Unchecked supermarket power hurting Europe’s shoppers and farmers alike

Amid soaring food prices, frustration is boiling over in Sweden, where a supermarket boycott launched on 17 March has quickly gained traction over the ensuing weeks. Fueled by viral social media posts, the movement has grown into a national flashpoint as thousands of Swedish shoppers are rising up against a retail “oligopoly” that has increased costs by over 20% since January 2022 – a spike attributed to the sector’s profiteering and insufficient competition.

Lidl, Hemköp, ICA, Coop and Willys are among the supermarket chains facing the wrath of Swedish consumers, who have taken inspiration from a similar reckoning sweeping across central and eastern Europe in recent weeks. This unfolding shopper’s revolt notably builds on last year’s EU-wide farmer protests, where food producers denounced supermarket’s unfair, income-suppressing trading practices.

In this already-volatile context, the retail sector is doubling down on decisions that disregard both producers and citizens, with certain boycotted chains unilaterally imposing the controversial Nutri-Score label.

Rising shoppers’ discontent

In response to this consumer uprising, the Swedish retail sector has predictably blamed various external factors for its price hikes, including supply chain disruptions, climate shocks and a “weak” Swedish krona. Yet, even the Swedish Competition Authority (KKV) acknowledges these explanations fail to tell the whole story, notably pointing to excessive market concentration that has kept grocery prices “unjustifiably high.”

Indeed, ICA, Axfood and Coop – the country’s three largest supermarket chains – together control nearly 90% of the market, leaving consumers with few alternatives. According to KKV chief economist Arvid Fredenberg, price increases at the checkout have far outpaced production cost hikes – a situation which “would not have occurred if competition had been better in the grocery trade.”

Faced with this blatant injustice, Sweden’s frustrated shoppers launched ‘Boycott 2.0’ on 24 March, vowing to target a new chain each week and prioritise local producers and building on the strong pressure emanating from the movement’s epicentre in the CEE region. Starting in late January, Croatia’s initial supermarket boycott cut sales by nearly 50%, which triggered similar boycotts in Bulgaria – which led to a nearly 30% turnover drop – as well as Romania, Slovenia and even Greece.

Days later, at an EU agriculture ministers’ meeting, a coalition led by Slovakia alongside six other CEE countries accused supermarket multinationals of “abusive pricing strategies” and demanded urgent European Commission intervention – although these countries have not waited to take domestic action. Croatia has already imposed caps on 40 essential food items, while Hungary and Romania have previously resorted to price and margin limits, with the former considering their reintroduction amid rising tensions.

Supermarkets’ Nutri-Score adoption clashing with agri-food sector

As the unrest spreads, a clear message emerges: unchecked retail concentration has political, economic and social consequences which supermarket giants do not appear willing to accept. Exhibit A: France’s Nutri-Score labelling system.

Despite the Commission’s increasingly cautious stance on Nutri-Score – evidenced by its absence from the 2025 work programme and vague messaging on any future mandate – major supermarket chains are pushing ahead. Major European supermarket chains including Lidl, Aldi, Albert Heijn, Leclerc, Føtex and Carrefour are imposing the label, with the latter even pledging to publicly shame suppliers who refuse to publish Nutri-Score data on its website. In doing so, these supermarkets are blatantly circumventing the due legislative process and are pushing the legal boundaries to a maximum – often at the expense of the consumer. Indeed, a study involving focus groups determined that consumers find Nutri-Score confusing and incoherent rather than informative.

Fortunately, the retail sector is far from united, with food producers across Europe beginning to push back. Danone, once a vocal supporter of Nutri-Score, dramatically reversed course in September 2024, scrapping the label from its products after an illogical algorithm update downgraded its dairy and plant-based drinks, following in the footsteps of Bjorg and Sweden’s Krisprolls-maker, Pagen.

Yet, as the EU executive steps up, the French government has seemingly bowed to supermarket pressure. Paris officially validated the system’s controversial new algorithm in mid-March, days after Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard expressed clear opposition to the system which she previously had rightly criticised for unfairly penalising local products. Indeed, Nutri-Score’s home country has been among its primary victims, with French PDO products like cheeses and cured meats hit with misleadingly negative scores, and even wholly-natural, nutrient-rich French prunes downgraded from ‘A’ to ‘C’ by Nutri-Score’s new algorithm.

Such scientific aberrations have long drawn the ire of small local producers across Europe, with countries including Greece, Portugal and Hungary opposed to the system’s mandatory implementation, citing risks of confusing consumers and undermining the competitiveness of small farmers. Leading scientists have increasingly joined the chorus of concern: Dr Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts University explains that the algorithm’s basis on “outdated 1980s nutrition priorities” rewards water content over nutrient density and penalises fat indiscriminately, contributing to Nutri-Score’s “many absurdities.”

Cultivating bold solutions to ease tensions

The supermarket boycotts are spreading as memories of Europe’s mass farmer protests are still fresh. Emerging in France, last year’s farmer protests saw widespread demonstrations over collapsing incomes, unfair agricultural pricing and lopsided negotiations with retailers and distributors, culminating in threats to blockade supermarket deliveries and leave shelves empty. While 2025 has remained calm, farmers’ grievances remain largely unresolved.

The EU’s quiet retreat from Nutri-Score is a start, but not enough. The message from consumers and producers across Europe is clear: the current balance of power in the food sector is no longer tenable. From Swedish shoppers to EU farmers, frustration is mounting over a system where a handful of retailers wield outsized influence over prices, practices and policy. EU institutions must coordinate with member-state governments to foster fairer competition, strengthen oversight and ensure that affordability and culinary heritage are not undermined by unchecked retail power. This means enforcing fair trading practices, increasing retail price transparency, and protecting small producers. Without urgent action, consumer trust and farmer livelihoods will keep eroding.

 

Partner content