Breakfast cereals rated favorably by Spain's Nutri-Score system are flagged as high-sugar and high-calorie products in Chile and other countries [1, 2].

This discrepancy highlights a potential failure in nutritional labeling that could mislead consumers about the health impact of their morning meals. While one system suggests a product is healthy, another warns it may be harmful.

Nutritionist Azahara Nieto and other critics point to brands like Chocapic as examples of this inconsistency [1, 2]. In Spain, these cereals have received the highest Nutri-Score ratings despite their composition [1]. However, in Chile and Colombia, the same products are labeled as high in sugars and calories [1, 2].

Reports indicate that sugar represents about 20% of the composition of some of these cereals [2]. Critics said the Nutri-Score algorithm effectively "whitens" sugar by providing favorable scores to products with high sugar content [2, 3].

This issue comes approximately two years after the voluntary rollout of the Nutri-Score system [3]. The system's current calculations have faced scrutiny for not adequately penalizing high sugar levels in processed grains.

To address these concerns, Nutri-Score announced a new calculation method for 2024 [4]. This revision is expected to provide poorer scores to breakfast cereals that do not meet stricter nutritional criteria [4].

The current gap between European and South American labeling standards reveals how different mathematical models can change the perceived health value of the exact same ingredient list [1, 2].

“Sugar represents about 20% of the cereal’s composition”

The contradiction between Nutri-Score and the warning labels used in Chile suggests that simplified color-coded systems may oversimplify complex nutritional data. By aggregating various nutrients into a single grade, these systems can mask high sugar levels if other metrics remain favorable, potentially delaying consumer shifts toward lower-sugar alternatives until calculation methods are updated.