French lawmakers revive mandatory Nutri-Score plan

The revival of mandatory Nutri-Score returns to Parliament with a simple idea: make nutritional information visible where the purchase is actually decided. The bill mixes public health, political strategy, and pressure on manufacturers, while sparing certain terroir products to shore up a fragile compromise.

Filed on March 27, 2026 in the National Assembly, draft bill No. 2599 seeks to make the display of the Nutri-Score mandatory. This concerns food products as well as advertising messages. Carried notably by Socialist MP Sandrine Runel, the text rests on a cross-party coalition and brings back into play a file already contested at the end of 2025. At the heart of the debate: public health, the cost of diet-related diseases, and the exception granted to regional products.

A Parliamentary Relaunch Designed To Avoid The 2025 Failure

The existence of the text, its title and its filing date are established by the National Assembly: draft bill No. 2599, referred to the Social Affairs Committee, was filed on March 27, 2026. The legislative file opened at this stage does not yet set a date for examination, which advises caution about the schedule.

The relaunch is no improvisation. According to Franceinfo and ICI, it is carried in a cross-party manner and supported by eight political groups. LCP reports that around fifty deputies cosigned it around Sandrine Runel, with elected officials from the left, center and right, including Agnès Pannier-Runacher, Yannick Neuder, Jean-François Rousset and Cyrille Isaac-Sibille.

This return of the mandatory Nutri-Score is also explained by the 2025 precedent. During the November budget debate, similar amendments had been adopted in the Assembly. However, an exception already existed for certain products under quality labels. But Franceinfo and ICI recall that the generalization was ultimately not retained. This concerns the finalized version of the Social Security financing bill. The new parliamentary vehicle aims precisely to give an autonomous basis back to a measure left unfinished.

Behind the legislative battle, the core issue remains the act of buying: giving shoppers clear information before they fill their carts. Supporters of the bill argue it’s a simpler tool than a traditional nutrition table and more visible on shelves. Their goal is not only to clarify individual choices but also to push manufacturers to reformulate their products.
Behind the legislative battle, the core issue remains the act of buying: giving shoppers clear information before they fill their carts. Supporters of the bill argue it’s a simpler tool than a traditional nutrition table and more visible on shelves. Their goal is not only to clarify individual choices but also to push manufacturers to reformulate their products.

What Draft Bill No. 2599 Actually Provides

The wording of the official text specifies the compromise. Article 1 amends the Public Health Code to make the display of the Nutri-Score mandatory on packaging. However, it excludes products benefiting from a protected designation of origin, including controlled designations of origin. In addition, products benefiting from a protected geographical indication are also excluded. In case of non-compliance, the proposal provides for a contribution of 2% based on annual pre-tax turnover achieved in France. This contribution is allocated to the Caisse nationale de l’assurance maladie.

Article 2 extends the obligation to advertising messages in favor of foodstuffs and to promotions intended for the public. Again, products covered by a PDO, a controlled designation of origin or a PGI are excluded. For advertising, the contribution mechanism is set at 2%. However, its basis varies depending on whether it concerns space purchases or other promotional expenditures. The text finally provides for entry into force upon publication of a decree in the Council of State, and at the latest on January 1, 2027.

This framework confirms that the terroir exception is not just a political signal: it is written into both articles. It also shows that the authors chose a logic of economic constraint, not a simple declarative obligation.

One of the most sensitive points of the reform concerns the boundary between mass-market processed foods and protected products. The latter are identified by a designation of origin. MPs in favor of the bill chose not to open a full-scale confrontation with terroir sectors, deemed politically untouchable. This exception doesn’t solve everything: it shields a parliamentary coalition but also weakens the uniform reach of the measure.
One of the most sensitive points of the reform concerns the boundary between mass-market processed foods and protected products. The latter are identified by a designation of origin. MPs in favor of the bill chose not to open a full-scale confrontation with terroir sectors, deemed politically untouchable. This exception doesn’t solve everything: it shields a parliamentary coalition but also weakens the uniform reach of the measure.

Public Health, Industry And European Law: Fault Lines Remain

To defend the measure, the bill’s authors rely on a health argument already present in the explanatory memorandum. The document cites the 2025 “Charges and Revenues” report of the Health Insurance. It also quotes earlier recommendations. These come from the Court of Auditors and the Economic, Social and Environmental Council. They are in favor of mandatory display. It also argues that advertising exposure strongly influences purchasing decisions, which justifies extending the obligation beyond packaging alone.

The bill’s backers also put forward a competition argument. Sandrine Runel told LCP that some brands already voluntarily display the Nutri-Score, even when the rating is not favorable, while others do not. In this view, the obligation aims as much to standardize the information given to the public as to prevent selective withdrawal strategies.

Objections have not disappeared. During the November 2025 debates, the then Health Minister, Stéphanie Rist, had considered that the obligation might contravene European Union law. That argument is not settled by the 2026 filing. As long as parliamentary examination has not begun, it is impossible to assert that the measure will be adopted as is. Moreover, one cannot guarantee that its exception regime will be sufficient to secure it legally.

The issue resurfaces because it combines several promises: better informing the public, pushing manufacturers to change, and showing a majority can form around prevention. But the compromise also reveals limits: to move forward, MPs agreed to protect some of the most symbolic products of the culinary heritage. In other words, mandatory Nutri-Score returns less as a slogan than as a test of political feasibility.
The issue resurfaces because it combines several promises: better informing the public, pushing manufacturers to change, and showing a majority can form around prevention. But the compromise also reveals limits: to move forward, MPs agreed to protect some of the most symbolic products of the culinary heritage. In other words, mandatory Nutri-Score returns less as a slogan than as a test of political feasibility.

At bottom, the 2026 relaunch says less about a definitive shift than about a method: start again from a recent failure, tighten the coalition and limit the scope of the conflict to try to pass a public health measure. The core of the file is not only about the obligation of the Nutri-Score. It is also about how far Parliament will go when health interest collides with protection of the terroir.

This article was written by Émilie Schwartz.