Nutri-Score: Helpful Shortcut or Missed Opportunity?

What the popular front-of-pack label gets right—and the nutritional blind spots it leaves behind.

What Is Nutri-Score?

Nutri-Score is a front-of-package nutrition label designed to help shoppers make healthier choices at a glance. Developed in France and now used in several European countries, it rates foods from A (dark green, best) to E (red, worst) based on what’s inside.

The score is calculated per 100 grams or 100 milliliters of a product. Foods lose points for things like sugar, salt, saturated fat, and calories, and gain points for fiber, protein, and the percentage of fruits, vegetables, and legumes (FVL). The final score determines the color and letter grade shown on the front of the package.

Some food categories—like cheese, added fats/oils/nuts/seeds, and beverages—use slightly modified formulas to better reflect their typical makeup [1].

Where It Falls Short

Nutri-Score is easy to use and works well for comparing similar products—but it also has some major blind spots, especially when it comes to plant-based eating and culturally diverse diets.

Real People Don’t Eat 100 Grams of Everything

Nutri-Score always scores food based on 100 grams or 100 milliliters—even if that’s very different from how much people actually eat.

For example:

100 g of olive oil ≈ over 800 calories (but most people use only a small drizzle or a tablespoon at a time)
100 g of hummus ≈ 250 calories (more than triple a typical serving size of 2 tablespoons)
100 g of rice cakes ≈ 380 calories (roughly 10 cakes—far more than most people eat at once)

So nutrient-dense foods like hummus, nut butters, or seeds may end up with worse scores than something like rice cakes or sugar-free cereal, simply because they’re higher in calories—even if they’re far more satisfying and nutritious in real-life portions.

The 100 g/100 mL rule is designed to support transparency and comparability across products, and to avoid brands manipulating serving sizes [1]. But it’s still a poor reflection of how people actually eat—and for Americans especially, it adds another layer of confusion, since U.S. nutrition labels typically use cups, ounces, or tablespoons.

Does Cheese Get Special Treatment?

Yes—and that’s a problem.

In Nutri-Score’s formula for cheese, protein always counts as a positive, even when the cheese is high in saturated fat and salt. This exception exists because calcium isn’t always listed on European food labels, so protein was used as a proxy [3].

But that assumption doesn’t hold up:

Protein isn’t the same as calcium
Many people get calcium from non-dairy sources like tofu, leafy greens, or fortified plant milks
These foods don’t receive the same benefit in the Nutri-Score system, even when they’re lower in saturated fat and offer more well-rounded nutrition

In practice, this gives dairy a built-in advantage—one that’s not extended to plant-based options.

Not All Plant-Based Foods Score Fairly

Nutri-Score rewards products containing at least 40% fruits, vegetables, or legumes (FVL) [1], which can help identify many nutrient-rich options. However, this threshold excludes a number of wholesome, minimally processed staples. Nutritious foods such as seitan, whole-grain bread, and plain oat cereal often fall short, since most grains are not included in the FVL category. Even plant-based milks made from whole grains, like oat or rice milk, may be overlooked despite being low in sugar and minimally processed. By not recognizing the nutritional value of these foods, the system risks sending consumers a narrower view of what truly supports a healthy diet.

One Letter Can’t Tell the Whole Story

Nutri-Score’s strength lies in its simplicity. Research shows people understand and use it more effectively than many other label systems [4]. But that simplicity also leaves important gaps.

It doesn’t tell you:

Which key nutrients a food provides
How often it fits into a healthy eating pattern
How processed it is
Whether it’s sustainably produced or part of a cultural tradition

The Health Council of the Netherlands has noted that Nutri-Score is based on a small set of nutrients and ingredients, not a complete measure of “healthiness” [3]. This creates a false sense of certainty—a product with an “A” score might still be ultra-processed or lacking in important nutrients Nutri-Score doesn’t measure [5].

Final Thoughts

Nutri-Score is a helpful tool when comparing two similar products—but it’s far from perfect. Scoring foods per 100 g often distorts how people actually eat. Cheese gets a built-in boost, and many plant-based or culturally specific foods don’t get the credit they deserve.

Instead of leveling the playing field, Nutri-Score may quietly reinforce outdated ideas—like dairy as the default calcium source or low-calorie equals healthy.

If we want food labels that truly support better choices, they need to reflect real eating patterns, cultural diversity, and the full picture of what makes a food nourishing.

References

Santé Publique France / Nutri-Score Scientific Committee. Update of the Nutri-Score algorithm – Final report. 2022. link
Julia C, Hercberg S. Development of a new front-of-pack nutrition label in France: the five-colour Nutri-Score. Public Health Panorama. 2017. link
Health Council of the Netherlands. Evaluation of the Nutri-Score algorithm. Advisory report 2022/29e. 2022. link
Egnell M, Talati Z, Galan P, et al. Objective understanding of front-of-pack labels: comparison of five label formats in a large-scale experimental study. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1542. link
Jones A, Neal B, Reeve B, Mhurchu CN, Thow AM. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling to promote healthier diets: current practice and opportunities to strengthen regulation worldwide. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4:e001882. link