Fast food under scrutiny: UFC-Que Choisir investigation

By
Dario Dongo
-
0
785
Food Times_fast food transparency

The growing role of fast food in modern diets underscores the need to assess allergen risks and nutritional transparency in the quick-service sector. France’s leading consumer organisation, UFC-Que Choisir, conducted a 2025 study of McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, and Quick, focusing on allergen disclosure, ingredient transparency and Nutri-Score use. This article critically reviews the study’s methodology, findings, and consumer implications.

Introduction

The rapid expansion of the quick-service restaurant industry has fundamentally altered consumption patterns, with nearly one in two meals consumed outside the home now occurring in fast food establishments in France (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025). This shift carries significant public health implications, particularly concerning the rising prevalence of Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, cardiovascular disorders, and type 2 diabetes. The nutritional quality of fast food offerings, combined with inadequate consumer information, creates a problematic environment for informed dietary choices.

While packaged food products sold in retail environments are subject to stringent labelling requirements under European Union regulations, specifically Food Information Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (FIR), the out-of-home catering sector remains largely exempt from comparable disclosure obligations. This regulatory disparity is concerning, as fast food chains rely on industrialised production systems comparable to packaged food manufacturers, yet remain subject to minimal requirements. Under Article 44 of the FIR, transparency on ingredient composition and nutritional information is largely left to Member States’ legislation, with allergen disclosure being the only harmonised obligation.

Background and rationale

Public health context

The epidemiological trajectory of diet-related diseases demonstrates alarming patterns, particularly amongst younger populations.

According to data cited by UFC-Que Choisir (2025), obesity rates amongst individuals aged 18-24 years have quadrupled since 1997, whilst rates amongst those aged 25-34 years have nearly tripled.

These demographic groups represent the primary consumers of fast food, with 67% of 18-34 year-olds classified as recurrent fast food diners, compared to merely 11% amongst older age cohorts.

Allergen concerns

Food allergies affect approximately 4-5% of the French population, with this proportion reaching 6-8% amongst children – a 300% increase over the past two decades (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025).

For individuals affected by food allergies or intolerances, such as coeliac disease or lactose intolerance, inadequate disclosure of ingredients constitutes not merely an issue of social marginalisation but also a significant health risk.

The concept of ‘hidden allergens‘ – ingredients unexpectedly incorporated into products where their presence would not typically be anticipated – compounds these concerns.

Nutritional labelling evolution

The development of front-of-pack nutritional labelling systems represents a critical advancement in consumer information provision. The Nutri-Score, developed by the French National Institute for Agronomic Research at the behest of the French Directorate General for Health in 2011, was specifically designed to meet three essential criteria:

  • aggregation of nutritional components into a single score
  • expression through universally comprehensible colour coding, and
  • applicability across diverse food categories (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025).

Research has demonstrated that Nutri-Score implementation has a significant influence on consumers towards healthier food choices (Hercberg et al., 2025). Furthermore, investigation by UFC-Que Choisir (2023) established a causal relationship between Nutri-Score adoption and recipe reformulation, with product categories displaying widespread Nutri-Score implementation showing substantial nutritional improvements between 2015 and 2022.

Methodology

Study design and scope

The UFC-Que Choisir (2025) investigation employed a comparative analysis framework to evaluate information disclosure practices across four major fast food chains: McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, and Quick. Data collection occurred between 1 May and 9 July 2025, encompassing multiple restaurant locations within the Île-de-France region to ensure representativeness.

Assessment channels

The study examined three primary consumer ordering channels:

  • in-restaurant electronic kiosks
  • proprietary mobile applications, and
  • corporate websites.

This multi-channel approach reflects contemporary consumer behaviour patterns, as these platforms collectively represent the predominant ordering mechanisms, with traditional counter service having substantially diminished in prevalence.

Evaluation criteria

The research protocol assessed three critical information categories deemed essential for informed consumer decision-making:

  • allergen information. Evaluation focused on the 14 allergens subject to mandatory declaration under FIR – cereals containing gluten, crustaceans, eggs, fish, peanuts, soy, milk, tree nuts, celery, mustard, sesame, sulphur dioxide and sulphites, lupin, and molluscs;
  • ingredient disclosure. The evaluation assessed whether full and detailed ingredient lists were available, rather than generic or incomplete compositional information;
  • Nutri-Score display. The assessment evaluated whether chains had calculated and displayed Nutri-Score ratings, their placement within the ordering interface, and the adoption of the updated algorithms introduced in 2024 for foods and for beverages.

Scoring system

A quantitative scoring system (maximum 20 points per category) was developed to enable systematic comparison across chains and channels. The scoring methodology prioritised information accessibility during the ordering process, with higher scores allocated to information immediately visible on general menu displays, and progressively lower scores assigned to information requiring navigation to individual product sheets or external resources.

Results

Allergen information disclosure

McDonald’s and Burger King demonstrated superior allergen disclosure practices through implementation of customisable alert systems. These systems enable consumers to select specific allergens of concern, subsequently displaying pictographic warning symbols on the general menu for all products containing the designated allergens (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025). This approach facilitates rapid identification of unsuitable products without necessitating individual product sheet consultation – a methodology aligned with best practices in consumer information design.

Notably, McDonald’s implemented this functionality exclusively at in-restaurant kiosks, whilst Burger King extended availability across kiosks, website, and mobile application. Both chains achieved scores of 16/20 and 18/20 respectively for allergen information provision.

KFC adopted a less consumer-friendly approach, requiring users to access individual product information sheets sequentially to ascertain allergen content. This methodology received a score of 4/20, as it substantially increases the time and effort required for allergen verification and may create uncomfortable situations for consumers with allergies, particularly during peak service periods.

Quick showed the weakest performance, providing no allergen information at in-restaurant kiosks – contrary to FIR requirements – and offering only a complex, poorly navigable general allergen table on its website and app. This approach received a score of 0/20, effectively preventing consumers with allergies or intolerances from making an informed choice at the point of purchase.

A concerning practice observed at both Burger King and Quick was the use of precautionary allergen labelling – for example, statements such as ‘may contain traces of’ or ‘manufactured in a facility that processes’ – for allergens not intentionally included in recipes. This practice contravenes FIR provisions, as the information is not product-specific and shifts the burden of risk assessment onto consumers (author’s note). For instance, Burger King’s onion rings were labelled as potentially containing traces of six different allergens despite only one being intentionally present in the formulation. This approach, primarily intended to exempt the operator from liability, demonstrates a limited commitment to preventing accidental contamination and substantially restricts the choices available to allergic consumers, while failing to provide meaningful information on risk assessment.

Ingredient transparency

All four chains demonstrated complete opacity regarding detailed ingredient composition, providing only generic ingredient descriptions devoid of meaningful information (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025). For instance, Burger King’s hamburger ingredient list includes ‘bread’, ‘ketchup’, ‘mustard’, and ‘pickles’ without any specification of the constituent ingredients of these processed components. Similarly, KFC describes its tenders as ‘marinated and breaded chicken pieces’ without elaborating on marinade or breading composition.

Particularly egregious examples were observed in McDonald’s disclosures, where the McFish Mayo was described merely as ‘bread’ and ‘sauce’, and Coca-Cola Zero as ‘ice’ – clearly incomplete information offering no meaningful guidance to consumers seeking to understand product composition.

However, investigation of international disclosure practices revealed that these chains maintain comprehensive ingredient information but selectively withhold it within the European Union. McDonald’s publishes detailed ingredient lists in Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ukraine, whilst Burger King does likewise in Switzerland, Norway, and Australia (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025).

Analysis of Swiss disclosures revealed highly industrialised formulations characterised by extensive use of additives and processing aids. McDonald’s simple hamburger contains 46 distinct ingredients and additives, increasing to 68 for the Cheeseburger Bacon. The Big Mac bun alone incorporates potato and maize starch, pea protein, glucose syrup, two emulsifiers (E471 and E472e), and ascorbic acid (E300) as a flour treatment agent. The processed cheese product contains not only cheese but also butter, skimmed milk powder, flavourings, milk proteins, an emulsifier (E331), colourings (E160a and E160c), an acidity regulator (E330), and an anti-caking agent (sunflower lecithin).

Chicken McNuggets comprise only 46% chicken breast, with water constituting the second-largest ingredient by weight, and the product containing 23 total components (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025). Burger King’s Chicken Nuggets similarly contain poultry skin amongst 33 ingredients.

Nutri-Score implementation

Only McDonald’s and KFC have calculated and displayed Nutri-Score ratings for their products, with Burger King and Quick entirely eschewing this voluntary labelling system (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025). However, even amongst implementing chains, significant deficiencies were identified in display methodology.

Neither McDonald’s nor KFC displays Nutri-Score ratings on general menu interfaces. Instead, consumers must navigate to individual product information sheets to access nutritional ratings – a process that substantially diminishes the label’s utility for comparative decision-making. This placement strategy contradicts the fundamental principle of front-of-pack labelling, which requires immediate visibility to enable rapid comparison between alternatives.

McDonald’s has developed a filtering functionality enabling display of exclusively Nutri-Score A and B products. Whilst this represents a partial solution for health-conscious consumers, it fundamentally misunderstands nutritional balance principles. The Nutri-Score system employs graduated colour coding (green-yellow-orange) rather than binary pass/fail criteria specifically to accommodate consumer preferences while encouraging moderation of less nutritious choices.

Another problematic finding was McDonald’s continued reliance on the outdated Nutri-Score calculation methodology. Despite the updated algorithm being officially adopted in France in February 2025 and its parameters being publicly available since September 2023, McDonald’s continues to display scores calculated using the original methodology. This practice results in artificially favourable ratings for certain products; for example, Coca-Cola Zero receives a B rating under the old system but C under the current methodology.

The nutritional quality profile of the offerings revealed cause for concern. Amongst McDonald’s 39 burgers, wraps, and nugget products, only 18% achieved Nutri-Score B rating, with 54% rated C and 39% rated D. KFC demonstrated even poorer nutritional quality, with merely one product achieving B rating, 26% rated C, and 70% rated D (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025).

Food delivery platform assessment

Examination of third-party delivery platforms Deliveroo and Uber Eats revealed a complete absence of directly accessible nutritional or allergen information – contrary to FIR provisions (editor’s note) – within their applications. Both platforms redirect consumers to restaurant chains’ proprietary resources through links that frequently malfunction on older smartphone models. This redirection makes accessing information a procedural maze, at odds with the intuitive and efficient ordering experience these platforms promise. (UFC-Que Choisir, 2025).

Discussion

Regulatory gaps and industry practice

The findings highlight a fundamental regulatory inadequacy: large-scale restaurant chains that use industrialised production methods comparable to packaged food manufacturers are subject to substantially lower information disclosure obligations.

The Food Information Regulation’s classification of fast food as ‘non-prepacked food’ – grouping it with artisanal bakery products and independent restaurant offerings / fails to recognise the industrial nature of chain restaurant operations.

This categorisation effectively allows multinational corporations, which maintain standardised global recipes, to withhold information routinely provided for supermarket equivalents. While food allergen disclosure remains mandatory, it is still frequently omitted, exacerbating the risk to consumers.

Allergen disclosure disparities

The substantial variation in allergen information quality across chains demonstrates that technical barriers to comprehensive disclosure are minimal. McDonald’s and Burger King’s alert systems prove that integrated, user-friendly allergen interfaces are entirely feasible within digital ordering platforms. The superior performance of these systems relative to KFC’s product-by-product approach or Quick’s inaccessible tables validates the UFC-Que Choisir (2025) recommendation that such alert functionality should constitute the minimum standard.

The widespread misuse of precautionary allergen labels shifts responsibility from manufacturers to consumers, undermining informed choice and safety. European food safety regulations – including Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation (EC) 2021/382 – mandate that food business operators implement hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems specifically to prevent cross-contamination. Precautionary labelling effectively transfers the risk assessment burden from manufacturers – who possess comprehensive knowledge of their processes – to consumers who lack such information.

Ingredient opacity and additive usage

The complete absence of detailed ingredient disclosure within the EU, contrasted with comprehensive lists published in Switzerland and other countries, constitutes perhaps the study’s most damning finding. This selective transparency demonstrates that chains maintain the requisite information but deliberately withhold it in jurisdictions where not legally compelled to disclose.

The ingredient complexity revealed in Swiss disclosures – 46 ingredients in a simple hamburger, 68 in a cheeseburger – exposes the ultraprocessed nature of fast food products and the extensive use of food additives. Many identified additives fall within categories that warrant consumer awareness due to potential health effects.

Particularly concerning examples include: sodium nitrite (E250) in McDonald’s bacon products; diphosphates and pyrophosphates (E450) present in multiple McDonald’s products; and carboxymethylcellulose found in McDonald’s Filet-o-Fish and Burger King ice cream. The lack of harmonised regulatory requirements for ingredient disclosure in EU restaurants removes a key incentive for recipe simplification.

Nutri-Score implementation deficiencies

The failure to display Nutri-Score ratings on general menu interfaces fundamentally undermines the system’s intended functionality. Research consistently demonstrates that nutritional labels influence purchasing behaviour only when immediately visible during product comparison. Relegating Nutri-Score to individual product sheets transforms it from a decision-making tool into a post-decision informational curiosity.

McDonald’s outdated calculation methodology raises questions about corporate commitment to nutritional transparency. The updated Nutri-Score algorithms reflect advances in nutritional science, introducing stricter thresholds for sugar, saturated fat and salt, while also taking into account the risks associated with artificial sweeteners. The persistent use of outdated algorithms permits products to retain artificially favourable ratings, misrepresenting nutritional quality and potentially misleading health-conscious consumers.

The overall nutritional quality profile – with 70-80% of surveyed products rated C or D – underscores the importance of Nutri-Score display in this sector. Given the generally poor nutritional profile of most fast food products, transparent labelling is essential to allow consumers to distinguish relatively healthier options within an otherwise homogeneous landscape of nutritionally deficient offerings.

Delivery platform information vacuum

The complete absence of integrated nutritional and allergen information within food delivery platform applications represents a significant consumer protection failure. These platforms have fundamentally altered food service consumption patterns, particularly following recent years. Their business model depends on streamlining the ordering process, yet this streamlining comes at the expense of informed decision-making capacity.

Technical redirections to external websites or applications – when operational – create friction that conflicts with delivery platforms’ core value proposition of convenience and the FIR requirements. The dysfunction of many such links on older devices effectively renders information access impossible for users lacking current-generation smartphones, creating a form of digital information inequality.

Conclusions and recommendations

The UFC-Que Choisir (2025) investigation reveals substantial deficiencies in allergen, ingredient and nutritional information provision by major fast food chains operators in France. While certain chains have implemented commendable practices in specific areas – particularly McDonald’s and Burger King’s allergen alert systems – the overall information landscape remains grossly inadequate relative to standards applicable to packaged food products.

Three critical policy interventions warrant prioritisation:

  • enforcement and monitoring on food delivery platforms. Control authorities must ensure compliance with the obligation to indicate allergens on platforms such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats. The current model of external redirections is inadequate, inconsistent with consumer protection principles and contrary to the law (editor’s note). The European legislator should also introduce a requirement to disclose complete ingredient information for all foods offered;
  • comprehensive ingredient disclosure obligations. Restaurant chains should be required to indicate all ingredients and additives contained in the foods they offer, in the same way as for prepacked products. This information should be accessible across all ordering interfaces;
  • mandatory implementation of Nutri-Score. The European legislator should amend Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 to require the display of the Nutri-Score not only on the front of pack of all prepacked foods, but also by restaurant chains that exceed specified operational thresholds (e.g. 50 outlets).

Pending regulatory reform, UFC-Que Choisir (2025) encourages voluntary adoption of best practices by restaurant chains, specifically:

  • implementation of customisable allergen alert systems across all ordering channels;
  • publication of complete ingredient lists accessible during the ordering process; and
  • prominent display of Nutri-Score ratings on general menu interfaces using the current calculation methodology.

The fast food sector’s current opacity regarding product composition and nutritional characteristics is incompatible with evidence-based public health policy and consumer protection principles. The demonstrated feasibility of comprehensive information provision – evidenced by practices in non-EU jurisdictions – eliminates any technical justification for the status quo.

Regulatory intervention to mandate and enforce transparent food labelling in the out-of-home catering sector represents an essential component of strategies to address diet-related disease and enable informed consumer choice.

Dario Dongo

Cover art copyright © 2025 Dario Dongo (AI-assisted creation)

References

  • Hercberg, S., Touvier, M., Galan, P., & Julia, C. (2025). Le logo nutritionnel Nutri-Score: justifications, bases scientifiques, mode d’emploi, intérêt et limites, déploiement et mise à jour. Nutri-Score Blog. https://nutriscore.blog/2025/09/20/
Dario Dongo
+ posts

Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.

Related post

NutriScore update beveragesNutriScore, algorithm update for beverages Labels and the food supply chain, the National Order of Biologists takes stock Restaurant meat origin, the proposed decree-law of the Italia Zootechnica Consortium NutriScore calcolo profili nutrizionaliNutri-Score, the tools for calculating nutritional profiles of foods and beverages