Environmental organizations and consumer associations are therefore taking the matter to the EU Court. The issue affects millions of consumers, manufacturers, and EU countries that are already committed to clearer information on the front of packaging.
For years, an EU-wide nutrition label was considered a pillar of the Farm-to-Fork strategy. The idea behind it is to offer consumers reliable nutritional information at a glance, thereby encouraging healthier food choices. Meanwhile, however, the proposal has been quietly put on hold without public explanation. This fuels suspicion about the motivation behind the change of course and about the influence of stakeholders on the decision-making process.
The core of the conflict is transparency. Organizations requested access to the impact assessment, the internal oversight opinion, and the minutes of meetings. The European Commission refused, arguing that even partial disclosure would undermine the ongoing decision-making process. It is precisely this reasoning that makes the case politically and legally sensitive.
The European Ombudsman reviewed the refusal and concluded that the justification was insufficient. That judgment gives momentum to the claimants. They have now brought the matter before the EU Court with the aim of finally gaining access to documents that should provide insight into the reasons why Nutri-Score stalled, and how that decision was made.
While an EU-wide obligation has so far been absent, several EU countries have already chosen to implement this originally French model to varying degrees. This increases pressure on Brussels to explain why full EU harmonization is being withheld and why documents about it remain closed for now. That lack of clarity reinforces the image of decision-making behind closed doors.