Why Nutriscore Threatens Consumer Choice and Local Food Traditions – Sol – Portugal
In an opinion article for the Portuguese weekly Jornal Sol, I discuss the controversial Nutriscore food labeling system implemented by the previous government’s Health Minister without parliamentary consultation. Nutriscore, designed to combat obesity and promote healthier food choices, labels products with a color code: red for unhealthy and green for healthy foods.
However, this system serves the commercial and ideological interests of certain international industrial and political groups rather than genuinely addressing obesity. It fails to reduce obesity rates, threatens Portugal’s local agri-food economy, and restricts consumer freedom by oversimplifying food choices and ignoring individual dietary needs.
You can read my comment here >>>
Why Nutriscore Threatens Consumer Choice and Local Food Traditions
Nutriscore is not just a simple colored scheme on packaging guiding consumers to healthier choices. It is a political and commercial tool used to influence citizen behavior and regulate the food market. Supporters of Nutriscore blame obesity on specific nutrients, which are essential for our diet when consumed in balance.
READ THE HUFFPOST: EUROPE’S LEADERSHIP IN AGRIFOOD >>>
However, as we know from extensive literature and scientific evidence, the causes of obesity are diverse and complex, and cannot be addressed merely with a traffic light system on labels. Not surprisingly, obesity rates do not decrease in countries that have adopted Nutriscore; in fact, they tend to rise. In France, for example, the system is present on 75% of packaged products. It could be argued that this is not yet sufficient to cover 100% of products, and soon it might extend to restaurant menus and advertisements, leading to an authoritarian and inflexible dietary regime.
OPPOSING THE SUGAR TAX >>>
Proponents of Nutriscore seem to consider consumers incapable of making their own choices. Instead of providing them with the knowledge and tools to make informed and therefore free choices, Nutriscore “suggests” what is good or bad according to an algorithm developed by French scientists based more on ideological beliefs than on solid evidence and experiments.
LA SUGAR TAX FA MALE: RILEGGI L’INTERVISTA PER REPUBBLCIA >>>
We know that there are no inherently good or bad foods; it is the dose that makes a nutrient or ingredient healthy or harmful, depending on the individual consuming it. Nutriscore deliberately ignores individual diversity, favoring an old deterministic approach that appeals to large bureaucracies in closed societies with a “one size fits all” mentality. Essentially, the consumer ends up unable to choose freely, remaining ignorant of the foods they consume, and being misled by an algorithm that completely ignores individual characteristics, lifestyle, psychology, etc.
LEGGI: IL FUTURO DELLE POLITICHE ALIMENTARI EUROPEE >>>
Before implementing any policy, especially regarding public health, it is essential to evaluate the potential unintended consequences. Analyzing Nutriscore, we would discover that this system could threaten freedom of choice, limit access to knowledge, and suppress food diversity. This raises the question: are these really unintended consequences, or do they reflect a deep-seated belief justifying state intervention in citizens’ personal choices in the name of a supposed common good?
