1. The Competition and Market Authority (AGCM, named Antitrust) decided Aug 1st 2022 to ban Carrefour and other retailers from displaying #NutriScore on Italian food products with PDO, PGI, etc. sold in Italy deeming that Nutri-Score is “misleading to consumers”…
2.But to support such a charge against a public health tool adopted in several european countries, it must be shown results of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals demonstrating the reality of this statement. In absence of scientific proof, it's pure speculation
3. On what scientific studies does the AGCM rely to state that #NutriScore is misleading for consumers (talking about real scientific studies, not “opinion papers” or pseudo “narrative reviews” that do not yield results from original studies) ?
4. It is unlikely that the AGCM can provide any scientific studies demonstrating the misleading effect of #NutriScore justifying its position as they do not exist in the scientific literature...
5. On the contrary, the AGCM totally denies the many published scientific studies showing that #NutriScore is well understood and well used by consumers and positively impacts their food choices and the nutritional quality of their purchases
6. More than 20 international scientific publications have demonstrated in 19 European countries, including Italy, that #NutriScore allows consumers to correctly classify foods according to their nutritional quality, which is fondamental for a nutritional label 
7. Note that these are studies that assess objective understanding (= ability to help consumers properly classify foods based on their nutritional quality) of FOP Nutritional labels, among them #NutriScore, and not only subjective understanding (= consumer-reported preference)
8. It is important because subjective understanding does not prejudge that the FOP label actually helps make the right nutritional choices. A label can be appreciated by consumers or even preferred over another without allowing to conclude that it helps them to make good choices
9. In addition, more than 15 studies performed in various countries have shown the positive impact of the #Nutri-Score on food choices and on the nutritional quality of food purchases (studies in real life in supermarkets, experimental stores and virtual supermarkets)
10. Morover many studies have validated the relevance and reliability of the algorithm underlying #NutriScore in terms of the choice of elements incorporated in its calculation and the allocation of points to the various elements it integrates solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/prevention-en-…
11. In particular, cohort studies in France, Spain and 10 European countries (> 500,000 people) have shown that eating foods well classified by #NutriScore is associated with a lower risk of chronic diseases (cancers, CVD, obesity, etc.) and a lower mortality rate
12. It is on the basis of these scientific work that many European organizations of experts, medical doctors and professionals working in the field of nutrition, obesity, public health, pediatrics, cancer… have decided to support #NutriScore
13. These scientific structures, including the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the European Academy of Pediatry, the European Childhood Obesity Group (ECOG), etc. requested that #NutriScore be implemented on a mandatory basis at European level
14. How can we imagine that all these scientific experts and health professionals involved in the defense of health of consumers could sustained #NutriScore if it was misleading as AGCM states (without any scientific proofs)
15. It is also on the basis of the scientific studies and their own tests that consumer associations have also decided to support the #NutriScore (it is the case of the BEUC, which include 45 European consumer associations including Italian associations)
16. Finally, the ACSM's position does not appear to be supported by any objective scientific evidence to support its claim that #NutriScore is misleading when scientific evidence shows on the contrary that it is well understood and actually helps consumers in a positive way
17. Same when ACSM states “#NutriScore does not take into account the needs of the individual as a whole, the quantities of food ... which it is included in a balanced diet”, it does not make sense taking into consideration what we can expect from a nutritional FOP label
18. The criticism would also apply to mandatory nutritional declaration and all FOP labels in particular NutrInform which refers to the needs of an average adult who consumes 2000 Kcal/d when the needs are different for men, women, children, elderly subjects, sedentary people...
19. Same for the claim of ACSM that #NutriScore is not universally recognized: it would apply equally to all FOP nutrition labels and even more strongly to the Nutrinform rejected by the vast majority of the European scientific community, the associations of experts and consumers
20. In total, the argument that #NutriScore is “misleading to consumers” is not supported by any scientific studies and is contradicted by real scientific studies that demonstrated its interest for consumers health and public health
21. This false argument echoed by the AGCM is that of the Italian lobbies (Federalimentare, Coldiretti, Confagricoltura), which do not wish to give consumers access to simple and understandable information on the nutritional composition of foods...
Correctum: The figure with the good references of the studies demonstrating the positive impact of the Nutri-Score on food choices and nutritional quality of food purchases is 👇
And recent data comparing the performance (subjective understanding, perception,objective understanding and purchase intention) of #NutriScore and Nutrinform Battery on 1064 Italian consumers :
https://twitter.com/PilarGalan10/status/1563115860604366854?s=20&t=TvvAmSscmejGpFprT6JsPw
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
