- Communication & Climate Claims
- Regulation & Developments
When words become more dangerous than sugar: why climate claims are strictly regulated – while the Nutri-Score remains voluntary
There are moments when regulations suddenly reveal where their blind spots are. With climate claims, we are experiencing exactly that. While small companies must weigh every word with extreme care, a surprising amount of freedom remains elsewhere — precisely where millions of people make decisions every day: on supermarket shelves. How is it possible that a single term can already lead to legal warnings, yet a clear nutritional label is still voluntary? Why is transparency regulated to the highest degree where words are involved — and to the lowest degree where it concerns health, sugar and everyday reality?
Words forbidden, sugar allowed: the imbalance in consumer regulation.
—or: how regulation becomes strict exactly where it has the least effect.
As of this year, it is clear: companies must watch every word in their climate claims. Terms like durable, environmentallyfriendly or climate neutral have become a minefield. Anyone who cannot substantiate them properly risks legal warnings. Particularly affected: millions of small and medium-sized businesses that simply do not have the resources for detailed reviews.
And while regulation is strict here, one of the most important transparency tools in the food sector remains voluntary: the Nutri-Score.
A strange contrast — and a problem for the credibility of regulation.
The new world of climate claims: strict, stricter, strictest
Companies today are hardly allowed to promise anything that sounds environmentally positive.
Why?
Consumers must not be misled.
Claims must be substantiated, verifiable, unambiguous.
Even terms like durable are considered potentially misleading if they are not supported by reliable data.
This leads to an absurd situation:
A small crafts business is not allowed to call its product long-lasting without documentation — while large brands can continue hiding their sugar content behind attractive packaging, entirely legally.
And on the other side: the Nutri-Score — well known, but pointless because it is voluntary
A new Foodwatch study shows: 91 percent of people recognise the Nutri-Score.
But: It barely affects purchasing decisions — because it is rarely visible on products.
Large manufacturers simply omit the label whenever the rating would be unfavourable.
The result? The consumer nutrition label is ineffective, not because people do not care — but because lawmakers remain cautious.
A mandatory label would be possible, but has been politically delayed for years.
A truly uneven playing field
This is where the imbalance becomes unmistakably clear:
- 1
Small businesses: strict regulation, little room to manoeuvre
They can hardly mention a positive attribute anymore without placing a stack of evidence on the table. Even harmless terms can suddenly count as claims — and therefore become a legal risk. Every word is under suspicion of promising more than it is allowed to.
More on compliant climate claims - 2
Large food manufacturers: plenty of freedom, weak transparency
They can still decide for themselves whether the Nutri-Score appears on their packaging — even for products that end up in shopping baskets every day and clearly influence health and nutrition. Transparency is not required here; it is left entirely to the goodwill of the manufacturers.
- 3
The effect: regulation hits the wrong players first
For small and medium-sized companies, the new regulatory landscape means enormous effort — every word a risk, every statement a review process. The major players, by contrast, feel almost no pressure. And in the end, consumers receive less transparency exactly where they need it most.
Why this is a problem
Because regulation should really do two things:
Protect consumers and ensure fair competition.
Right now, both happen only selectively. Climate claims shine a floodlight on small businesses, while everything around the Nutri-Score remains in semi-darkness.
It creates the impression that whenever powerful industries are affected, lawmakers tread carefully. And wherever millions of micro-businesses are involved, regulation becomes as strict as possible.
What needs to happen now
Transparency cannot be enforced at its strictest where words are involved — and remain at its loosest where millions of people make decisions every single day.
If regulation is to be credible, it urgently needs more balance.
A few points that now need to be on the table:
➜ More balance in the rules.
Less microscopic scrutiny of the words used by small businesses, more reliability where products are consumed on a massive scale and actually have impact.
➜ Mandatory transparency where it makes the biggest difference.
For market leaders, heavily advertised brands and food products purchased every day. The Nutri-Score falls into this category — and should no longer be voluntary.
➜ A mandatory Nutri-Score label.
National or EU-wide. Voluntary labelling mainly protects those who have little interest in making a poor rating visible.
➜ Climate claims with proportion and practicality.
Small and medium-sized businesses need simple, workable guardrails — not the fear that every adjective could become a legal issue. The effort required must be proportionate to company size.
➜ A consistent transparency logic.
If consumers are to be protected, then consistently: in climate claims and in nutritional information.
And yes: large corporations are also affected by the new climate-claim rules.
But in a different way.
´Of course, international brands and corporations must also adapt their communication. The difference lies in the effort required — and in the strength of their structures:
➜ They have in-house legal teams that can review, document and defend claims.
➜ They have budgets to commission studies, expert reports and certifications whenever needed.
➜ They have marketing teams that can replace terms, rephrase claims or rebuild entire campaigns without the business coming to a halt.
➜ And they have products that can continue to be advertised easily outside the climate context.
For SMEs, the reality is very different:
Often a single word on a website that “could be misunderstood” is enough to create legal risks and weeks of uncertainty. They lack the resources and structures of large companies — which means their decisions carry much higher risk.
The rules apply to everyone — but they do not affect everyone equally.
And that is exactly why we need regulation that creates impact, not unnecessary obstacles.
A final thought that matters to us:
We discussed for quite some time whether the Nutri-Score and climate claims should even be compared. Two topics, two regulatory frameworks, two political arenas. But if regulation is meant to be credible, it finally needs more balance. The comparison shows how differently regulation takes hold: extremely strict when it comes to wording, extremely cautious when it comes to labels that would influence everyday decisions. So it is less about whether Nutri-Score and climate claims are technically comparable — and more about the fact that this uneven strictness reveals where the system has slipped out of balance.
A comparison that is not technical, but principled:
What do we expect from companies? What can consumers reasonably expect? And why are some transparency requirements enforced rigorously while others have remained voluntary for years?
This is exactly where the real debate begins.
