Danone was one of the pioneers of Nutri-Score. One of the first groups to have affixed the rainbow nutritional logo and its 5 letters, from A to E, on its yogurts, flavored waters and other desserts. At one time, Danone was even among those who campaigned to make this labeling mandatory. A commitment that was short-lived. While the algorithm on which the classification of foods is based was revised, the French dairy product specialist saw its Actimel, Danonino and other Activia drinkable yogurts downgraded from A (the best score) to B or D depending on the product. It therefore announced… that it would no longer refer to it.
A slap in the face for the promoters of this logo, whose objective is to help consumers choose the foods that are best for their health, i.e. those that are lowest in fat, sugar and salt. “These drinking yogurts were classified as solid foods, which they are not, by definition. It was legitimate to change their category because they are not usually consumed as a dessert, argues Professor Serge Hercberg, the founder of Nutri-Score. If they find themselves poorly classified, it is because of their sugar content, which is higher than that of other comparable products.”
Nevertheless, with this defection, the Nutri-Score loses an important support, while participation in the system continues to rely entirely on the goodwill of the industry’s manufacturers. 1,350 brands, representing 62% of the food market, currently adhere to it. But the decision of a heavyweight in the sector like Danone to abandon it can only weaken it. Even if it is only a partial withdrawal – the group maintains the logo where it remains favorable, such as on flavored waters.
European inaction
But what is the point of a Nutri-Score à la carte? All studies show it: the logo is relevant, its construction is based on solid scientific foundations, consumers recognize it, and it helps them direct their purchases towards healthier products. Companies that market “junk food” have of course always opposed this initiative, and have fought it tooth and nail. Rather than deciding and taking responsibility, the French authorities have so far always dodged the issue, ensuring that the decision to make this labeling mandatory was up to the European Union.
The Brussels Commission took the issue seriously and, as part of its strategy, opted Farm to fork (from farm to fork), for an obligation. The (many) preconditions set by the European administration had been met, with a favourable opinion from the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Research Centre, the European Union’s joint research centre. As were the conclusions of a public consultation. But since then, nothing: “The Italian government, under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, has deployed a real steamroller so that no decision is taken”, regrets Professor Hercberg.
Do we really need to wait for the green light from the European Union to make the Nutri-Score mandatory? Faced with Brussels’ inaction, many are now calling for the French authorities to take the necessary measures to protect public health themselves. Consumers have already chosen: year after year, surveys conducted by Santé publique France show that 90% of them would be in favor of labeling becoming mandatory. Taken by the absurd, the signal sent by Danone is clear: if a manufacturer refuses the logo, perhaps it is because its products are poorly rated. Under these conditions, it is better to abandon products without a Nutri-Score and favor those that play the game.