1 World Health Organisation, European Health Report 2018 (Geneva, WHO Press 2018) p 24Google Scholar.

2 EU Science Hub, “EU burden from non-communicable diseases and key risk factors”, available at <https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

3 See A De Ruijter, EU Health Law & Policy: The Expansion of EU Power in Public Health and Health Care (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2019); T Hervey et al (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Health Law and Policy (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing 2017).

4 A Alemanno and A Garde (eds.), Regulating Lifestyle Risks: The EU, Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Diets (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2015); A Alemanno and A Garde, “The emergence of an EU lifestyle policy: the case of alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy diets” (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 6.

5 Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014–2020), OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, pp 1–13, Art 3(1).

6 Regulation 282/2014, Annex 1, para 1.1. See also the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health – for the period 2021–2027 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (“EU4Health Programme”), COM(2020) 405 final, Recital 18.

7 For early discussions, see P Kurzer and A Cooper, “Hold the croissant! The European Union declares war on obesity” (2011) 21 Journal of European Social Policy 2; T Lang and G Rayner, “Obesity: a growing issue for European policy?” (2005) 15 Journal of European Social Policy 4.

8 European Commission, A Farm to Fork Strategy. For a fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2020) 381 final, p 2.

9 SI Becher et al, “Hungry for change: the law and policy of food health labeling” (2019) 54 Wake Forest Law Review, 1312.

10 Including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

11 See the European Citizen’s Initiative “Pro Nutriscore”, (ECI(2019)000008), started in May 2019 and withdrawn in April 2020, available at <https://europa.eu/citizens-initiative/initiatives/details/2019/000008_en> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

12 Euractiv, “EU-wide food label should not fall to the back-burner, say advocates”, 30 April 2020, available at <https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-wide-food-label-should-not-fall-to-the-back-burner-say-advocates/> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

13 European Commission, Making our Food Fit for the Future – Citizens’ Expectations, Special Eurobarometer, December 2020.

14 Farm to Fork Strategy, supra, note 8, p 13; European Commission, Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2021) 44 final, p 10; see also European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Regarding the Use of Additional Forms of Expression and Presentation of the Nutrition Declaration, COM(2020) 207 final.

15 This section relies heavily on the recent study published by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, the most comprehensive review available on the issue to date: S Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling Schemes: A Comprehensive Review (Ispra, Joint Research Centre 2020).

16 ibid, p 18; see also Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, pp 18–63, Recital 41.

17 Art 2(2)(k).

18 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 2(2)(l).

19 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 20–28.

20 Adapted from the Report from the Commission, supra, note 14, p 7, with additional graphical elements taken from Becher et al, supra, note 9. The countries referred to are those where the use of the label has been recommended by health authorities or made mandatory.

21 See Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 29; Report from the Commission, supra, note 14, p 5.

22 For Chile, see M Reyes et al, “Development of the Chilean Front-of-Package Food Warning Label” (2019) 19 BMC Public Health 1; for Australia and New Zeland, see Becher et al, supra, note 9.

23 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies, “The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutrition and health claims pursuant to article 4 of the Regulation (EC) no 1924/2006” (2008) 644 EFSA Journal 1; see also Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 31.

24 For an overview, see Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 31–34.

25 For further details, see C Julia and S Hercberg, “Development of a new front-of-pack nutrition label in France: the five-colour Nutri-Score” (2017) 3 Public Health Panorama 713.

26 ibid, pp 713, 715.

27 See Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp. 37–38.

28 K Purnhagen et al, “The potential use of visual packaging elements as nudges” in K Mathis and A Tor (eds.), Nudging – Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics (Berlin, Springer International Publishing 2016) pp 197–216.

29 AL Wilson et al, “Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming. evidence from a systematic review” (2016) 51 Food Quality and Preference 59; JM Bauer and LA Reisch, “Behavioural insights and (un)healthy dietary choices: a review of current evidence” (2019) 42 Journal of Consumer Policy 17.

30 Bauer and Reisch, supra, note 29, p 29; Becher et al, supra, note 9, pp 1314, 1318; C MacMaoláin, “Regulating consumer information: use of food labelling and mandatory disclosures to encourage healthier lifestyles” in A Alemanno and A Garde (eds.), Regulating Lifestyle Risks: The EU, Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Diets (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2015) p 47.

31 O Ben-Shahar and CE Schneider, More Than You Wanted to Know (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press 2014); on information disclosure more generally, see E Zamir and D Teichman, Behavioral Law and Economics (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2018), p 175 and following.

32 For a comprehensive overview, see chapter 2 in Zamir and Teichman, supra, note 31, p 19 and following.

33 Z Talati et al, “Consumers’ perceptions of five front-of-package nutrition labels: an experimental study across 12 countries” (2019) 11 Nutrients 1945.

34 Becher et al, supra, note 9, p 1321.

35 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 49.

36 ibid, p 67; Bauer and Reisch, supra, note 29, p 29.

37 Purnhagen et al, supra, note 28, p 208.

38 ibid; Wilson et al, supra, note 29, p 59.

39 JP Schuldt, “Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness” (2013) 28 Health Communication 8. A study on the MTL found that consumers were more concerned with avoiding red lights than choosing green lights: P Scarborough et al, “Reds are more important than greens: how UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment” (2015) 12 International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 151.

40 EK Papies, “Health goal priming as a situated intervention tool: how to benefit from nonconscious motivational routes to health behaviour” (2016) 10 Health Psychology Review 408–24; Bauer and Reisch, supra, note 29, p 19.

41 See in that regard the report made by TNS European Behaviour Studies Consortium, Study on the Impact of Food Information on Consumers’ Decision Making, 2014, pp 67–69. It singles out three key drivers of consumer attention and choice – time, money and interest in quality and health aspects – and combines them to arrive at six distinct categories of shoppers.

42 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 47.

43 I Ikonen et al, “Consumer effects of front-of-package nutrition labeling: an interdisciplinary meta-analysis” (2020) 48 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 371.

44 See supra, note 41.

45 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 43.

46 A real-life study on food choices found, for instance, that “effect sizes were 17 times smaller on average than those found in comparable laboratory studies”, P Dubois et al, “Effects of front-of-pack labels on the nutritional quality of supermarket food purchases: evidence from a large-scale randomized controlled trial” (2021) 49 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 119.

47 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 50.

48 ibid, p 53.

49 ibid, p 49.

50 ibid, p 55.

51 ibid, pp 59–66.

52 Talati et al, supra, note 33.

53 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 64.

54 Talati et al, supra, note 33.

55 M Egnell et al, “Objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels: an international comparative experimental study across 12 countries” (2018) 10 Nutrient 1543; Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 371.

56 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 72.

57 Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 371; S Pettigrew et al, “The role of colour and summary indicators in influencing front-of-pack food label effectiveness across seven countries” (2020) Public Health Nutrition, published online 15 December 2020.

58 Pettigrew et al, supra, note 57; D Hagmann and M Siegrist, “Nutri-Score, Multiple Traffic Light and incomplete nutrition labelling on food packages: effects on consumers’ accuracy in identifying healthier snack options” (2020), 83 Food Quality and Preference 103894.

59 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 72; Egnell et al, supra, note 55.

60 VA Andreeva et al, “Bulgarian consumers’ objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels: a comparative, randomized study” (2020) 78 Archives of Public Health 35; M Egnell et al, “Consumers’ responses to front-of-pack nutrition labelling: results from a sample from The Netherlands” (2019) 11 Nutrients 8; M Egnell et al, “Compared to other front-of-pack nutrition labels, the Nutri-Score emerged as the most efficient to inform Swiss consumers on the nutritional quality of food products” (2020) 15 PLoS ONE e0228179; M Fialon et al, “Effectiveness of different front-of-pack nutrition labels among italian consumers: results from an online randomized controlled trial” (2020) 12 Nutrients 8; S Vandevijvere et al, “Consumers’ food choices, understanding and perceptions in response to different front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems in Belgium: results from an online experimental study” (2020) 78 Archives of Public Health 30; M Egnell et al, “Objective understanding of the Nutri-Score front-of-pack label by European consumers and its effect on food choices: an online experimental study” (2020) 17 International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 1; Hagmann and Siegrist, supra, note 58.

61 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 85.

62 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Solidarity in Health: Reducing Health Inequalities in the EU, COM(2009) 567 final.

63 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 86.

64 ibid, p 95.

65 P Ducrot et al, “Effectiveness of front-of-pack nutrition labels in french adults: results from the nutrinet-santé cohort study” (2015) 10 PLoS ONE e0140898; P Ducrot et al, “Objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels among nutritionally at-risk individuals” (2015) 7 Nutrients 8 ; M Egnell et al, “Objective understanding of Nutri-Score front-of-package nutrition label according to individual characteristics of subjects: comparisons with other format labels” (2018) 13 PLoS ONE e0202095. For the effect of the Nutri-Score on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population, see M Egnell et al, “Randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket testing the effects of front-of-pack nutrition labelling on food purchasing intentions in a low-income population” (2021) 11 BMJ Open 2.

66 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 95.

67 ibid, pp. 95–109; Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 371; H Croker et al, “Front of pack nutritional labelling schemes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence relating to objectively measured consumption and purchasing” (2020) 33 Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 518; A Jáuregui et al, “Impact of front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized experiment in low- and middle-income Mexican adults” (2020) 20 BMC Public Health 10; Dubois et al, supra, note 46; P Crosetto et al, “Nutritional and economic impact of five alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence” (2020) 47 European Review of Agricultural Economics 2.

68 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 96; Z Talati et al, “Food choice under five front-of-package nutrition label conditions: an experimental study across 12 countries” (2019) 109 American Journal of Public Health 12. For studies supporting the MTL, see Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 372; Jáuregui et al, supra, note 67. For studies supporting the Nutri-Score, see Egnell et al, “Compared to other front-of-pack nutrition labels, the Nutri-Score emerged as the most efficient to inform Swiss consumers on the nutritional quality of food products”, supra, note 60; Dubois et al, supra, note 46; Crosetto et al, supra note 67.

69 See the various studies in note 60, with the exception of Egnell et al, “Compared to other front-of-pack nutrition labels, the Nutri-Score emerged as the most efficient to inform Swiss consumers on the nutritional quality of food products”.

70 Dubois et al, supra, note 46; see also Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 371.

71 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 109–10.

72 ibid, p 111; see Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 373.

73 Becher et al, supra, note 9, p 1357.

74 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 117, 142.

75 ibid, pp 131–42; see, for instance, for the Nutri-Score, C Gómez-Donoso et al, “Association between the nutrient profile system underpinning the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition label and mortality in the SUN Project: a prospective cohort study” (2020) Clinical Nutrition, published online 17 July 2020.

76 Julia and Hercberg, supra, note 25, p 715.

77 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 115.

78 L Dréano-Trécant et al, “Performance of the front-of-pack nutrition label Nutri-Score to discriminate the nutritional quality of foods products: a comparative study across 8 European countries” (2020) 12 Nutrients 5; F Szabo de Edelenyi et al, “Ability of the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition label to discriminate the nutritional quality of foods in the German food market and consistency with nutritional recommendations” (2019) 77 Archives of Public Health 1; see also UP Kupirovič et al, “Facilitating consumers choice of healthier foods: a comparison of different front-of-package labelling schemes using Slovenian food supply database” (2020) 9 Foods 411.

79 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 148–51.

80 By analogy in the context of nutrition claims, see Purnhagen et al, supra, note 28, pp 203–04., E van Herpen and HCM van Trijp, “EU health claims: a consumer perspective” in H Bremmers and K Purnhagen (eds.), Regulating and Managing Food Safety in the EU: A Legal-Economic Perspective (Berlin, Springer International Publishing 2018) pp 98–99.

81 Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 373.

82 C Julia et al, “Le NutriScore mesure la qualité nutritionnelle des aliments, et c’est déjà beaucoup”, The Conversation (3 July 2018), available at <https://theconversation.com/le-nutriscore-mesure-la-qualite-nutritionnelle-des-aliments-et-cest-deja-beaucoup-99234> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

83 G Scrinis, “Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition – an essay by Gyorgy Scrinis” (2020) 371 British Medical Journal m4601.

84 ibid.

85 Dréano-Trécant et al, supra, note 78, p 1313; see also the useful publication by the BEUC, available at <https://www.beuc.eu/publications/five_nutri-score_myths_busted.pdf> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

86 P Galán et al, “Nutri-Score and ultra-processing: two dimensions, complementary and not contradictory” (7 November 2020), available at <https://nutriscore.blog/2020/11/07/nutri-score-and-ultra-processing-two-dimensions-complementary-and-not-contradictory/> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

87 Julia et al, supra, note 82.

88 See Ikonen et al, supra, note 43, p 371.

89 S Amiri, “« Chocapic »: un aliment ultra-transformé recommandé par le Nutriscore”, la Nutrition (13 October 2020), available at <https://www.lanutrition.fr/chocapic-un-aliment-ultra-transforme-recommande-par-le-nutriscore> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

90 Becher et al, supra, note 9, pp 1324–25.

91 A-L Sibony and G Helleringer, “EU consumer protection and behavioural sciences: revolution or reform?” in A Alemanno and A-L Sibony (eds.), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2015) p 214.

92 M Friant-Perrot and A Garde, “From BSE to obesity: EFSA’s growing role in the EU’s nutrition policy” in A Alemanno and S Gabbi, Foundations of EU Food Law and Policy: Ten Years of the European Food Safety Authority (Farnham, Ashgate 2013) p 137; KP Purnhagen and H Schebesta, Food Labelling for Consumers – EU Law, Regulation and Policy Options (Brussels, European Parliament 2019) pp 12–16.

93 Friant-Perrot and Garde, supra, note 92, p 137.

94 ibid; for a critique of this approach, see F Baum and M Fisher, “Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities” (2014) 36 Sociology of Health & Illness 2.

95 Case C-210/96, Gut Springerheide, EU:C:1998:369, para 31.

96 Case C-51/94, Commission v Germany, EU:C:1995:352, para 34, C-465/98 – Darbo, EU:C:2000:184, para 22.

97 Eg see cases C-120/78, Rewe/Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), EU:C:1979:42; 261/81, Rau v De Smedt, EU:C:1982:382; C-178/84, Commission/Allemagne (Beer Purity), EU:C:1987:126.

98 Sibony and Helleringer, supra, note 91; G Helleringer and A-L Sibony, “European consumer protection through the behavioral lens” (2017) 23 Columbia Journal of European Law 3.

99 See Art 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, pp 1–24: “Food law shall … provide a basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to the foods they consume”.

100 Recital 10 of Regulation 1169/2011 reads: “Knowledge of the basic principles of nutrition and appropriate nutrition information on foods would contribute significantly towards enabling the consumer to make such an informed choice. Education and information campaigns are an important mechanism for improving consumer understanding of food information”.

101 European Commission, White Paper “A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity Related Health Issues”, COM (2007) 279 final, p 3.

102 Farm to Fork Strategy, supra, note 8, p 13.

103 Council Directive 90/496/EEC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs, OJ L 276, 6.10.1990, pp 40–44, see Art 2.

104 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 30.

105 See the complete list in Annex V of Regulation 1169/2011.

106 ibid, Art 16(4) of Regulation 1169/2011.

107 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 30(4) and Recital 42.

108 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 41.

109 Regulation 1169/2011, Arts 32 and 33.

110 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 33(1).

111 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 34, see also Art 13 and Annex XV.

112 See also Art 9(2) of Regulation 1169/201.

113 European Commission, Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and Better Regulation for the EU, p 8.

114 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers, COM(2008) 40 final, Art 34.

115 IG Lang, “Public health in European Union food law” in T Hervey et al (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Health Law and Policy (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing 2017) p 410; MacMaoláin, supra, note 30, p 62.

116 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35 and Recital 43.

117 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35(4).

118 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35(5).

119 Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, pp 9–25.

120 This interpretation is in line with the one of the Commission; see the Report from the Commission, supra, note 14.

121 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, pp 1–15, Arts 5 and 6.

122 Regulation 1169/2011, Recital 41.

123 Regulation 1169/2011, Arts 30(3) and 34(3). The elements that can be repeated are considered to be the most important by Recital 41.

124 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35(1).

125 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35(2).

126 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 35(3).

127 Regulation 1169/2011, Art 36.

128 Regulation 1924/2006, Art 2(2) (4).

129 Regulation 1924/2006, Art 3.

130 Regulation 1924/2006, Art 5(2).

131 Regulation 1924/2006, Art 23.

132 The notifications and authorisations can be retrieved at <https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/≥ (last accessed 8 January 2021).

133 Regulation 1924/2006, Recital 11.

134 Regulation 1924/2006, Art 4.

135 Friant-Perrot and Garde, supra, note 92, p 141; see also Recital 11 of Regulation 1924/2006.

136 Report from the Commission, supra, note 14, p 20.

137 <https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/labelling_legislation/nutrition-labelling_en> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

138 Annex to the Farm to Fork Strategy, supra, note 8.

139 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 150–51.

140 Becher et al, supra, note 9, p 1348; Hagmann and Siegrist, supra, note 58, p 8.

141 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 148–49.

142 Z Talati et al, “Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition information: a systematic review” (2017) 75 Nutrition Reviews 271; see also Z Talati et al, “Can front-of-pack nutrition labels overcome any biasing effects of nutrient and health claims?” (2019) 13 Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 3.

143 For Nutri-Score, see Julia and Hercberg, supra, note 25, pp 712–13; Szabo de Edelenyi et al, supra, note 78, p 2.

144 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 143; for nutrition labelling more generally, see M Gressier et al, “Healthy foods and healthy diets. how government policies can steer food reformulation” (2020) 12 Nutrients 1994–95.

145 Report from the Commission, supra, note 14, p 16.

146 ibid, p 19.

147 For instance, this is the case of Copa-Cogeca, the main interest group representing European farmers: <https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-farmers-side-with-italy-against-colour-coded-nutrition-labelling/> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

148 See the following inaccurate statements contained in their statements: Council of the European Union, “Non Paper on the ‘Front of Pack Nutrition Labeling – FOPNL’ by Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Romania”, 2020, 10846/20: “consumer currently have enough information about the nutritional value of food”, “colour codes have not shown to be effective in helping consumers to evaluate the real nutritional quality/value of food”, pp 3–4. The Italian hostility towards the Nutri-Score also appears in the following parliamentary questions addressed by Italian MEPs to the European Commission, available at <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2019-004347_EN.html] and [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-004318_EN.html> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

149 <https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2020&num=31> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

150 A study conducted in Italy shows that consumers found the NutrInform Battery more informative and helpful than the Nutri-Score in terms of their understanding of the product composition; see M Francesco et al, “Effects on consumers’ subjective understanding of a new front-of-pack nutritional label: a study on Italian consumers” (2020) International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, published online 4 August 2020. It is important to note that this research received funding from Federalimentare, the Italian Federation of Food Industries.

151 EFSA, “EFSA’s scientific advice to inform harmonised front-of-pack labelling and restriction of claims on foods”, available at <https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/efsas-scientific-advice-inform-harmonised-front-pack-labelling-and-restriction> (last accessed 12 February 2021).

152 Becher et al, supra, note 9, p 1347.

153 See Becher et al, supra, note 9, pp 1346–47.

154 Farm to Fork Strategy, supra, note 8, p 12.

155 The Commission has clearly expressed its intention to work simultaneously and in a coherent manner on the development of harmonised FoP nutrition labelling and on the setting of nutrient profiles; see the inception impact assessment available at <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12748-Setting-of-nutrient-profiles> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

156 See Talati et al, supra, note 33, concluding that: “[t]he more simplified [FoP labelling] (Nutri-Score and warning labels) were seen as not providing enough information and were least trusted and less likely to be desired as compulsory”.

157 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, pp 111, 157.

158 See Friant-Perrot and Garde, supra, note 92; G Davies, “Internal market adjudication and the quality of life in Europe” (2015) 21 Columbia Journal of European Law 2; more generally, see M van Asselt et al, Trade, Health and the Environment: The European Union Put to the Test (London, Routledge 2013).

159 See Zamir and Teichman, supra, note 31, pp 111–14, 124–27.

160 Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al, supra, note 15, p 64.

161 Talati et al, supra, note 33, p 1934.

162 See supra, note 60.

163 EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies, “Scientific Opinion on establishing food-based dietary guidelines” (2010) 8 EFSA Journal 25.

164 ibid, pp 25–26.

165 Regulation 1924/2006, Recital 12, see also Art 4(1)(b).

166 EFSA, supra, note 23, p 4; see also Friant-Perrot and Garde, supra, note 92, p 142.

167 See supra, note 78.

168 AG Gold, “Food values beyond nutrition” in RJ Herring (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics and Society (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2013); Friant-Perrot and Garde, supra, note 92, pp 151–53.

169 M Weimer, Risk Regulation in the Internal Market: Lessons from Agricultural Biotechnology (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2019); M Weimer and A De Ruijter, Regulating Risks in the European Union: The Co-Production of Expert and Executive Power (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2017).

170 <https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained_en#aims> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

171 <https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/geographical-indications-register/> (last accessed 8 January 2021).

172 European Commission staff working document, Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods with Regard to Nutrient Profiles and Health Claims Made on Plants and Their Preparations and of the General Regulatory Framework for Their Use in Foods, SWD(2020) 95 final, p 17.

173 ibid.

174 Council of the European Union, “‘Hybrid’ Nutrition Labelling System Recommended in Some Member States – Information from the Delegations of Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain”, 2016, 6585/16.

175 ibid, p 2.

176 Report from the Commission, supra, note 14, p 17.

177 Council of the European Union, supra, note 148, p 4.

178 Politico, “Italy collects allies in food label fight” (14 August 2020), available at <https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-collects-allies-in-food-label-fight/> (last accessed 8 January 2020).

179 Art 13 TFEU states the following: “In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”.

180 F Etilé, Obésité: santé publique et populisme alimentaire (Paris, Éditions Rue d’Ulm 2013) p 43.

181 See the conclusions of the following report: European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Regarding the Mandatory Labelling of the List of Ingredients and the Nutrition Declaration of Alcoholic Beverages, COM(2017) 58 final, p 4.

182 See A Garde, “For the more systematic regulation of harmful marketing practices” (2020) 11 European Journal of Risk Regulation 4; O Bartlett and A Garde, “The EU’s failure to support Member States in their implementation of the WHO recommendations: how to ignore the elephant in the room?” (2017) 8 European Journal of Risk Regulation 2; O Bartlett and A Garde, “Time to seize the (red) bull by the horns: the EU’s failure to protect children from alcohol and unhealthy food marketing” (2013) 38 European Law Review 4.

183 LS Taillie et al, “An evaluation of Chile’s law of food labeling and advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: a before-and-after study” (2020) 17 PLoS Medicine e1003015.