“Food traffic light”? Nothing to do. The French National Assembly has just rejected an amendment that would have made the Nutri-Score labeling system mandatory. With a result of 120 votes in favor against 117 against, the proposal, supported by scientists and health professionals, was rejected, in what was defined as a serious step backwards for Public Health.
The backdrop to this decision is the strategic victory of the powerful international agri-food lobbies, which have been fighting for years against the mandatory introduction of the Nutri-Score to prevent their products from being penalised.
Yet the Nutri-Score, a traffic light label that informs consumers about the nutritional quality of foods, had received broad consensus among French citizens. According to the data, 94% of French people declared themselves in favor of making the system compulsory, recognizing its potential to positively influence food choices and contribute to the fight against diet-related diseases, such as obesity and overweight. Yet, French politics has chosen to ignore not only popular will, but also broad scientific consensus.
Over 2,700 experts, including doctors, nutritionists and scientists, have signed an appeal in favor of the mandatory introduction of the Nutri-Score, based on over 150 studies that attest to the effectiveness of the system in improving the quality of food choices and promoting changes in product formulas. Despite the strong support of the scientific community, the French Government justified its position with an alleged incompatibility of the Nutri-Score with European regulations on the free movement of goods, a thesis that has been widely denied by experts.
The role of multinationals
Among the main opponents to the mandatory introduction of the Nutri-Score, the name of Ferrero stands out, together with other giants such as Lactalis, Coca-Cola, Mars and Unilever. The motivation of these companies is clear: with the Nutri-Score system, many of their products, rich in sugar and fat, would be labeled with the lowest letters, D or E, signaling poor nutritional quality. This could damage the image and sales of products such as snacks, sweets and carbonated drinks, traditionally at the heart of their business. Ferrero, in particular, has been one of the most critical voices both in France and at a European level, speaking out against the standardization of the system.
In this context, Italy has played a significant role, supporting ineffective alternatives such as the Nutrinform Battery, a system which, despite being officially recognized at European level, has never been adopted by any large food company. The joint pressure of multinational food companies and Italian political forces thus had a decisive role in hindering the mandatory introduction of the Nutri-Score.
What will happen to the Nutri-Score?
Currently, in France, around 1,500 brands, representing 60% of the market, have adopted the Nutri-Score on a voluntary basis. However, as of March 2025, a scientific update to the system’s rules has tightened the criteria for sugars and salt, leading several brands such as Danone and Bjorg to withdraw the label from their products, proving that voluntary commitment disintegrates as soon as the system becomes too strict.
The refusal of the mandatory Nutri-Score highlights the conflict between the desire to protect public health and the pressures of food multinationals. Despite broad popular and scientific consensus, the lobbies manage to prevail once again, postponing the possibility of greater nutritional transparency in favor of economic interests. The battle for a healthier diet continues, but the road still seems to be uphill, between confusing food policies and the resistance of large companies.
In this scenario, the question that remains is: what will be the future of the Nutri-Score and, above all, when will the public interest prevail over the interests of large multinationals?
