Nutri-Score label may counteract misleading labels, experts flag

18 Aug 2022 --- Survey analysis of over 1,000 participants reveals that the front-of-package (FOP) Nutri-Score labeling helps consumers navigate product health claims in sugary products. It further shows that consumers were fooled by those same claims when the labeling was removed.

“The study shows the great difficulties consumers have in assessing the nutritional quality of foods in a realistic way,” Dr. Kristin Jürkenbeck, faculty of agricultural sciences at the University of Göttingent in Germany and lead author of the study, tells NutritionInsight. “The Nutri-Score enables consumers to better classify foods in terms of their health value.”

“Currently, however, the Nutri-Score label is only used by companies on a voluntary basis,” she continues. “Manufacturers whose products do not perform well will not consider using the label. As long as this is the case, the impact of the Nutri-Score will remain limited.”

“Existing food regulations such as mandatory nutritional information or the regulations of the Health Claims Regulation are unfortunately not very suitable for everyday use.”The study reveals that misleading product claims may actually mislead consumers when it comes to nutritional value.

Misleading consumers?
High sugar consumption has been linked to a myriad of health problems, including Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity. In light of this, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that no more than 10% of all caloric intake should come from sugars.

According to the study, these recommendations are likely being subverted by misleading claims such as “less sweet” or “without added sugar” that some companies include on their packaging.

“An interpretative label like the Nutri-Score can contribute to a solution because it can counteract effects due to sugar claims,” explains Jürkenbeck. “Sugar claims make foods appear healthier than they are.”

Polling the people
The study, conducted in October 2020, presented the participants with images of the packaging of three fictional products – an oat drink, chocolate muesli and instant cappuccino. Each of these has different combinations of Nutri-Score labeling and sugar claims.

Analysis of the results revealed that when the Nutri-Score label was not present, claims of “30% less sugar” and “less sweet” misled the participants, causing them to believe that the products were healthier than they truly were. Conversely, when the Nutri-Score label was added to the products even those who were wholly unfamiliar with the label were able to form an idea as the product’s nutritional value.

For instance, when the instant cappuccino was presented with no claim or label, 70% of the participants labeled it as unhealthy. When the “less sweet” claim was added, 59% of participants labeled it unhealthy. When it was given a Nutri-Score of “D,” 82% of the participants marked it as unhealthy, even though the meaning of the Nutri-Score was only fully known by 32.8% of respondents and “37.5% could roughly imagine what the label means, and 29.6% had no idea what the label could mean.”

“Here, the Nutri-Score enables a better overall assessment of the most important nutritional properties and supports consumers in making health-oriented decisions,” underscores Jürkenbeck. “Research shows clear advantages over other forms of nutrition labeling. Another benefit is also that more people are reached – including groups with little prior nutrition-related knowledge.”

By William Bradford Nichols