Understanding Nutri-Score
As a new chain of grocery stores appeared in my hometown, I noticed a very specific picture on some packages. It was a system of letters from A to E, slightly changing color from vivid dark green to deep red, similar to a traffic light with seven gradually changing colors. As I continued to explore this new discovery, I figured out that it is Nutri-Score, a system designed to help define how healthy a specific food is. Its visual style is similar to the energy efficiency ratings of household electronics.
But the question remains: how effective is this method? There are multiple factors that influence the healthiness of food, and there could be an abuse of Nutri-Score to increase the popularity of certain brands. Because the market is competitive, there will always be tricks. So, readers, let’s dig in.
The message of Nutri-Score seems perfect: the greener the number, the healthier the food. This intuitive approach is very simple to understand and is the strong point of the criteria. But what actually decides the rank of a product?
By exploring the system, I found that the main factors in deciding Nutri-Score are divided into two groups.
Positive factors are based on the content of protein, fiber, whole foods, and high-quality oils (walnut, rapeseed, olive). The maximum positive points can be 5 in each category.
Negative factors are based on the content of calories, sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. Each negative factor can give up to 10 negative points.
Then, by calculating the average score of the product, there are estimations of how healthy or unhealthy a specific food is.
So far, so good, because the measured factors are significant for human health. High sugar amounts are responsible for diabetes and many other health conditions, as are saturated fats, etc.
But despite my personal approval of the system, I noticed something quite surprising. Nesquik chocolate powder received a B score, which means it is considered relatively healthy. However, it includes 71% pure sugar. What the hell? Certainly, there are some holes in the system.
As I continued my exploration of this odd problem, I found two big issues with this system. I am not saying it is not efficient; I am saying that even with it, we need to be very thoughtful. There are two problems:
- Nutri-Score is based on comparisons to similar foods. There is no specific base of general healthiness. It compares cocoa to cocoa, burgers with burgers, etc. The math is done by using the average composition of specific products.
- Sometimes food evaluation is done in different forms. This is where business speculation can find its place. For example, Nesquik is likely evaluating not the sugar-laden powder but the prepared drink with the recommended small spoon of cocoa, which is probably a lot smaller than what is often used. Different brands could evaluate almost raw products before cooking. For example, frozen French fries usually have an A score until they get deep-fried. So, generally speaking, it is a large field of speculation.
Otherwise, the intuitively well-developed system is quite successful at getting people’s attention, which has a great impact on the market. The most interesting factor is that food producers start to change their recipes and food composition to keep their lead, which is a great benefit to us all.
But there is still a question about the possible dark moves and abuse of the Nutri-Score system. If we do not keep a careful eye, it could easily be turned against us.
With Love and Care,
Darian
