13 October 2026
By Roger Kennedy
roger@TheCork.ie

Farming

European agriculture is facing another bruising period. Following a summer of punishing heatwaves and droughts, which have inflicted an estimated €3.6 billion across the continent in agricultural losses, farmers are grappling with surging fertiliser prices as the ongoing war in the Middle East disrupts energy markets and vital supply chains. With producers already struggling to absorb successive shocks, the European Commission proposed €500 million in fresh support during the summer to ease the financial burden. Meanwhile, in France, one of the EU’s agricultural heavyweights, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu similarly pledged additional emergency measures in early October for a sector battered by economic hardship and climate change.

Yet even as Paris and Brussels seek to shore up Europe’s farmers, a familiar regulatory controversy is making an unwelcome return in France. Having fallen off the European Commission’s agenda last year amid mounting opposition, France’s controversial Nutri-Score label is back in the spotlight following a petition calling for compulsory nationwide adoption. With European agriculture facing far more pressing threats, the renewed push for a highly contentious labelling system raises uncomfortable questions about policy priorities. Rather than reviving measures that risk undermining competitiveness without delivering proportionate public health benefits, national and EU policymakers should focus on agricultural resilience while embracing more innovative, scientifically grounded approaches to healthier eating.

Reopening the Nutri-Score debate

The latest chapter in France’s long-running Nutri-Score saga began gathering momentum in September, when a petition submitted to the National Assembly crossed the symbolic threshold of 100,000 signatures. Launched by Nutri-Score co-founder Serge Hercberg and fellow researchers in November 2025, the initiative calls for the five-colour nutritional grading system, introduced on a voluntary basis in 2017, to become compulsory on food packaging sold in France.

France’s National Assembly took a further step on 7 October, when its Social Affairs Committee approved the initiative. The decision adds fresh political weight to the campaign to impose Nutri-Score across the country, with Socialist MP Sandrine Runel also spearheading renewed efforts to mandate Nutri-Score through two cross-party amendments to the upcoming social security budget. Although compulsory labelling remains far from becoming law, these developments have brought a troubling proposal that appeared to be losing ground last year firmly back into the parliamentary spotlight.

Meanwhile, pressure is also mounting from consumer groups, with Foodwatch recently arguing, drawing on a legal memorandum, that individual EU countries could make the label compulsory without awaiting action from Brussels. Yet this proposed route is far from straightforward, raising serious questions about the implications for Europe’s single market and the legal framework governing food labelling.

A European reality check

This renewed French campaign is particularly striking given how decisively the political winds have shifted in Brussels. Under Ursula von der Leyen’s first Commission, mandatory harmonised front-of-pack nutritional labelling featured among the EU’s flagship ‘Farm to Fork’ ambitions, with Nutri-Score widely discussed as a possible European model. Yet the proposal steadily lost momentum as opposition grew among member-states, researchers and agri-food producers concerned about the implications for traditional foods, agricultural competitiveness and consumer confusion. By early 2025, Brussels had effectively dropped the initiative, reflecting Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen’s wider pivot towards a more farmer-friendly policy agenda.

Against this backdrop, this attempt to bring back Nutri-Score risks reopening divisions at an inconvenient moment. On the legal front, nutritional declarations are already mandatory under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, while Article 35 establishes the framework for additional forms of nutritional information. Turning a voluntary grading system into a national obligation would therefore raise questions about compatibility with existing EU rules and the proportionality of any restrictions on cross-border trade. Furthermore, for manufacturers supplying several European markets, the practical consequences could be considerable, with a French-only labelling requirement theoretically obliging producers to introduce different packaging for products destined for French supermarkets, adding costs and complexity, particularly for smaller businesses.

Adding to this uncertainty is the recent legal challenge from dairy giant Lactalis, which has contested the adoption of Nutri-Score’s revised algorithm. The 2025 update notably downgraded several dairy products, with semi-skimmed milk falling from A to B and whole milk from B to C, fuelling concerns about a methodology that penalises foods with established nutritional benefits. Lactalis has questioned the system’s compatibility with EU food information legislation, prompting France’s Conseil d’État to refer key questions concerning Article 35 to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Pushing ahead in any member state with compulsory adoption before these critical legal questions are resolved would only compound the regulatory uncertainty facing Europe’s producers.

France’s approach going against the grain 

Beyond these legal obstacles, the petitioners’ renewed push for Nutri-Score also sits uneasily with the growing scepticism surrounding its scientific foundations. Major food manufacturers have already begun distancing themselves from the system, with Danone abandoning the label on certain drinkable dairy products following the algorithm revision, while Nestlé has withdrawn it from selected Swiss brands.

Crucially, such reservations are not confined to industry. In early October, prominent French nutritionist Jean-Michel Lecerf highlighted Nutri-Score’s failure to adequately account for food processing and portion sizes. As he explains, the algorithm penalises certain nutrient-rich products such as traditional cheeses or cod liver, despite the latter’s high omega-3 and vitamin D content. More fundamentally, its standardised scoring overlooks the broader dietary context essential to healthy eating. As he asserts, “If you only eat A-rated foods, that’s not good either.” In a previous interview, Dr. Lecerf had already described Nutri-Score as an outdated tool rooted in the nutritional thinking of the 1980s, arguing that its narrow focus on individual nutrients fails to reflect advances in understanding the complexity of foods and their effects on health.

Meanwhile, advances in personalised nutrition, digital health applications and AI-assisted dietary guidance are opening new and more promising possibilities for guiding consumers to make healthier choices based on their individual needs and overall dietary balance. While these technologies require scientific validation and appropriate safeguards, they could offer a more nuanced approach to nutritional guidance without imposing additional regulatory burdens on producers. Rather than doubling down on an antiquated and controversial labelling system, such innovation should be encouraged across the EU to help consumers improve their diets while safeguarding agricultural competitiveness.

The bottom line

With European farmers already confronting severe climate pressures, rising production costs and fragile margins, the last thing the sector needs is another divisive regulatory battle. The revival of Nutri-Score by its French proponents risks reopening old wounds while diverting attention from more urgent priorities.

Moving forward, European policymakers should focus on supporting a resilient agri-food sector while pursuing public health policies grounded in scientific progress, economic realism and respect for the bloc’s single market.