Nutri-Score: should PDO products be exempted? Carole Delga – Serge Hercberg, the debate

2023-07-28 10:00:00

“Yes, the Nutri-Score is essential but could be improved.”

By Carole Delga, PS president of the Occitanie region

An activist for good food, healthy and produced by our farmers, respectful of the land and our health, I support clear information for consumers, which is not reduced to counting fat, sugar and salt. It’s a fact, minimally processed products are sometimes more fatty, salty or sweet, but they are full of vitamins, calcium and magnesium. It is common sense to say that a slice of Roquefort or Comté is better than a handful of crisps at the end of a meal.

So why is one rated E when the other can be B? The Nutri-Score is essential but perfectible. It must reflect a more complex nutritional reality. If it has the merit of identifying ingredients that can alter health, by saying what is not good, it stifles the good things.

Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) are the acronyms of a supervised production, respecting traditions and know-how often centuries old. Obtaining these labels is often a battle for the recognition of our products and our terroirs. To apply a Nutri-Score to them in the current state of its method of calculation is to deny their deep identity, their nutritional quality and the commitment of an entire sector.

Yes, some PDO or PGI products are produced by manufacturers. But that does not exempt them from these same requirements and I see to that. I assume it, for me, the industry is not a bad word when it is involved in the development of our heritage, food in particular.

I defend our farmers. These men and women who, every day, work the land, raise animals, to offer us high quality products. We cannot reduce their commitment to a letter of the alphabet.

“No, transparency on food products is a must.”

By Serge Hercberg, nutritionist and epidemiologist, professor of nutrition at Sorbonne Paris Nord University.

It is a good thing to support PDO/PGI products, which are linked to the terroirs and produced according to specific know-how and specifications, but this should not be done with false arguments suggesting that this would give them consistently good nutritional quality. Indeed, these labels of origin do not include the notion of nutritional quality in their definition. So even with a PDO/PGI, fatty, sweet or salty foods remain fatty, sweet or salty. But not all traditional foods are poorly classified by Nutri-Score: 62% are A, B or C. These are the cheeses and cold cuts that are D and E because of their saturated fatty acid and salt content. This in no way indicates that these products should not be consumed, only that they should be in limited quantities and/or not too frequently, in accordance with nutritional recommendations.

Transparency on the nutritional composition of foods, even with a PDO/PGI, is a right for consumers and a duty for those who manufacture them. It should also be remembered that behind many PDO/IGP foods, we find large manufacturers such as Lactalis or Savancia, who are fighting Nutri-Score.

In fact, the display of the Nutri-Score – the effectiveness of which has been demonstrated by more than 100 scientific studies – is not opposed to that of the labels of origin but, on the contrary, their association is consistent with the concept of consume less but better.

However, it is essential that Nutri-Score becomes mandatory to force the hand of manufacturers (Ferrero, Lactalis, Coca-Cola, Mars, Mondelez, etc.) and cheese and charcuterie manufacturers who refuse transparency on the nutritional composition of their products. It is the fight of Public Health against economic interests.