Is Nutri-Score Relative? A Detailed Analysis

November 24, 2025 •

3 min read

Recent studies have shown that Nutri-Score helps consumers identify healthier options when comparing similar products. But is Nutri-Score relative in a way that makes it unreliable? The short answer is yes, its utility is relative to the products being compared, making it a valuable tool for direct comparisons within food categories.

Quick Summary

This article explores the relative nature of the Nutri-Score system, explaining how it functions as a comparative tool rather than an absolute measure of healthiness. It clarifies that meaningful comparisons should be made between similar products, not across different food categories. Understanding this relativity is key to its effective use.

Key Points

Relative Comparison: Nutri-Score is primarily designed for comparing the nutritional quality of similar products within the same food category, such as different brands of breakfast cereal.
Inaccurate for Cross-Category Use: It is misleading to compare products from fundamentally different categories, like olive oil and diet soda, as the algorithm does not account for their different dietary roles.
Algorithm Based on Nutrients: The score is calculated by balancing positive nutrients (protein, fiber, FVLN) against negative ones (energy, saturated fat, sugar, sodium) per 100g/ml.
Algorithm Limitations: The system has limitations, as it doesn't account for the degree of food processing, additives, or specific micronutrients.
Portion Size is Excluded: Nutri-Score does not account for portion size, which can affect the interpretation of a product's healthfulness in the context of an overall diet.
Complementary Tool: The score should be used as a quick guide in conjunction with broader nutritional knowledge and official dietary recommendations.
Reformulation Incentive: The system also motivates food manufacturers to reformulate their products to achieve a better score, contributing to improved nutritional quality over time.

The Nutri-Score system is a front-of-pack label that uses a color-coded scale (A to E) to show a food's nutritional quality. It's not an absolute measure of health but a reflection of a product's nutritional profile based on a scientific algorithm. The question "Is Nutri-Score relative?" depends on how it's used by consumers. It's best for comparing items in the same food category, but can be misleading when comparing very different products.

The Calculation: A Relative Formula

The Nutri-Score algorithm balances beneficial and unfavorable nutritional values. It gives 'positive' points for protein, fiber, fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and 'negative' points for calories, saturated fat, sugars, and salt. The score is calculated per 100g or 100ml for consistency.

Positive and Negative Components

Positive Components: Points are given for high amounts of fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, fiber, and protein.
Negative Components: Points are added for high energy density, sugar, saturated fat, and sodium.

A lower total score (negative points minus positive points) results in a better Nutri-Score (like A). This process highlights the score's relativity to a product's ingredients.

The Importance of Relevant Comparison

Nutri-Score is most effective for comparing similar products, helping consumers choose healthier options quickly. For instance, comparing different breakfast cereals works well. A better Nutri-Score in this context truly signifies a more nutritious product.

Irrelevant Comparisons: A Common Misconception

Critics sometimes use comparisons of unrelated items like olive oil and diet soda to point out flaws. A diet soda might get a better score due to low calories and sugar, but this doesn't mean it's 'healthier' than olive oil, a staple of a healthy diet. Olive oil's higher fat content leads to more negative points in the algorithm. Consumers wouldn't typically choose between these, making the comparison unhelpful.

Nutri-Score vs. Other Labeling Systems: A Relative Assessment

Different global food labels use various methods to share nutritional data. A comparison shows their relative strengths.


Feature	Nutri-Score	Traffic Light System (UK)	Health Star Rating (Australia)
Rating Format	5-color/letter scale (A-E)	Multiple red/amber/green indicators for individual nutrients	0.5 to 5-star rating
Algorithm	Summarizes overall nutritional quality (good vs. bad nutrients)	Highlights specific nutrient levels (high, medium, low)	Scores positive and negative attributes
Main Advantage	Easy at-a-glance comparison for similar products	Simple visual cue for individual nutrient levels	Overall rating of nutritional quality
Key Limitation	Can be misleading with irrelevant product comparisons	Lack of overall score can make cross-product comparison difficult	Can be less intuitive than a color-coded system
Relativity	High: designed for relative comparison within categories	Medium: focused on individual nutrients, less on overall product ranking	High: provides an overall rating but can lack visual impact

The Algorithm's Limitations

The Nutri-Score algorithm has drawbacks. It doesn't fully consider factors like food processing, additives, or specific micronutrients. Some processed foods might get a good score by reducing calories, sugar, or fat, potentially misrepresenting their overall healthiness. Efforts are being made to address this, such as proposing a black border for ultra-processed foods.

Portion Size and Dietary Context

The Nutri-Score is based on a standard 100g/ml portion for comparison, but it doesn't reflect typical serving sizes. A food with a poor score (E) meant for small portions might seem less healthy than a product with a better score (B) consumed in larger quantities. Healthy eating is about the overall diet, which a single label can't fully capture. Consumers should use the score with broader dietary advice.

Conclusion: Interpreting the Score with Context

Nutri-Score is relative, and its usefulness depends on understanding its purpose: to aid relative comparisons between similar foods at the store and encourage manufacturers to improve product nutrition. It's not a definitive health statement. To use it effectively, compare products within the same category and consider it alongside general dietary guidelines and ingredient lists. With this understanding of its relative nature, Nutri-Score becomes a valuable tool for making better food choices.

For further information on Nutri-Score's methodology and updates, consult the official Nutri-Score blog

Frequently Asked Questions

No, Nutri-Score is a relative measure designed for comparison within food categories, not an absolute judgment of a single product's healthfulness.

This is a key misconception. The Nutri-Score algorithm penalizes high fat and energy content, which is why calorie-dense olive oil scores lower. The comparison is irrelevant because the products serve entirely different dietary functions.

You should use Nutri-Score to compare products on the same shelf or within the same category. For example, use it to choose a more nutritious breakfast cereal among several options.

The standard Nutri-Score algorithm does not account for the degree of processing or the presence of additives, though there are proposals to add this information, such as with a 'black border' for ultra-processed foods.

This standardized amount provides a consistent and comparable basis for evaluating products, making it easier to see how their nutritional profiles stack up against one another.

No, a 'D' or 'E' rating indicates a product should be consumed in moderation or less frequently. It doesn't mean it should be completely avoided as part of a balanced diet.

Both systems have merits. Nutri-Score provides an overall, at-a-glance score, whereas the Traffic Light system gives specific nutrient warnings. Which is 'better' is relative to what information a consumer finds most useful, though research suggests Nutri-Score is highly effective for comparison.