A total of 71 participants were recruited for this study: 51 for the focus groups and 20 for the shopping observations (see Table 1 and Supplementary file 4, respectively, for participant characteristics). Overall, the profile of participants in the shopping observation was well balanced according to age, sex, SPC and living area (Table 2).
Table 1 Characteristics of the focus groups participantsTable 2 Distribution of the participants of the shopping observations
The results are discussed below according to six themes. The first (i) relates to food perceptions and purchasing criteria to situate the participants in the context of the study. The next five themes deal with (ii) participants’ knowledge and understanding of the Nutri-Score, (iii) their perceptions of it, (iv) their uses of the label, (v) their criticisms and expectations of the Nutri-Score, and finally, (vi) their opinions and expectations regarding the algorithm update and the related information campaign (in the focus groups only). Overall, both methods led to similar findings, although the shopping observations highlighted elements not raised in the focus groups. Thus, the findings relate to the analysis of both the focus group discussions and shopping observations except if otherwise specified. Main results are summarised in Table 3 by themes and subthemes of analysis, and according to the use of the Nutri-Score when it was relevant.
In the following sections, verbatim transcripts from the focus groups (FG) or shopping observations (S) are given to illustrate the results (see Table 1 and Supplementary file 4, respectively, for participant characteristics). Interestingly, very few differences were observed according to individual characteristics (e.g., sex, age, SPC), so the results are presented globally, except when differences or specificities in some subgroups were observed. Even though no precise quantitative analysis has been performed, the following terms are used in the present section to describe the prevalence of the results among participants (from the least to the most prevalent): « a few » (very small proportion), « some » (higher proportion but not more than one third of the participants), “several” (higher than “some” but less than half of the participants), and “the majority of” (more than half of the participants).
Table 3 Main results by themes and subthemes of analysis and according to the use of the Nutri-Score
i)
Food perceptions and purchasing criteria
Participants had a complex perception of food. They spontaneously associated food with the notion of pleasure and then with time or financial constraints or necessity. They were concerned about the rise of ultra-processed food, the series of health crises in recent years and the origin of food items.
“I think that we’ve all lost confidence in the food industry. There are always scandals, things you discover.” (FG2).
Of the seven participants who had to choose a ready-made meal during the shopping observations (because they had not spontaneously mentioned the Nutri-Score), three excluded products with meat because they did not know its origin. Four of them also paid attention to the products’ composition, although only one participant took the Nutri-Score into account.
“Either I don’t know where [the meat] comes from or I think that it has lots of fat. I know that it’s full of sauces and artificial colouring… So, I usually choose some plant-based soy balls or chili con carne, which scares me less…” (S3).
Participants from low SPC also pointed to rising prices as a cause of concern, particularly in the current context of high inflation.
“… We’re more careful with our wallets than our stomachs … well, our health, unfortunately.” (S12).
Overall, price and preference for a product were the main purchasing criteria. In the shopping sessions, almost all participants (19/20) usually checked and compared prices, with half of them looking for promotions even if it meant shopping in several supermarkets.
“Yeah, brand X. It’s good value for money and quite tasty. And compared with the other one over there that’s got a smoky flavour, it’s got a funny taste that’s not so good.” (S10).
“But I always look at the price per litre and per kilo, it’s something I always do. So there I can see the difference, it’s double the price, so I think that I’m going to take a non-organic juice or that one.” (S2).
“I go to supermarket A and then here and depending on the promotions, I might go to supermarket B, C or D, it depends on what they offer, what’s interesting.” (S8).
Participants’ choices were mainly driven by their habits, as they selected food items simply because they were their usual products. Sometimes they were unable to explain to the interviewer why they chose the product in the first place.
“I couldn’t tell you, perhaps it’s out of habit. I think it’s more a matter of habit, because I’ve never bought another brand.” (S16).
Because they are reassuring, labels that indicate the origin or organic status of food, for example, may influence consumer’s purchases but to a lesser extent. During the shopping sessions, several participants paid attention to the origin (9/20), composition (9/20) or organic nature (8/20) of the products.
“Now I’m going take some fromage frais… So I’ll chose one that’s a bit more expensive, but it’s made with French milk, whereas the other one is from the EU, which is a bit vague.” (S8).
ii)
Knowledge and understanding of the Nutri-Score.
All participants were familiar with the Nutri-Score or recognised the logo thanks to previous information campaigns and its clear packaging display. In the majority of sessions, participants spontaneously mentioned the Nutri-Score as a reassuring element or as a tool used when food shopping. Even though their overall perception of the label as an assessment of product quality was correct, their knowledge about the components of the Nutri-Score was relatively limited.
Participants had a somewhat confused definition of the Nutri-Score. They defined it as an indicator of the quality of a product in reference to its health or nutritional quality but without precisely understanding what these terms meant.
“If it’s A, it’s good for your health, and E, it’s really bad for your health. So that’s it, but what’s good for your health? What is?” (S15).
For the participants, the Nutri-Score aimed to guide consumers towards a healthier diet and better health. They also pointed to its objective of informing and raising awareness about the healthiness of products in the population, especially among young people.
“I think it helps you choose a product, so if someone wants to buy or have really health food, they’ll only choose Nutri-Score A or B.” (FG6).
The vast majority of participants did not know how the Nutri-Score was calculated. Several participants believed that it was based on the content of different nutrients in the product. They more rarely discussed the notion of balance between healthy and unhealthy elements.
“But in relation to what? It’s good, average, acceptable but in relation to what? Nutri means nutrition but…” (FG5).
“I think it’s based on the weight of the whole product: grams of sugar, proportion of salt, fat, proteins, carbohydrates.” (S13).
“I would say that it indicates the nutritional quality. What’s good and what isn’t good, so I really think it’s about finding a balance between the two. What’s good in the product, I don’t know, in terms of fibre or something else, well, the amount of sugar or fat might not be good, so I think the letter is decided based on that.” (FG6).
Participants did not know which criteria were taken into account in the calculation, because they had never considered the issue. All participants thought that it included the nutritional composition – most often sugar, salt (or sodium) and fat – and the number of calories. More than half of participants (mainly non-users but not only) believed that the presence of additives and the degree of food processing were also taken into account in the calculation.
“No, because there are three nutritional components, that’s the key: too much fat, too much sugar, too much salt. They make you put on weight or aren’t good for your health.” (S13).
“And they don’t waste any time making products for preservatives, with all that stuff in there, and there may be lot of them, which can influence the Nutri-Score in my opinion.” (S20).
This ignorance was a source of both confusion and mistrust. This feeling was especially expressed in the shopping sessions during which a few participants were confused when they tried to explain the rating using the nutritional information table.
“Ah, knowing what explains the difference between the two. So, I look at the ingredients, is there more sugar? So, no. Are there more processed products? No. That one has more protein and is still B. It has a bit more salt but just a little. This one, which is also B, has fewer calories, so I don’t understand the Nutri-Score. I should probably pay more attention.” (S8).
The majority of participants rightly thought that the FOPNL is calculated for the standard reference quantity (100 g or 100 mL). They found this method to be appropriate, because it allows the comparison of food items and provides an overview of the product.
“The fact that it’s based on 100 g means that you can compare two different products, for example. Based on the portion, I don’t see the point.” (FG1).
The majority did not know which body is behind the Nutri-Score but guessed that it was a public initiative run by the French government, even the Ministry of Health as part of its strategy to tackle obesity. After discovering that the Nutri-Score is managed by the Ministry of Health, they found this body to be legitimate, reassuring and trustworthy. Nonetheless, some participants mentioned the lobbying of the food and beverage industry and questioned its role in the design of the Nutri-Score.
“Wasn’t it the Ministry of Health to tackle obesity 5 years ago? And given the use of pesticides, the rise in cancer…” (S3).
“I thought that it was the manufacturers. Aren’t they behind it? There must be lobbying.” (FG4).
Overall, the participants were uncertain whether the Nutri-Score was mandatory and the majority deduced it was not compulsory, since some food items did not display the logo on their packaging. Nonetheless, some participants were confused by the fact that it was not shown on all products. Overall, the participants were in favour of making it mandatory.
“I think the Nutri-Score is still optional, but it would be good if it became compulsory. In my view, not enough products use it.” (S19).
iii)
Perception of the Nutri-Score.
Overall, participants liked the logo. They found it clear, visible and understandable with its colours (and less so its letters), which reminded them of traffic lights or the energy rating used for household appliances.
“For me, I like the colours and letters. I find it clear. I don’t think that it could be more informative. Because it’s easy to read.” (S1).
Participants noted a few disadvantages about the Nutri-Score. A few non-users reported that the logo was not clearly visible on packaging due to the visual overload of the product labels, which was occasionally off-putting. A minority of users found it infantilising to be guided in their food choices.
“Oh no, I didn’t even notice what was written. Yeah, I didn’t see it, you can’t see it in the middle of all that packaging with photos and bright colours and all that, you can’t see it.” (S15).
“They treat us like children. A, B, C.” (FG4).
Participants interpreted the logo mainly through its colours.
“I find it quite good, because in people’s minds, green means go for it. Red calls for caution. So, I think it’s a good scale, the colours aren’t bad.” (S1).
They defined a “good score” as the green letters (A and B) and a “bad score” as the orange letters (D and E). The letter C was usually considered borderline. Participants found it hard to explain the differences between two adjacent scores (A/B and D/E).
“– We buy up to C.
– Yellow, it’s the limit.
– A and B are good, because they’re both green.” (FG2).
“It’s quite vague, the result, I couldn’t tell the difference between A and B. You don’t know the criteria or the balance. It’s not very clear.” (FG4).
Consumers correctly stated that their perception of the score also depended on the product or food category: the same score could be interpreted differently depending on the product.
“[D] is not good, but I can justify it, for example, if it’s a cake. But sometimes I take some cordon bleu, if I see it’s a D, I don’t take it, because I know I can buy B or C.” (S3).
Consumers thought that the interpretation of the letters followed a gradient of healthiness, dangerousness or even processing (and to a lesser extent, tastiness). They considered a product ranked A to be healthy but, for a minority of participants, tasteless, whereas a product scored E was viewed as unhealthy, dangerous when consumed in excess and, for some, ultra-processed.
“‘A’ means that it’s very good, it’s healthy, that normally there aren’t too many additives or added sugar, so yeah… The further you go in the alphabet, the worse it gets.” (S16).
Participants associated the letters with a frequency of consumption, mainly for the lower scores, suggesting that products ranked D or E should be eaten in smaller quantities and less often. Nonetheless, a few participants indicated that A or B did not necessarily mean that they could consume the product as much as they wanted.
“C would perhaps be once a week. D once every fortnight and then maybe E once a month.” (S13).
In the majority of focus groups, participants spontaneously said that the Nutri-Score was a positive and reassuring label. The majority of participants declared that it was reliable, mainly because of its public funding, thus ensuring its official and independent status.
“I think it’s well managed by effective people who do their job well.” (S18).
However, after delving deeper into the subject, many participants questioned the reliability of the Nutri-Score: the lack of information about the score, its seemingly incomplete calculation method and the potential involvement of the food industry. For a minority of non-users, the logo was viewed as a commercial tool used by manufacturers or distributors to sell more products.
“Reliable, why not if it’s based on criteria and if the manufacturers respect the criteria, why not.” (FG6).
“I think that it’s a business, it’s the supermarket chains that do it, supermarket A, supermarket B, supermarket C and then the people… it’s a business, I don’t even pay attention to it, I look at whether it’s good or not, I know straight away.” (FG5).
iv)
Uses of the Nutri-Score.
The majority of Nutri-Score users have been using the logo since its implementation. Their main motivations are to have a healthier diet, to change their habits by choosing healthier products or simply to be informed and evaluate their diet quality. Sometimes they used it to validate their choices when selecting healthy products. Overall, the shopping sessions highlighted the strong influence of habits, which limited the use of the Nutri-Score, even among self-declared users.
“I think the Nutri-Score is good at a certain level: it makes people aware that some products aren’t necessarily good for them like cheese.” (FG6).
“When the Nutri-Score is marked D, E or even C, I look for another product.” (S17).
The focus group discussions and in-depth interviews revealed that consumers mainly used the Nutri-Score when buying a new product or when choosing between two similar products. These behaviours only occurred in five shopping observations, because participants mostly bought their usual product brand.
“Pure butter puff pastry, 1€25, or this one, the standard one. There you go. I’ll take the one marked D, it’s not great. This one is D, you see. That one is also D.” (S20).
“When choosing between different brands, if you want the same thing like shepherd’s pie. I can choose just like that. For the same product.” (FG2).
However, the use of the label depended on the food category. For example, participants considered it with processed food, because they did not feel capable of evaluating the quality on their own. For instance, one participant took the Nutri-Score into account when choosing a ready-made meal in the shopping observation. Consumers also reported not using it for products perceived as healthy, because they knew that they would have a “good” score. They likewise did not use it on some seemingly unhealthy products, either because they needed it (e.g., butter) or because they gave priority to taste over nutritional quality (e.g., sweets). These behaviours were observed in some of the shopping sessions.
“It’s like I said before: I tend to look at the Nutri-Score with processed food and, to be honest, it’s quite bad quality.” (FG6).
“I look yes, but just because it’s D doesn’t mean that I won’t take it: for example, a packet of butter, it’s going to be C or D, but I need it, so I’ll take it.” (S8).
“Yes, if you go to the cheese and cream section, there’ll be more C, D and E ratings, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t buy it.” (FG2).
Users found the Nutri-Score to be easy and quick to use.
“I don’t use it systematically but when I don’t know the product, things that I don’t buy very often or when I don’t have time, it’s the first indicator I use…” (FG4).
For the majority of users, the Nutri-Score gave additional information about the product, although it was not a disqualifying criterion. The secondary use of the score in the purchasing process was due to the greater importance accorded to other criteria such as price, habits or taste. Users declared that they frequently used the Nutri-Score when purchasing a product for the first time and then less often, because they usually bought the same products for which they already knew the score. In the shopping observations, a few participants explained that they did not pay much attention to the label, because they had already used it when first purchasing the item.
“It’s not a criterion for me. It’s not going to make me buy it… Sure, it’s a tool that’s sometimes interesting, that’s true, but it’s not the only thing.” (S5).
“I also rely on the Nutri-Score, but as I usually buy the same products, it’s the same. Now I look less because I know how it’s scored or something.” (FG6).
Non-users did not pay attention to the Nutri-Score, mainly because they were not interested or did not need it.
“It’s of no interest to me. Food is first and foremost about pleasure.” (S7).
A few participants were suspicious about it and preferred following their own intuition, because they did not know who and what was behind the Nutri-Score. Non-users were rather reluctant about using it but said that greater transparency and a more precise calculation method would encourage them to use it.
“They advertised it on TV, but I don’t know what it’s based on. So, if someone explains to me why and how they calculate A, B or C, D and E, perhaps, then perhaps I’ll pay it more attention to it. But it’s still too abstract, no yeah.” (S7).
Parents were concerned about their children having a healthy diet. However, two contrasting behaviours were reported and observed regarding unhealthy products like cookies: not buying them to ensure a healthy diet or buying them so as not to deprive children of tasty food. Overall, their children seemed aware of the Nutri-Score, which could contribute to their nutritional education.
“… After I explain to them that there are some products that I don’t buy because they contain lots of things that aren’t good for them. Now they understand, so we’ll try to find another product, but sometimes I also want to make them happy if they want something. I know that it’s only going to be an occasional thing. It all depends on the price (laughing).” (S5).
The most well-known French application that provides information on food products is Yuka. Like the Nutri-Score, Yuka was mainly used when it was initially downloaded by users to scan their regular products and identify healthier alternatives. Thereafter, it was used less frequently except when purchasing new products.
“Personally, it’s with new products that I don’t know. Then, after using it, I know which product to buy.” (FG1).
Compared with Yuka, consumers reported that the Nutri-Score had several advantages: it was quicker to use, displayed on the packaging and more reliable.
“I think it’s really good, because sometimes you’re in a rush or, yeah. It’s a good visual indicator. Yuka, you have to use the application, so if you don’t have your telephone or I don’t know…” (S20).
“I think that the Nutri-Score is more reliable, because it comes from the government, whereas Yuka was created by a company.” (FG2).
However, consumers liked the fact that Yuka suggests alternative products to replace items with a bad rating, provides detailed scores with explanations and is more transparent about the criteria used in the calculation.
“I like Yuka, because it suggests an alternative, for example, the blinis weren’t good but those of brand X are good, so it gives you advice.” (S19).
“For a start, it’s clearer than the Nutri-Score because you see what’s good inside or not, which helps you limit the amount of protein or salt. Which you don’t necessarily look at. And it’s also more precise than a Nutri-Score A or B, which doesn’t mean anything. For example, if I see green, I think it’s good but in fact, it’s borderline.” (S3).
Nonetheless, the two product evaluation systems were not seen as competitors, because users of Yuka and the Nutri-Score declared using them in a complementary way. This complementary usage was also observed in the shopping sessions.
“If there’s no Nutri-Score. But here there’s the Nutri-Score. So there, B it’s good, so there’s no need for Yuka.” (S20).
“Yeah and sometimes also with the substitute products that have a Nutri-Score of E, for example. I scan it [with Yuka] to try and see if there’s something similar.” (FG1).
Overall, participants found the Nutri-Score to be useful, especially for younger people or those with a special diet.
“I think that for someone who has cholesterol or who has to eat food without salt or something else, it can help them choose…” (FG6).
According to participants, this label helps raise awareness and informs consumers about product quality. It can help people to make healthier choices and protect them from the misleading practices of the food industry. The participants also stressed how the Nutri-Score can encourage manufacturers to make their recipes healthier.
“It helps me rule out certain products with too much fat.” (FG6).
“… The brand that makes products scored as E is going to say, ‘I’m going change my recipe to have a better Nutri-Score’ and that’s positive.” (FG4).
However, participants questioned its relevance for certain products like chocolate spreads or cans of vegetables, as they believed that they were capable of evaluating their nutritional quality on their own.
“Putting a Nutri-Score of E on butter is stupid. It’s not at all useful. We all know it.” (FG2).
v)
Criticisms and expectations of the Nutri-Score.
Participants from the focus groups had never heard about the criticisms of the Nutri-Score relayed on the internet, mainly on Twitter, by lobbying groups.
“I sort of had the impression that there was a consensus that it’s pretty reliable, well, I’d never heard of any big scandal about it.” (S2).
The first criticism shared with participants stated that “some products often judged as fatty or unhealthy can be B like French fries or breakfast cereals”. This surprised the majority of participants who found it illogical, whereas others understood the reasoning.
“So, that motivates me even less. I thought it was already opaque and not very clear, but for me, chips are E, but if they’re B and then cereals are also B…” (FG5).
“If you take oven chips, it’s essentially potatoes and potatoes aren’t fattening. It’s how you cook them.” (FG4).
The second criticism stating that “some ultra-processed food like Coca-Cola can have a better rating than natural products like olive oil” bothered. Participants found it logical according to the calculation mode of the Nutri-Score but questioned the relevance of the rating, because it shows the limitations of the label and how it favours food from the food industry.
“– I have difficulty believing it, for me, it’s incoherent, there’s no logic.
– It’s not surprising. The product is ultra-processed, but it can be very light.” (FG5).
“Given the calculation method, I understand it better… There, soda zero for brand X, it’s zero sugar, so of course it’s going to have a really good score. But I know it’s not good. Yes, because there are things that replace [the sugar] and they aren’t taken into account in the additives. That’s why it’s B or C.” (FG2).
The last criticism stating that “some traditional or Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) products can be D or E like cheese or cold meats” did not surprise participants. These ratings did not bother them, because they eat these products because of their taste, not their nutritional quality. Some people even questioned the usefulness of putting a logo on such products.
“I understand it, because as I said, they don’t take everything into account with the manufacturing process, so yes, it’s normal that it’s rated as E, as they only look at the nutritional value.” (FG1).
“The Nutri-Score doesn’t interest me with this type of product: I know it’s fatty. But it’s not going to stop me from eating it.” (FG1).
Although the impact of these criticisms relayed on the internet is limited, a few participants from the focus groups and shopping observations had heard such criticisms about the Nutri-Score’s reliability in the press or from their relatives. Moreover, participants raised other issues during the discussion. The majority of participants in five of the focus groups as well as seven consumers participating in the shopping observations believed that well-rated products were more expensive and that cheaper products were of poorer quality. They regretted this disparity and felt a sense of distrust towards manufacturers.
“It’s not a trend, it’s not something that I made up: the closer it is to A, the more expensive it is… You saw before with the crispbread and Swedish buns, there’s a difference of 10 cents between A and B.” (S16).
Moreover, the participants suggested that food manufacturers would change their recipe in order to improve the rating of their products. However, a few participants highlighted that this could make them use ingredients of poorer quality such as adding sweeteners instead of sugar in yogurts.
“Fruit yoghurts now have a score of C, so aren’t the manufacturers going to be encouraged to add artificial sweeteners instead of sugar?” (FG6).
After the discussion, the participants shared their disappointment that the Nutri-Score calculation did not take into account additives or the degree of processing (and for some, pesticides). The majority wanted these criteria to be included, because they considered them to be just as important as nutritional content. Several participants believed that the Nutri-Score was incomplete without these criteria, thus questioning its relevance in helping them have a healthier diet.
“Yes, it’s not very reliable. It’s quite limited in terms of what it really takes into account.” (FG1).
“I would prefer having information about additives, the chemical and processed aspects…” (S9).
Some participants did not understand why the Nutri-Score is not present on every product. They wanted the logo to be mandatory, either for all products or for specific items like ultra-processed food. By making the Nutri-Score mandatory, the comparison of products would be more pertinent, while the competition between brands would be fairer. However, a few participants disagreed, claiming that manufacturers should be free to choose whether to include it.
“– Yes, it should be mandatory.
– I also think in relation to competition: there should be greater transparency.” (FG1).
“If it was mandatory, perhaps I’d have more confidence. The manufacturers would try to have a score close to A.” (FG2).
Many participants blamed the Nutri-Score for the lack of transparency, especially regarding its calculation method and origin, which lessened its reliability.
“It’s clear, but some information is still missing. Where do they get the information to have a score of A or B? As consumers, we don’t know why they say things.” (S4).
vi)
Perceptions and expectations related to the Nutri-Score algorithm update (focus groups only).
All participants in the focus groups approved the process of updating the Nutri-Score algorithm. They thought that this evolution was normal and showed progress. For some participants, their opinion about the Nutri-Score update would depend on the new calculation method and the criteria taken into account. They appreciated the use of consumers’ feedbacks to improve the Nutri-Score, which gave it credibility. For a minority of participants, changing the Nutri-Score algorithm cast doubt on its initial reliability.
“For me, it’s logical to make things evolve over time. There’s no need to say so.” (FG2).
“It shows that the old one didn’t count for much.” (FG3).
None of the participants wanted the graphic design of the logo to change, because they thought that it would be confusing for consumers who were now used to this relatively recent label.
“– People are used to the logo and have their standards, so I think you need to keep the logo.
– They’re going to think that it’s another organisation or that the old one wasn’t validated: it’ll discredit the movement, [the logo] has to stay the same.” (FG4).
All the participants agreed that consumers had to be informed about the update via an information campaign. However, they wanted the campaign to first revisit the fundamentals of the Nutri-Score with explanations about its calculation method: the standard reference quantity, the criteria taken into account and the reasons why additives and degree of processing are not included.
“What isn’t clear are the criteria used for the Nutri-Score and if they evolve, it’s the right moment to organise an information campaign.” (FG3).
Participants also wanted explanations about how to read and use the Nutri-Score.
“I hadn’t thought about it, but now that we’re talking about it, I want to know what it means, because there’s no legend and if all oils are E, what’s the point of putting a Nutri-Score on a bottle of oil.” (FG5).
The future information campaign should underline which organisation manages the Nutri-Score and also remind consumers about its voluntary nature.
“That’s the question: who gives the Nutri-Score? Who decides?” (S8).
“Why isn’t the Nutri-Score everywhere? Why is it only on some products and not on others? Why is the Nutri-Score on this fish but not on that one?” (S8).
The information campaign should give greater visibility to the logo and help consumers understand it better. Participants thought that people would consequently trust the Nutri-Score and use it more often.