A recent study by researchers at INRAE, France, examines the separate and combined effects of two policies – the Nutri-Score nutritional labelling system and fiscal measures on certain foods – to improve the nutritional quality of shopping baskets and thus public health. (1)
1) INRAE, mission and organization
INRAE (Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement) is a public research institute whose mission is ‘to advance excellent science to provide innovative solutions that address global challenges, particularly climate change, biodiversity and food security‘. And at the same time allow ‘the necessary agroecological, nutritional and energy transitions. This research also serves to define policies at regional and international levels, thus contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)‘.
The organization, in numbers, is perhaps unparalleled in Europe:
- 11.500 staff members, including 2.000 researchers, 3.100 engineers and assistant engineers, 3.300 technicians
- 18 centers and 14 research divisions
- 268 between research units, experimental research units and support units
nearly 6.000 high-level publications - over 50% of publications produced in the context of international collaborations
- 450 socio-economic partners
- 30,9 million euros in revenue, of which 9,1 million euros in revenue from software licenses, consultancy and plant variety certificates
- 5 Carnot Institutes (2)
- a budget of 1 billion euros
- 10.000 hectares of experimental land. (3)
2) Nutri-Score, fiscal measures and nutritional quality of shopping baskets. The INRAE study
WHO and WHO-Europe – in addition to recording the epidemic spread of overweight and obesity, including childhood obesity, and serious and chronic diseases (NCDs, Non-Communicable Diseases) linked to unbalanced diets – have developed a series of recommendations to mitigate this public health crisis.
A systematic review experimental study under examination, conducted by researchers at INRAE and published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Crosetto et al., 2024), analyses the potential effectiveness of two of the main nutrition policy tools recommended by WHO:
– FOPNL (Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling), according to the Nutri-Score model which assigns to each product a colour and a letter (from dark green to intense orange, corresponding to the letters from A to E) based on its nutritional score; (4)
– tax measures based on the nutritional profiles of foods. (5) Not only taxes on nutritionally unbalanced foods (NutriScore D,E), but also incentives on the most balanced ones (NutriScore A,B), with no changes in the intermediate class (NutriScore C). (5)
2.1) Objectives
The research pursued four objectives:
– rank nutritional policies based on labelling and price changes, tested separately, according to the extent of their impact on the nutritional quality of consumers’ shopping baskets;
– measure the impact of the combination of the two policies, applied in synergy, on the nutritional quality of consumers’ shopping baskets. Compared with the impact of each of them applied individually;
– assess the impact of each policy (labeling, pricing and their combination) on the price of consumers’ daily food purchases. Modulating the results according to consumers’ income levels;
– replicate the previous analysis on the effectiveness of the Nutri-Score on purchasing behavior (Crosetto et al., 2019), after its adoption and gradual diffusion in France (6,7).
2.2) Method
Researchers set up an experimental grocery store in their laboratory, asking participants to shop for two days’ worth of food for their family, from a catalog of 290 products in 39 food categories. Each subject shops twice, first without and then with a certain measure.
The 386 participants, recruited through advertisements in local media and social networks in the city of Grenoble (France) among people accustomed to shopping in supermarkets:
– were aware that their purchasing choices had real consequences, since approximately one in four products was stored in the warehouse, in a nearby room, and each choice was therefore potentially binding;
– were invited to participate in an unannounced second purchasing phase, after completing the first purchasing phase;
– were informed of the nature of the intervention, based on the condition to which they were randomly assigned, as well as that only one shopping phase, randomly selected at the end of the experiment, would be considered for purchases.
2.3) The five hypotheses considered
The experimentation included five treatments across two dimensions, the presence or absence of the Nutri-Score and the presence or absence of a given form of pricing policy.
Pricing policies have been applied in two dimensions, entity and relevance:
– to vary the relevance, an implicit variation was used (display of only the new modified price) or an explicit variation (display of the new price next to the old crossed out price). To vary the entity, a minimum (1 or 2 euro cents) or significant (10 or 20%) price variation was adopted. And so
products with Nutri-Score A and B are subject to price reductions of -20% (€0,02) and
10% (0,01) respectively; unchanged prices for products C; increases of +10% (0,01 €) and +20% (0,02 €) for products D and E, respectively, in the significant and minimal interventions (in brackets).
2.4) Results
Introducing the Nutri-Score the nutritional quality of the shopping baskets has been confirmed to significantly improve. The variation between basket 1 (products with labels without Nutriscore) and basket 2 (with Nutri-Score), measured on the basis of the overall nutritional result (FSA Score), is equal to -2,25 points. (8)
Both interventions on the price (with minimal and significant variation) in turn appreciably improve the nutritional quality of the baskets. The FSA score decreases by -1,49 points with the explicit pricing policy (i.e. with the display of the original price, crossed out, whether the higher or lower one) and by -0,92 points with the implicit one.
The combination of the two measures has an impact on both large (-2,78 FSA points) and small pricing policies (-1,71 points).
3) Provisional conclusions
The results of the study in question show that:
– Nutri-Score labelling has a greater impact on the nutritional quality of food shopping baskets than pricing policies;
– a pricing policy in addition to labels does not have a significant impact; and indeed, contrary to expectations, a minimal intervention on prices even reduces the impact.
It is confirmed thus furthermore that the Nutri-Score can have a significant impact on the nutritional quality of food shopping baskets and thus contribute to improving the diet of populations, with benefits for public health.
Dario Dongo
Footnote
(1) Crosetto P., Muller L., Ruffieux B. (2024). Label or taxes: why not both? Testing nutritional mixed policies in the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106825
(2) The Carnot network institutes are public research laboratories that carry out scientific activities in public-private partnerships, financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(3) Partnership for European Environmental Research. INRAE https://tinyurl.com/55c283vs
(4) See paragraph 6 in the previous article by Sabrina Bergamini, Dario Dongo. Obesity, childhood obesity and marketing. WHO Europe 2022 report. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(5) Dario Dongo. Fiscal policies for balanced nutrition, WHO recommendations. FT (Food Times). July 4, 2024
(6) Crosetto, A. Lacroix, L. Muller, B. Ruffieux (2019. Nutritional and economic impact of five alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence. Europ. Rev Agricult Econ, 47 (2), pp. 785-818, 10.193/erae/jbz037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz037
(7) Marta Strinati, Dario Dongo. Carrefour France imposes Nutri-Score on all suppliers. FT (Food Times). November 12, 2024
(8) ScoreFSA is the score calculated based on the nutritional measure of the Nutrient Profiling Model, developed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA, UK). This score assigns to each product: negative points for salt, saturated fats, calories and sugars; positive points for fibre, fruit and vegetable content and protein. The score varies from -15 to 35, with lower numbers indicating a better overall nutritional quality
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
