Nutritional labeling and environmental display: what assessment and what prospects?
Consumers are increasingly seeking transparency in their purchasing decisions. The food sector remains the primary source of concern, but other sectors such as cosmetics and textiles are also under scrutiny.
Implemented in 2017 at the request of the public authorities, the Nutri-Score nutritional labeling system provided them with some initial answers. Based on a 5-level scale, from A to E, from green to red, it provides a simple and intuitive overview of the nutritional quality of products.
However, the Nutri-Score does not take into account environmental and societal aspects arising from production. Established by ITAB[1], the Planet-Score appears today as one of the most effective existing tools on these issues. It has been adopted by more than 120 French brands. 6 European countries are also in the process of implementing it.
What parallels can be drawn between these two displays? Do they respond to current issues? Do they really change purchasing actions?
The 5 nd The Natexpo 2022 webinar, hosted by Florence Roublot, Natexpo Show Manager, and Emmanuel Fournet, Customer Service Manager for NielsenIQ in France, was held on May 31st and provided valuable insights. We've got you covered.
A growing demand for transparency
More than 70% of French people express their awareness of issues such as reducing packaging, Made in France production, environmental protection, fair trade and sustainable development.[2]They are therefore increasingly attentive to ensuring that product labeling provides them with this information.
For Sybile Chapron, co-director of Nature Aliments, a family business founded in 1913 that produces powdered formulas and has been committed to organic farming since the 70s, consumers are clearly looking for transparency—particularly in food products. Sabine Bonnot, president of ITAB and spokesperson for Planet-Score, confirms that consumers are very much in demand for more communication on the nutritional profiles of products, as well as on the environmental issues that arise from them.
However, even though the food sector is the one where expectations are highest, 60% of consumers do not trust companies regarding their communication[3]The fear of greenwashing is strong. This is why, beyond the availability of data, which is much more accessible for the nutritional profile than for the environmental part where the traceability of all value chains is much more complex, it is fundamental that companies strengthen the transparency of their actions and restore consumer confidence.
The Nutri-Score assessment: positive but incomplete
According to Vincent Colomb of ADEME[4], the Nutri-Score system is debatable but very well identified by consumers and it responds to a demand for education, as shown by Santé Publique France. It has also made it possible to " nettoyer » the market for most unfounded nutritional claims. Having a harmonized framework, in terms of public policy, is therefore of real interest. Manufacturers have managed to agree on at least simple data, such as fatty, sugary, salty, or low-fiber products, which are products to avoid. Conversely, balanced, fiber-rich products are considered healthy.
But according to Sabine Bonnot, the nutritional algorithm that France has adopted, based on scientific work, has given rise – and still does today – to very lively controversies within the scientific community itself.
More stringent initiatives are gaining the trust of consumers and some companies, such as improved Nutri-Scores for missing dimensions. This is the case with NOVA, established by Brazilian researchers, which takes into account the degree of processing of the product. The Nutri-Score algorithm has been criticized for not taking into account pesticide residues, the presence of additives (sweeteners, artificial colors, etc.), ultra-processing, or vitamin and mineral content. Overall, the impact on the quality of food purchases is likely, but small. "The scheme is insufficiently ambitious and does not bring about any real dietary change." » according to Sabine Bonnot.
Environmental information: an implementation under discussion
Environmental labeling, which will be mandatory in the coming years following the promulgation of the Climate and Resilience Act, raises the same type of issue. And this dimension turns out to be even more complex than the nutritional aspect. We conducted a two-year experiment, during which we tested various scores, including the Planet-Score. We arrived at a number of key recommendations, established in a report published at the end of 2021. It is important to know that there is a European framework, the PEF, on which we must rely so that French work is recognized and can be integrated into national and European public policies. " explains Vincent Colomb. He also points out that France is demonstrating a real political will to establish environmental labeling – which should see the light of day in 2023 in the food sector – while Europe is more focused on regulating existing claims.
Environmental labeling remains a particularly delicate tool to implement. Some dimensions are well perceived by consumers, such as packaging or the local dimension. But putting the different issues into perspective is not easy. " emphasizes Vincent Colomb. What is the weight of the different aspects (origin, packaging, organic or not, etc.)? Scientific tools are currently being studied to be integrated into an official display that will be released in the coming years.
« The community working on this topic is currently experiencing real difficulty in agreeing on a shared direction for purchasing guidance tools regarding environmental issues. What would be favorable regarding environmental dimensions is not yet clearly defined. The subject is complex, and we must respond to consumer demand on key issues. As for the Planet-Score, we have chosen to display, in particular, the pesticide dimensions (intensity of use) and farming methods, which are of primary concern to consumers. A simplistic display is not an option. " explains Sabine Bonnot.
Supported by 15 organic and environmental stakeholders, as well as consumers, and established by the ITAB, the Planet-Score has been adopted by a number of brands. It provides an overall score (from A to E) accompanied by colors, then three categories: Pesticides, Biodiversity, Climate, also rated from A to E. A fourth criterion concerns animal welfare for livestock products. This score has been very successful – it received the first Retail for Good prize. The scoring is provided free of charge by the ITAB, pending the algorithm, which will be made available at the end of the year. In parallel with scoring, We are asking for managed approaches. We are working on a set of specifications that are informed and controlled. Almost all companies have progress approaches. The Planet-Score is a dynamic tool that leaves room for improvements, unlike LCA (life cycle analysis) which does not allow for differentiations between and within categories. ».
For Sybile Chapron, the Planet-Score is based on a robust methodology that takes into account the entire life cycle. This is why the company Nature Aliments recently adopted this score: "CIt is both a starting point and a tool for improvement. It illustrates a strong commitment to our mission. " This score requires all food companies to consider agricultural practices and the sourcing of ingredients upstream. Several products were scored in early 2022, such as agar-agar, cocoa flan powders, and stirred yogurt powders. For exotic ingredients (cocoa, sugar), the management of deforestation is taken into account. The company plans to produce an initial assessment in October.
For Vincent Colomb, the various scores currently in existence – Eco-Score, Planet-Score – do not fully meet the specifications. This is why ADEME continues to work on another score intended to be the official score.
The European framework: to be reviewed?
According to Sabine Bonnot, there is currently real concern at European level on the part of NGOs, consumer associations and a number of companies: " The European framework proposed as a basis for justifying environmental claims on food products, food supplements, textiles or even on construction or fishing is not relevant. " underlines Sabine Bonnot. " We need to work with Europe to improve this framework and to support it with an external benchmark. The PEF framework rates plastic packaging better than recycled or recyclable packaging. It will never be suitable for bio-sourced products. ».
The subject remains hotly debated today.
In conclusion, despite the context of economic crisis and declining purchasing power, the various stakeholders believe that the need for transparency expressed by consumers will consolidate and persist. Nutritional labeling has already provided an initial indication of food products to avoid (too fatty, too sweet) and those considered balanced, clearly identified by the majority of consumers. Areas still need to be improved, as demonstrated by the creation of more effective Nutri-Scores, which take into account, in particular, the degree of processing of foods.
Regarding environmental labeling, Planet-Score appears to be a relevant and effective tool. However, there are still differences of opinion between public bodies and the ITAB in particular. The official national environmental labeling tool is still under review, even though more and more companies are adopting Planet-Score, in the absence of another suitable tool on the market.
[1] Institute of Organic Agriculture and Food
[2] NielsenIQ
[3] LSA study, March 2022
[4] Environment and Energy Management Agency
Natexpo the organic trade fair from September 18 to 20, 2022 in Lyon.