HIt shouldn’t be all that difficult with that Nutri score, you would think. The dark green A stands for healthy, the red E for unhealthy – done. Nevertheless, the government believes it is necessary to explain to consumers through a public campaign how they should interpret the score, which has been officially introduced since January.
Because yes, some frozen pizzas have a healthy-looking green stamp. In the meantime, 30+ cheese – part of the disc of five – gets a devastating bright orange D. It is a piece of cake to present the Nutri score with such examples and cynically wonder: who came up with this crazy system ? But dive a little deeper and it becomes clear that there is at least a logic behind the score.
About the author
Niels Waarlo is an economics reporter for de Volkskrant. He writes about sustainability and the circular economy, among other things.
To start with the inventors: they sit on the Scientific Committee of the Nutri-Score. The task of this international group of experts – the Nutri-score is a European label – is not easy. They had to come up with a method that allows manufacturers to easily (and without discussion) calculate which letter should appear on their product packaging. And this on a wide variety of foods.
Healthy (for custard)
Not every consumer is interested in delving into this allocation of scores. That is why the message of the public campaign is simple: use the Nutri score to compare products within the same product category. Which muesli is healthier, which snacks are the least bad, that works. The score of a pack of custard next to that of enjoying a steam meal makes little sense. And those who only eat products with an A or B score do not necessarily eat healthy.
Yet it is a misunderstanding that it concerns relative scale per product category. It is not the case that the least bad bag of chips gets an A and the unhealthiest gets an E label. Chips, pre-baked rolls, chocolate sprinkles, broccoli: all receive scores based on exactly the same calculation method.
Comparing does not work well due to the large differences between products themselves and their portion sizes. For example, you usually eat much more of a pizza than a block of cheese at a time, but this is not taken into account in the score allocation. After all, this is always calculated per portion of 100 grams.
That calculation starts with assigning numerical scores. Unhealthy ingredients such as saturated fat, sugar and salt earn points. Healthier components, such as fiber and proteins, lead to points being deducted. For example, if a product contains between 27 and 31 grams of sugar per 100 grams, this is worth a significant 6 points. The more points, the worse the rating. Each final score is then given a letter; between 3 and 10 points, for example a yellow C.
There are a few categories in which the points allocation differs, because otherwise the scores would become too bizarre. Take the drinks, where surprisingly enough, everything that is not water, by definition scores a B or worse.
Nuts, seeds and oils also form a separate category. Due to the high number of calories per 100 grams, they would be extremely poor, while in moderation they fit into a healthy diet. Unsalted almonds now score an A, otherwise this would be an E.
The Nutri score is therefore a balancing exercise between the complex reality with all those types of food and a practice that requires simplicity. That balance is still being refined. For example, an improved algorithm has just been introduced, causing bags of Doritos chips, for example, to lose their much-discussed B-score. However, companies outside the Netherlands will have until the end of 2025 to update their scores.
Presumably no one is ever 100 percent happy with the system. The scientists themselves also see that white and brown rice currently score equally well, while the brown variety is clearly healthier. ‘The Nutri score is not a panacea’ is the very first quote from Maarten van Ooijen, outgoing State Secretary for Health, in the press release about the public campaign.
Critics think the entire idea behind the Nutri score is flawed. They fear that the letters sometimes row directly against the Wheel of Five only causes confusion.
The Ministry of Health believes that the label is a useful addition. The Health Council makes serious comments, for example that unhealthy additives such as salt and sugar can sometimes be easy to mask with healthier ingredients. However, people who know little about healthy and unhealthy food can especially benefit from the label, according to the council.
But even those who are already reasonably aware of what is healthy can be made to think about the Nutri score. If the score for a product is surprisingly poor, it may contain more salt or sugar than expected. For example, it doesn’t hurt to know that a good pinch of salt has been added to smoked salmon. This is immediately revealed by the D score, while fresh salmon has a dark green A.
