This pioneering study was motivated by a crucial question: does the color and placement of Nutri-Score labels impact consumer attention and buying behavior? To probe this, the researchers employed eye-tracking technology to monitor the gaze patterns of 199 participants in Germany, creating a controlled supermarket simulation environment. Participants were divided into four distinct groups, each exposed to different label presentations: a fully multi-colored Nutri-Score label on both the product package and shelf price tag, a grayscale label on both, a single multi-colored label only on the package (reflecting current supermarket standards), or no label at all. This meticulous design allowed the team to dissect the nuances of consumer engagement with nutritional labels and their correlation with actual purchase choices.

The data unveiled compelling evidence supporting the superiority of the polychrome, traffic-light colored Nutri-Score labels in capturing consumer attention. Labels rendered in vibrant color garnered significantly longer and more frequent visual fixations compared to their grayscale counterparts. This enhanced visibility on both the front of the package and the shelf price tags not only attracted more eyes but also facilitated quicker recognition of the nutritional information. Such findings underscore the psychological impact of color coding in visual cognition and decision-making, highlighting how sensory cues can efficiently convey complex nutritional data within fractions of a second during grocery shopping.

Interestingly, the study further revealed that consumer behavior was influenced by the specific color ratings viewed. Products bearing a dark green “A” rating or a yellow “C” rating attracted more prolonged and repeated glances, which tended to culminate in the selection of those products. This suggests that positive and moderately favorable nutritional signals effectively promote healthier choices in buying decisions. Conversely, the red “E” rating, which denotes unfavorable nutritional content, did not function as a sufficient deterrent. Even when participants frequently viewed this negative rating, such products were still commonly chosen, indicating that the red color failed to act as the intended warning signal strong enough to override consumer preferences or habits.

These insights hold profound implications for public health policy and retail marketing. Dr. Isabelle Weiß, the lead author from Göttingen University, emphasized that the five-colored Nutri-Score labels are markedly more discernible on price tags than the grayscale versions, thereby enhancing shoppers’ ability to evaluate nutritional quality across a range of products quickly. This increased visibility fosters more informed and health-conscious consumer behavior. Study director Dr. Clara Mehlhose noted the imperative for simple, immediately recognizable nutritional guidance systems in supermarkets, stating that the use of multicolored labeling can facilitate quicker comprehension and, consequently, healthier decision-making.

The methodology employed—using eye-tracking to monitor visual engagement—adds a robust and objective dimension to nutritional labeling research. This technique captures not only where consumers look but also how long, illustrating attentional dynamics that verbal surveys or conventional observational studies might miss. By simulating an authentic shopping environment, the researchers created conditions closely resembling real-world purchasing scenarios, lending ecological validity to their findings. Such innovative research methods could serve as a template for future studies aimed at optimizing consumer information systems in retail contexts beyond food labeling.

Moreover, the findings stress that color coding alone is not enough; the design and placement of labels are pivotal. The dual presence of colored Nutri-Score indicators on both the product packaging and the adjacent shelf price tags proved particularly effective in catching the consumer’s eye. These points of visual contact act synergistically, reinforcing the nutritional message and easing comparative shopping, which is often hampered by limited time and cognitive overload in the aisles.

The study’s revelation concerning the weak deterrent effect of the red “E” rating points towards a need for complementary strategies to curb the purchase of nutritionally poor products. Possible interventions could include enhanced consumer education, stricter marketing regulations on less healthy products, or redesigns of warning labels to increase their psychological impact. Highlighting such gaps underlines that labeling is a powerful tool but still part of a broader behavioral ecosystem requiring multifaceted approaches to shape healthier eating patterns.

Importantly, this research underscores that consumer attention does not automatically equate to informed decision-making. While colorful labels do attract and sustain gaze more effectively, the ultimate purchase behavior depends on complex factors including individual preferences, habits, and external influences such as pricing or brand loyalty. Nonetheless, improving the salience and clarity of nutritional information is a critical first step toward empowering consumers, reducing information asymmetry, and promoting public health.

Given these results, both retailers and policymakers should consider widespread adoption of traffic-light colored Nutri-Score labels across all product packaging and shelf price tags. Enhanced visual communication of nutritional data holds the potential to foster healthier eating habits on a broad scale, aligning commercial practices with public health goals. Encouraging manufacturers to embrace this labeling system could standardize and simplify grocery shopping experiences across different markets.

The study was funded by LI Food, the Landesinitiative Ernährungswirtschaft des Niedersächsischen Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Verkehr und Bauen, highlighting the importance of regional economic and agricultural initiatives supporting nutritional research. Its publication in the journal Food Quality and Preference further establishes the study’s academic credibility and invites ongoing discourse on optimizing nutritional labeling to combat diet-related health challenges.

In summation, the eye-tracking study conducted by the research teams in Germany illuminates the vital role of color and label placement in dietary decision-making. The polychrome Nutri-Score system, with its intuitive traffic-light scheme, emerges not only as a tool for conveying nutritional quality but as a powerful nudge capable of directing consumer choices toward healthier options. The challenge moving forward lies in leveraging these insights to refine labeling standards, educate consumers, and implement holistic strategies fostering improved nutrition across diverse populations.

Subject of Research:
Not applicable

Article Title:
Polychrome versus monochrome Nutri-Score shelf labels: An eye-tracking study of consumer attention and choice

News Publication Date:
26-May-2026

Web References:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2026.105933

Image Credits:
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity

Keywords

Public policy; Regulatory policy; Food policy; Food science; Food industry; Nutrition; Nutritional physiology; Foods; Economics research; Marketing; Marketing research

The European Commission’s 2020 commitment to propose legislation for a mandatory, EU-wide harmonized front-of-pack nutrition labelling system was a watershed moment in nutrition policy. Recognizing the fragmented landscape of voluntary and diverse FOPL systems across member states, the Commission sought a unified strategy that could amplify public health outcomes across the continent. Nutri-Score, developed originally in France, emerged as the front-runner given its robust evidence base and widespread adoption in numerous EU countries. Its five-colour scale, ranging from green (A) to red (E), distills nutritional quality into a format that transcends literacy and language barriers, making it accessible and practical for diverse populations.

Scientific assessments underscore Nutri-Score’s positive impact on food purchasing behaviors and its potential role in steering the food industry towards healthier product reformulations. Comparative studies have demonstrated that Nutri-Score enhances consumer understanding better than traditional nutrient-specific labels, such as Reference Intakes or Guideline Daily Amounts. This relative simplicity has translated into measurable shifts in purchasing patterns, incentivizing manufacturers to reduce salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats content to achieve higher Nutri-Score ratings. Such market-driven improvements could potentially alleviate the burden of diet-related diseases, including obesity, cardiovascular conditions, and type 2 diabetes, across Europe.

Nevertheless, the path to EU-wide regulatory endorsement of Nutri-Score has been fraught with resistance. The research highlights that stakeholders with vested commercial interests—primarily segments of the food industry concerned about the economic implications of transparent labelling—mobilized contestable lobbying strategies to contest Nutri-Score’s scientific credentials and policy applicability. These tactics included commissioning selective studies, amplifying uncertainties surrounding the algorithm’s methodology, and staging public campaigns questioning Nutri-Score’s validity. While critical appraisal is vital in policy development, the instrumentalization of evidence to stall progress points to a deeper systemic power imbalance within the Union’s policymaking arena.

This dynamic culminated in the European Commission’s conspicuous failure to deliver on its initial legislative pledge by 2022, despite mounting evidence advocating for Nutri-Score adoption. The impasse not only reflects competing economic interests but also the fragmented political landscape of the EU, where member states hold divergent positions influenced by national food sectors and consumer preferences. Countries like France, Belgium, and Spain champion Nutri-Score, whereas others, notably Italy and some Eastern European nations, favor alternative labelling schemes or resist harmonization efforts, citing concerns over traditional culinary practices and local industries.

The resulting regulatory vacuum leaves consumers navigating inconsistent and sometimes confusing labelling systems, undermining the potential for harmonized, population-wide dietary improvements. Furthermore, the credibility and transparency of the EU’s nutrition policy process have been called into question. Experts emphasize that a transparent, evidence-based policy design is indispensable for balancing scientific rigor with democratic legitimacy. Efforts to redress existing power asymmetries by involving balanced stakeholder participation, including public health advocates, consumer groups, and independent researchers, are crucial to restoring trust and advancing effective public health interventions.

Beyond consumer welfare, the Nutri-Score debate illuminates the complex interplay between science, industry, and politics in the formulation of health policies. The food industry’s formidable lobbying capacity exemplifies the challenges inherent in addressing non-communicable diseases through regulatory means that may disrupt entrenched commercial models. The instrumentalization of scientific evidence as a political tool exemplifies a broader concern in health governance, where economic priorities sometimes trump epidemiological imperatives. This phenomenon underscores the need for safeguarding scientific integrity and promoting transparent policymaking insulated from undue influence.

Importantly, the scientific underpinning of Nutri-Score is neither trivial nor purely academic. Its algorithm considers nutrient density alongside positive food components such as fiber and protein, enabling an overall healthfulness score rather than isolating single nutrients. This holistic approach aligns with contemporary nutritional science, recognizing that food quality cannot be reduced to isolated components but must integrate multiple dietary factors affecting health outcomes. Such advances reinforce Nutri-Score’s role as an innovative tool, contrasting with older labelling schemes that often generate consumer confusion or fail to motivate behavior change.

Facing the current stalemate, the authors advocate for renewed momentum towards an EU-wide, mandatory FOPL based on rigorous scientific evidence, transparent policy procedures, and equitable stakeholder engagement. The harmonization of labelling would not only simplify consumer choices but also create a level playing field for manufacturers, eliminating competitive disadvantages linked to divergent national regulations. Moreover, a unified system aligned with public health goals could catalyze systemic food reformulations, amplifying benefits beyond individual choices to population health at large.

Crucially, rebuilding trust in the policy process and mediating the influence of commercial interests require innovative mechanisms such as independent scientific advisory panels and stricter conflict-of-interest disclosures. Enhanced transparency in lobbying activities and open dialogues involving civil society could foster democratic debate and greater accountability. Given the urgency of the nutrition-related disease burden, such reforms are timely and warranted. Without them, the risk remains that politicized controversies will continue to thwart evidence-based solutions, prolonging public health vulnerabilities.

The Nutri-Score saga also offers instructive lessons for other regions grappling with similar challenges in nutrition labelling regulation. As countries in Latin America, North America, and Asia explore front-of-pack labelling, the European case exemplifies how scientific innovation can be hampered by conflicting interests and political complexities. International collaboration and knowledge exchange could support the design of context-appropriate, effective labelling frameworks while anticipating and managing stakeholder dynamics.

In sum, ten years since Nutri-Score’s inception, the fight for harmonized front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Europe remains emblematic of the broader struggle to integrate scientific evidence into public health policies against countervailing economic and political forces. The imperative to protect consumer health, advance transparency, and reclaim democratic governance in nutrition policy is pressing. The trajectory of this debate will have profound implications not only for European populations but also for global health governance approaches addressing diet-related diseases in the 21st century.

The promise of Nutri-Score highlights the potential for simple, scientifically grounded innovations to transform complex nutrition information into actionable consumer guidance. Yet realizing this potential depends on overcoming entrenched obstacles—both political and commercial—that threaten to stifle progress. As stakeholders navigate this contested terrain, the pursuit of equitable, evidence-based, and transparent policy frameworks remains a cornerstone of ensuring healthier diets and reducing the growing burden of nutrition-related chronic diseases worldwide.

Subject of Research: Front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems, particularly Nutri-Score, and their policy implications in the European Union.

Article Title: Ten years of Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Europe.

Article References:
Julia, C., Gokani, N., Hercberg, S. et al. Ten years of Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Europe. Nat Food 6, 239–243 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01141-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01141-y