This study, conducted by the European Club of Pediatric Dietitians (CEDE), evaluates the impact of the Nutri-Score algorithm revision (taking effect between 2024 and 2025, depending on the country) on the breakfast cereal category in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The results show that the new formula is much stricter, leading to a widespread downgrading of products—particularly those aimed at children—due to their high added sugar content.
Sugar and salt in the crosshairs of the new Nutri-Score algorithm
The new algorithm represents a major paradigm shift. Sugar is now the most influential component in the calculation, displacing the saturated fats that dominated the previous formula. But the stricter approach does not stop there: salt (sodium) has emerged as the third most decisive nutrient, on par with fiber. The international scientific committee’s objective is clear: “To better differentiate products based on their content of certain nutrients of concern (e.g., sugars and salt).“
A stricter new algorithm for children’s cereals: an overall drop in Nutri-Score ratings
The impact of these new thresholds is massive. To achieve an “A” rating, a cereal can no longer contain an average of 9.1g of sugar per 100g—as was previously the case—but must now meet a threshold of 6.4g/100g. This heightened requirement has caused scores to plummet: The proportion of products rated “A” has fallen from 35.4% to 24.2%. “B” ratings have collapsed, dropping from 15.4% to just 8.2%. The downgrading is systemic: 86% of products originally classified as “B” have dropped to “C”. At the other end of the scale, “D” ratings have doubled (from 14.1% to 28.6%), and the “E” category—previously non-existent for this segment—has appeared for the least nutritionally balanced products. Products specifically targeting children are the direct victims of this reform. To identify these products, experts use the rigorous criteria of the International Network for Food and Obesity, which classify packaging featuring licensed properties, games, mascots, or cartoon characters as “child-targeted.” The results are unequivocal: 71.4% of products aimed at children have seen their ratings downgraded. The most striking finding concerns the former “champions”: 75% of children’s cereals previously rated A are plummeting straight to C, skipping the B grade entirely. The authors’ study is unequivocal about this drastic drop: “We are seeing a near-total disappearance of Nutri-Score A and B ratings among breakfast cereals intended for children.”
The muesli segment is not spared by the new Nutri-Score algorithm
Until now, the muesli and “natural” cereal segment enjoyed a very strong healthy image, often reinforced by claims regarding high fiber content. This is what experts call the “Health Halo” effect: using a nutritional strength to mask major weaknesses. The new algorithm shatters this illusion by drawing a clear distinction: Mueslis with no added sugar: Virtually unaffected, with only 9.7% seeing their rating drop. Sweetened mueslis: Nearly half (44.9%) see their score fall. These products often contain sugars in various forms (sucrose, honey, or glucose syrup), which now weigh much more heavily on the final score than fiber content does. Among mueslis previously rated B, 81% have dropped to a C rating. “Organic” vs. “Conventional”: Organic products appear to hold up better under the new Nutri-Score algorithm While the stricter criteria apply to everyone, they highlight a nutritional reality: organic products fare better. The algorithm emphasizes the superiority of organic cereals, as they rely less on ultra-processed recipes and aggressive marketing tactics. Score A: 35.5% for organic versus only 10.3% for non-organic. Score D: 19.9% for organic versus 39.3% for non-organic. This gap is primarily explained by the fact that non-organic cereals are overrepresented in the “children-targeted” and “ultra-processed” categories. However, the organic label is no guarantee of immunity: 37.8% of organic products are still downgraded, proving that organic food can also be excessively high in sugar.
Nutri-Score moves closer to the NOVA classification
A recurring criticism of the original Nutri-Score was its failure to penalize the level of processing. The 2024 version addresses this issue, aligning much more closely with the NOVA classification. Penalty for ultra-processing (NOVA 4): Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now receive the harshest ratings. Concentration of low scores: More than 90% of products rated D or E are ultra-processed foods. Scientific consistency: The revised algorithm drastically reduces the number of ultra-processed products achieving an A or B rating, creating synergy between nutritional quality and manufacturing quality.
To know more you can consult the study on this link.
Français
Nutri-Score: A new scope for our cereals
This study, conducted by the European Club of Pediatric Dietitians (CEDE), evaluates the impact of the Nutri-Score algorithm revision (taking effect between 2024 and 2025, depending on the country) on the breakfast cereal category in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The results show that the new formula is much stricter, leading to a widespread downgrading of products—particularly those aimed at children—due to their high added sugar content.
Sugar and salt in the crosshairs of the new Nutri-Score algorithm
The new algorithm represents a major paradigm shift. Sugar is now the most influential component in the calculation, displacing the saturated fats that dominated the previous formula. But the stricter approach does not stop there: salt (sodium) has emerged as the third most decisive nutrient, on par with fiber. The international scientific committee’s objective is clear: “To better differentiate products based on their content of certain nutrients of concern (e.g., sugars and salt).“
A stricter new algorithm for children’s cereals: an overall drop in Nutri-Score ratings
The impact of these new thresholds is massive. To achieve an “A” rating, a cereal can no longer contain an average of 9.1g of sugar per 100g—as was previously the case—but must now meet a threshold of 6.4g/100g. This heightened requirement has caused scores to plummet: The proportion of products rated “A” has fallen from 35.4% to 24.2%. “B” ratings have collapsed, dropping from 15.4% to just 8.2%. The downgrading is systemic: 86% of products originally classified as “B” have dropped to “C”. At the other end of the scale, “D” ratings have doubled (from 14.1% to 28.6%), and the “E” category—previously non-existent for this segment—has appeared for the least nutritionally balanced products. Products specifically targeting children are the direct victims of this reform. To identify these products, experts use the rigorous criteria of the International Network for Food and Obesity, which classify packaging featuring licensed properties, games, mascots, or cartoon characters as “child-targeted.” The results are unequivocal: 71.4% of products aimed at children have seen their ratings downgraded. The most striking finding concerns the former “champions”: 75% of children’s cereals previously rated A are plummeting straight to C, skipping the B grade entirely. The authors’ study is unequivocal about this drastic drop: “We are seeing a near-total disappearance of Nutri-Score A and B ratings among breakfast cereals intended for children.”
The muesli segment is not spared by the new Nutri-Score algorithm
Until now, the muesli and “natural” cereal segment enjoyed a very strong healthy image, often reinforced by claims regarding high fiber content. This is what experts call the “Health Halo” effect: using a nutritional strength to mask major weaknesses. The new algorithm shatters this illusion by drawing a clear distinction: Mueslis with no added sugar: Virtually unaffected, with only 9.7% seeing their rating drop. Sweetened mueslis: Nearly half (44.9%) see their score fall. These products often contain sugars in various forms (sucrose, honey, or glucose syrup), which now weigh much more heavily on the final score than fiber content does. Among mueslis previously rated B, 81% have dropped to a C rating. “Organic” vs. “Conventional”: Organic products appear to hold up better under the new Nutri-Score algorithm While the stricter criteria apply to everyone, they highlight a nutritional reality: organic products fare better. The algorithm emphasizes the superiority of organic cereals, as they rely less on ultra-processed recipes and aggressive marketing tactics. Score A: 35.5% for organic versus only 10.3% for non-organic. Score D: 19.9% for organic versus 39.3% for non-organic. This gap is primarily explained by the fact that non-organic cereals are overrepresented in the “children-targeted” and “ultra-processed” categories. However, the organic label is no guarantee of immunity: 37.8% of organic products are still downgraded, proving that organic food can also be excessively high in sugar.
Nutri-Score moves closer to the NOVA classification
A recurring criticism of the original Nutri-Score was its failure to penalize the level of processing. The 2024 version addresses this issue, aligning much more closely with the NOVA classification. Penalty for ultra-processing (NOVA 4): Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now receive the harshest ratings. Concentration of low scores: More than 90% of products rated D or E are ultra-processed foods. Scientific consistency: The revised algorithm drastically reduces the number of ultra-processed products achieving an A or B rating, creating synergy between nutritional quality and manufacturing quality.
To know more you can consult the study on this link.
Orchidali can help you improve the quality of your products.
Tags: