferrero and Coldiretti is also considered, which, as it turns out, bosses the Draghi government around.
A survey by the French consumer association UFC – Que Choisir in turn shows how the nutritional profiles of most traditional foods in the Mediterranean diet garner favorable Nutri-Score ratings.
1) Nutri-Score, the international petition.
1.1) Foreword
‘The nutrition label Nutri-Score must be defended against the lobbies that seek to distort it and prevent it from becoming mandatory in Europe. The NutriScore was officially adopted in France on October 31, 2017, by interministerial decree, after a very tough battle against agribusiness lobbies that lasted almost 4 years.
The logo is displayed on the front of food labels, with the goal of helping consumers make healthier food choices when making purchases. Providing simple nutritional information that makes it easy to compare, at a glance, the nutritional quality of food products‘.
1.2) Effectiveness
‘Although simple to interpret, Nutri-Score is based on numerous scientific studies that have demonstrated its effectiveness and appeal to consumers and public health. After France, 6 other countries have in fact decided to implement the Nutri-Score: Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland.
No food company was in favor of Nutri-Score when it was proposed (in 2014, by a public research group with no conflict of interest). But today, thanks to scientific work, pressure from scientists, health professionals, consumer groups and NGOs, and citizen actions, more than 800 brands finally committed to displaying it on their food products.’
1.3) Agribusiness lobbies vs.
‘Because it is still voluntary news, given the European legislation that prevents member states from making it mandatory to display a synthetic nutrition label on the front of the package on food, many food industries are still opposing it and fighting it. This is the case with Coca-Cola, Ferrero, Mars, Lactalis, Mondelez, Kraft and many other national and international companies.‘
The recent announcement by the European Commission, as part of its “Farm to Fork” strategy, of an upcoming vote on the implementation of a single and mandatory Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labeling (FOPNL) for all European countries by the end of 2022, has awakened lobbies, both from producers opposed to the NutriScore but also from some agricultural sectors (cheese, cured meats) with large industrial food groups behind them (e.g., Lactalis, Savencia, etc.). Lactalis, Savencia, etc.) who do not want to provide consumers with transparent information on the nutritional profiles of food products. (…)
1.4) Transparency on the nutritional profiles of foods.
We citizens, aware that food consumption plays an important role in health, demand to be able to assess, through the display of the NutriScore, the nutritional quality of ALL foods, bar none. So that we can make informed consumption choices. We consider this a right of consumers and a duty of economic operators. We therefore ask:
1) to EU member state governments, prioritize the protection of public health over lobbying pressures that aspire to boycott or distort the Nutri-Score,
2) to the European Parliament, adopt Nutri-Score as a mandatory front label for Europe in 2023, taking into account its scientific basis and proven effectiveness in terms of public health,
3) to producers who still refuse to display Nutri-Score, respond to consumer demand for true nutritional transparency and apply the Nutri-Score immediately (though not yet mandatory) on their products.
1.5) A click for public health.
Citizens’ health is priceless, and public health must prevail over the defense of purely economic interests! Sign the petition HERE and spread it around you!’
2) Nutri-Score, the contras lobby.
The number of companies adopting the NutriScore, in food processing and distribution, continues to grow throughout Europe. Millions of consumers refer to this system-even through hugely successful apps such as Yuka-to steer their purchases toward foods that are more balanced than others, in every category.
Precisely therefore those who have everything to hide, the producers of junk food, organized the contras. In a style worthy of the South American dictatorships of the last century, Big Food lobbyists enlisted agricultural confederations to do the dirty work. In a hybrid war based on viral deception, viral misinformation to which two recent scientific studies have been devoted.
2.1) Big Food and the agricultural confederations.
Big Food ‘s battle at the Nutri-Score leveraged the false threat to sales. France is the home of cheese and charcuterie consumption, sales of which have not declined in the 5 years of NutriScore application. The same goes for cured meats and olive oil in Spain, where this FOPNL(Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labeling) is also gathering increasing success.
Corporations thus involved the consortia of Parmigiano Reggiano, Grana Padano, and Prosciutto di Parma in Italy, producers of jamón Serrano and olive oil in Spain, and that of Roquefort cheese in France. With the additional leverage of patriotism, alleging that PDOs and PGIs should be understood to be of high nutritional quality a priori. (2)
2.2) The Italic case
Italic opposition to the NutriScore is so peculiar that it led to a special study aimed at understanding the motivations of the contras and the role in the debate of the different stakeholders (social partners concerned). (3)
Poor mobilization of the scientific community and consumers, often unfortunately constrained by conflicts of interest, have taken their toll.
Italic contras to NutriScore have been identified in the industrial giants (e.g., Ferrero, Barilla) and various associations serving them (e.g., Coldiretti, Filiera Italia, Federalimentare, Codacons). Who have dragged all political groups along, as was also the case in the recent blitz in favor of new GMOs.
2.3) Italian Rhetoric
The most recent study (Fialon et al., 2022) offers a critical analysis of the Italian rhetoric against the NutriScore:
– A priori identification of all Made in Italy foods as part of the Mediterranean diet. Which is not always true. Reformulation is taboo, as if reducing the sugar content in a shortbread, or the salt content in a cheese, is an impossible abomination,
– falsehood and lack of scientific basis. Italic contras falsely allege that olive oil would be ‘branded’ by NutriScore with a code red that does not even exist. In contrast, it is the Nutrinform battery that penalizes extra virgin, as seen.
– Nutri-Score algorithm. Some italic lobbyists infer that protein is not good and saturated fatty acids would conversely be recommended. Contrast this with the recent EFSA opinion (2022) where exactly the opposite is expressed,
– Grotesque simplification. The vermilion code, according to the contras, would be interpreted as ‘do not buy‘ rather than ‘consume in moderation.’ And this would, perhaps, pose a threat to the junk-food producers.
2.4) Who supports the NutriScore in Italy.
Nutri-Score supporters in Italy are unfortunately few, our GIFT site and Il Fatto Alimentare ranking first as specialized media, followed by Science on the Net. But our media impact is severely insufficient, despite ongoing editorial efforts.
The impact on print and TV-which have always been subservient to the powerful powers and advertisers-is extremely modest even for trade associations such as AltroConsumo and experts such as Walter Ricciardi, who are in favor of NutriScore but do not have comparable visibility to the contras.
3) Traditional foods and NutriScore, UFC’s survey – Que Choisir
The survey conducted by the French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir evaluated the nutritional quality of 588 references (310 traditional foods) from 14 French regions through the Nutri-Score system. Demonstrating, based on nutrition tables on product labels, the falsity of the rhetoric of the contras that the NutriScore poses a threat to traditional products. (4)
The results show that 62% of products (193 references) fell into NutriScore categories A, B, C, 38% (117 products) into categories D and E. Five macro-categories of products were evaluated:
1) traditional dishes. Valid overall as sources of protein, they only deteriorate with generous additions of fat or cheese. 82% in A, B, C and 18% in D, E,
2) meats and sausages. Red meat and poultry (high in protein and low in fat) register 61% A, B, C ratings. Cold cuts, on the other hand, tend toward D, E (39%) for high fat and salt contents,
3) fruits, vegetables and legumes. Richness in fiber, minerals and vitamins, as well as low energy density, lead to 85 percent ratings in categories A, B, C. Legumes are also valued for their protein intake. Processing sometimes has a negative impact due to the addition of salt or sugar (15 percent of products in classes D, E),
4) grain products. Include flours, cereals as is and processed (e.g., pasta, bread, cakes). 47% of products qualify in NutriScore in classes A, B, C, 57% in D and E due to many sweets high in sugar (reaching 50%) and saturated fat (20%),
5) Dairy products. In this category, products in classes A, B, C are a minority (24 percent), as cheeses are often high in saturated fatty acids and salt, especially when aged. However, there is no shortage of protein and vitamins (e.g., vitamin D). These elements and any reduction in fat and salt resulted in products with higher scores.
4) NutriScore, a transnational governance.
France-along with 7 other member states (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands)-has formed transnational governance to facilitate the use of the Nutri-Score, through a steering committee and a scientific committee. The goal is to implement standardized regulatory procedures for the use ofFront-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling (FOPNL) by manufacturers, with dedicated platforms and support systems. And work on possible improvements to the algorithm, with primary focus on consumer health. (5)
A call for request was launched towards all stakeholders, summer 2021. More than 100 requests have been sent to the scientific committee so that the algorithm can be updated, also based on evidence from the latest scientific literature, conceivably before the summer of 2022. And where appropriate update all food business operators with a supporting document.
5) Interim Conclusions
The Nutri-Score is a synthetic nutrition information system on the label front that can provide practical help to consumers and have a favorable impact on public health.
Scientific evidence on its effectiveness and evidence on the dirty lobby of junk food producers should open the eyes of those who care about the common good.
#SDG3, to Ensure Health and Well-being.
Dario Dongo and Andrea Adelmo Della Penna
Notes
(1) Audrey Lemoine. Stop aux lobbys qui essayent de dénaturer Nutri-Score et empêcher qu’il soit obligatoire. https://chng.it/BghbbGMW
(2) Chantal et al. (2022). Nutri-Score in tug-of-war between public health and economic interests in the European Union. Nature Food 3:181, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00476-0
(3) Fialon et al. (2022). Legitimacy of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels: Controversy Over the Deployment of the Nutri-Score in Italy. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 1-13 (in press), https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6127
(4) UFC-Que Choisir. Le Nutri-Score, meilleure illustration de la qualité nutritionnelle de notre patrimoine culinaire! 10.5.22, https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-enquete-de-l-ufc-que-choisir-sur-les-aliments-traditionnels-le-nutri-score-meilleure-illustration-de-la-qualite-nutritionnelle-de-notre-patrimoine-culinaire-n100652/
(5) AESAN. Activity report of the transnational governance of Nutri-Score. 7.3.22, https://www.aesan.gob.es/AECOSAN/docs/documentos/Nutri_Score/Report_2021_Steering_committee_VF2.pdf
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
Graduated in Food Technologies and Biotechnologies, qualified food technologist, he follows the research and development area. With particular regard to European research projects (in Horizon 2020, PRIMA) where the FARE division of WIISE Srl, a benefit company, participates.
