this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)

France

2192 readers
92 users here now

La France et les Français

Communautés principales

Nous rejoindre sur Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#jlai.lu:matrix.org

🔍 Recherche

FAQ, guides et ressources :

Actualité internationale

Loisirs:

Vie Pratique:

Société:

Villes/Régions

Pays:

Humour:

Fedivers:

Règles

  1. Multi-lingual community: posts in other language than French are allowed. 🚀

  2. Tous les francophones sont bienvenus. 🐌

  3. Remember the human : pas d’insultes, pas d’agressivité, pas de harcèlement entre utilisateurs. 🤖

  4. Xénophobie, racisme et autre forme de discrimination sont interdits.🌈

  5. Pas de doublon. Pas de spam. Évitez les paywalls autant que possible.☔

  6. Utilisez la fonction "Report" pour signaler le contenu contrevenant aux règles.🏴

  7. Le contenu doit être en rapport avec la France ou la population française.🇨🇵


Communauté de secours:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ils révèlent surtout qu’une étude portant sur le Nutri-Score a 21 fois plus de chances d’aboutir à des résultats défavorables pour ce logo nutritionnel si les auteurs déclarent un conflit d’intérêts, ou si l’étude est financée par l’industrie alimentaire…

Ces travaux indiquent une nouvelle fois que certaines études impliquant des acteurs industriels de l’agroalimentaire vont en général dans le sens des positions ou défenses des intérêts des financeurs. Ce biais de financement avait déjà été décrit dans plusieurs travaux antérieurs.

Pour conclure, rappelons que les scientifiques et professionnels de santé, notamment au travers des sociétés savantes scientifiques et comités d’experts en France et en Europe, ainsi que de nombreuses institutions de recherche et de santé publique (comme le Centre International de Recherche contre le Cancer de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé) considèrent que le Nutri-Score s’appuie sur des travaux scientifiques suffisamment robustes - tant dans sa construction que dans la démonstration de son efficacité et de son utilité en termes de santé publique - pour justifier qu’il soit rendu obligatoire en Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

English because even though I can understand the post, my French is not nearly good enough to articulate this point

I'm Italian, as you might now we are the only big EU country to have opposed Nutri-Score thus far.

This summer I spent my holidays in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region and while shopping there I got the chance of interacting firsthand with the score, as someone not used to it.
In many occasions looking at the score and then at the ingredient list made very little sense, in particular some decently healthy food was often marked with harsh scores for reasons I couldn't quite understand. An example of this I remember quite well was a bottle of fruit juice that had a score of D. Sure, it probably has lots of sugar, but it also contained decent quantities of fruits. I thought that was supposed to be a good thing.

I don't think this score is the way to go, honestly. I'm a big fan of the work the EU is doing in terms of food safety but this just isn't the right way to go in my opinion. The indicator is way too simplistic and while the algorithm behind it is pretty clear, sometimes you end up with weird results that to me make very little sense.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hi and welcome :)

Well, eating fruit isn't always healthy. It all about glucide, salt... Do you know how many oranges do you need for 1 glass of 20 cl ? 4 oranges, that's a lot. So 2 glass of orange is as you are eating 8 oranges in a row. That's a crazy amount of sugar and we don't alway realize that

Yeah i agree, the nutriscore need better explanation and transparency about the result.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The process of turning fruit into juice also often removes a lot of the good stuff we would be getting from that fruit. For example fibre. So the juice has the sugar (which isn’t in itself a reason to avoid fresh fruit) but little of the other good stuff.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Thank a lot for the info. :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Fruit juice is a scam. One of the main public health issue we're facing regarding public health and food is obesity. In this regards, fruit juice is no better than a coke. Drink fucking water!

load more comments (5 replies)