As Europe grapples with an alarming rise in obesity and related health conditions, the European Medicines Agency has recently backed the use of Novo Nordisk’s drug Wegovy to manage heart failure in people with obesity. This move signals a critical need for effective, science-backed health interventions that go beyond simple weight loss to address complex conditions affecting millions of Europeans. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a condition now linked to obesity, accounts for nearly half of all heart failure cases, as well as significant implications for public health.
However, amidst this crisis, policymakers in Brussels are short on really innovative ideas to tackle the obesity and nutrition emergency, wasting critical time instead on doomed ideas like Nutri-Score – a food labeling system that has become the embodiment of misplaced policy focus.
Originally introduced in France in 2017, Nutri-Score purports to offer a simplified way for consumers to make healthier food choices, using a color-coded scale from green ‘A’ to red ‘E’. However, despite its seemingly straightforward premise, the system has become a lightning rod for controversy across Europe, as it oversimplifies nutritional information and penalizes traditional foods central to many European diets, including the Mediterranean diet that has been linked to some of the lowest rates of chronic disease in the world.
One size does not fit all
Clearly, the controversy around Nutri-Score highlights a fundamental issue: the reductionist approach of applying a single, universal metric to a continent with a rich diversity of dietary practices. Foods like Greek feta, Spanish jamón ibérico, or French Roquefort, which are deeply embedded in their respective cultural and culinary traditions, are often rated poorly by the Nutri-Score system due to their fat or salt content when measured per 100 grams or 100 mL. This metric fails to account for the context in which these foods are consumed, typically in small amounts and as part of a varied diet. As a result, consumers are left with a skewed view that lumps these traditional foods together with ultra-processed products, distorting their perception of what constitutes a healthy diet.
This issue is compounded by the frequent changes to the Nutri-Score algorithm, which have only added to consumer confusion. Bernd Eßer, CEO of German plant-based food manufacturer Berief Food, recently announced that his company would be removing the Nutri-Score label from its products. Eßer explained that despite no changes in their recipes, many of his oat milk products, which previously received favorable scores, have now been downgraded under the new algorithm. The reason? A revised formula that now penalizes the natural sugars formed during the production process, treating them the same as added sugars. “The consumer will not be able to understand the new calculations on the packaging, as they are not explained transparently,” he lamented, pointing out the lack of clarity in the system.
This is not an isolated incident. Other manufacturers have also expressed frustration over the Nutri-Score scheme’s shifting standards, which seem arbitrary and disconnected from the actual health impacts of their products. For instance, the algorithm’s failure to distinguish between naturally occurring and added sugars has been particularly controversial. The recent change to categorize drinkable dairy and plant-based alternatives as beverages rather than foods has further complicated the matter. This reclassification significantly lowers the scores for products like oat milk, which many consumers consider a healthy choice.
The scientific soundness of Nutri-Score has also been called into question. Critics argue that the system oversimplifies complex nutritional information, reducing it to a single score that cannot capture the full picture of a food’s healthfulness. Mariusz Panczyk, a professor at the Medical University of Warsaw, notes that Nutri-Score fails to consider the degree of food processing—a key factor that can significantly impact health.
Furthermore, Nutri-Score does not account for essential nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, which play a crucial role in a balanced diet. This one-dimensional view not only confuses consumers but also undermines efforts to promote a holistic understanding of nutrition.
Priorities in the face of challenges
While it is important for consumers to have access to clear and accurate nutritional information, the Nutri-Score debate has become a distraction from the more significant and immediate challenges facing Europe. Obesity and related conditions like HFpEF are placing an increasing burden on healthcare systems have never been more pressing.
What Europe needs now is a recalibration of its priorities. Instead of getting caught up in divisive debates over a flawed labeling system, policymakers should focus on the bigger picture. This means investing in robust health policies, strengthening medical research, and developing a truly inclusive and effective approach to health that respects the diverse food cultures of Europe.
The Nutri-Score controversy should serve as a wake-up call. It is a reminder that well-intentioned policies can become counterproductive when they fail to account for the complexities of the issues they aim to address. As Europe faces the crisis of rising chronic diseases it is crucial that its leaders prioritize systemic, impactful solutions that address the root causes of these challenges. Only then can Europe hope to build a sustainable and resilient future for all its citizens.
