top of page
Christina RĂŒter

The new Eco-Score on Pack

Help or confusion for the consumer?



The new ECO-Score + the NUTRI-Score:

ambiguous dilemma or useful transparency?


Valora Group is now the first Swiss retailer to introduce a second orientation aid on its own brands:


👉 the new Eco-Score for #environmental sustainability, plus

👉 the well-known Nutri-Score for the #Nutritional information


Both scores are based on the learned traffic light colours and a five-level letter scale and are therefore easy to understand. ✅


Green A = positive effect

Red E = negative impact


How are the scores determined?


👉 Nutri-Score: is based on the nutritional profile per 100g of the product and takes into account positive and negative nutritional points.

Positives such as: Fibre, protein, fruit, vegetables, healthy oils

Negatives such as: Calories, sugar, saturated fat, salt.


👉 Eco score: classified based on a comprehensive life cycle analysis that takes into account production, transport, manufacturing and packaging, as well as the recyclability of the packaging, environmental certificates and the origin of the ingredients.


How do the scores influence purchasing behaviour?

Here we come to the dilemma.


Dilemma 1: #credibility


The assessment algorithms are complex and the Nutri-Score is constantly scrutinised because it can be misleading:


👉 For example, pasta gets an ‘A’ even though it's not very healthy.

👉 Healthy fats such as those in walnuts or olive oil result in a lower ‘C’.

👉 Nutrient-poor toast gets an ‘A’, while nutrient-rich cheese only gets a ‘D’.

👉 Nutri-Score is not a health promise and misinterpretations can lead to consumers avoiding healthy foods and favouring inferior ones.


So how do we categorise the new Eco-Score?


👉 Can I buy ‘A’ with a clear conscience, even if it's an aluminium can, for example?

👉 What does an average score like ‘C’ tell me?

👉 Hands off ‘C’ - ‘E’?


Dilemma 2:#ambiguity


What to do if the statements of the two scores are contradictory, as in the example of the energy drink shown:


👍 Environmental compatibility = good ‘A’ but at the same time

👎 Nutritional value = bad ‘E’


Does that mean for me as a consumer:

‘Oh, it's not so bad, so I can buy it!’

OR

‘Is health now less important to me than sustainability?’


For the #sustainability applies:

👉 #Transparency absolutely creates a MORE SINFUL production and consumption of food


👉 What is more important for the individual purchasing decision?


---



LinkedIn Post: 11.06.2024 by Christina RĂŒter




















Comments

bottom of page