The Food and Drug Administration is expected to propose a change for prepackaged foods sold in America: a requirement that key nutrient information be displayed on the front of packages, in addition to the nutrition label already on the back.
The concept, designed to quickly inform busy consumers about the health implications of the food and drinks they are considering purchasing, is not new: dozens of countries worldwide already have front-of-pack nutrition labels, which come in a variety of designs are. For example, in Chile, a stop sign on the front of an item indicates whether it is high in sugar, saturated fat, sodium or calories. In Israel, there is a red warning label on such food and drinks. And in Singapore, drinks are lettered based on how nutritious they are.
Advocates have been asking the FDA for nearly two decades to require front-of-package labels, which they say will help people make healthier choices and help food product manufacturers reformulate their recipes so they have fewer warnings on their products. The FDA was largely silent on the issue until announcing plans to examine front-of-package labels as part of a national health strategy released at a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health in 2022. Since then, it has the literature on front-of-pack labeling and conducted focus groups to test label designs.
But the idea faces opposition from trade associations representing U.S. food and beverage manufacturers, which more than a decade ago set up their own voluntary system to highlight certain nutrients on the front of packages. And some of the label designs being considered by the FDA could be challenged on First Amendment grounds.
“The U.S. interprets freedom of speech much more broadly and encompassing corporate expression than any other country in the world,” said Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor at the New York University School of Global Public Health, who has researched the obstacles to the First Amendment for requiring fronts. -of-package food labels.
Designs that are purely factual – for example stating the number of grams of added sugars – are more likely to be considered constitutional than interpretive designs with shapes or colors that characterize a product as unhealthy, her research shows.
“It starts to get more questionable when you get down to subjective,” Pomeranz said.
Of the multiple label options tested by the FDA, some used traffic light colors to indicate whether there was a high (red), medium (yellow) or low (green) amount of saturated fat, sodium or added sugars; Others declared whether a product was “rich” in these nutrients, sometimes adding the percentage of the recommended daily intake that a serving contains.
An FDA spokesperson declined to reveal to NBC News which label design it will use and did not say exactly when the agency will release its proposed rule, other than to say it is targeting this summer, despite previously setting a deadline of this month .
The Consumer Brands Association and food industry association FMI, which established a voluntary labeling system for the food and beverage industry in 2011 called Facts up Front, have made it clear that they oppose mandatory interpretive designs such as a red light/green light system. . Interpretive labels “will create unnecessary fear among consumers based on a single restrictive nutrient without providing meaningful information about how that food item might fit into overall healthy eating patterns,” they wrote in a public comment to the FDA in 2022.
They also say their voluntary system meets consumer needs. Front Facts Front uses up to four icons on the front of the package to highlight calories, saturated fat, sodium and added sugars per serving size. Manufacturers can also include nutritional information for up to two ‘nutrients to encourage’, such as potassium or fibre. The Consumer Brands Association says hundreds of thousands of products contain facts: 207,000 foods and drinks showed them as of 2021, according to the most recent data available from the group.
“It really gives consumers a quick, consistent and holistic look at the nutritional composition of whatever they’re purchasing, and then helps those consumers make informed decisions,” said Sarah Gallo, the association’s vice president of product policy.
Proponents of mandatory front-of-package labeling disagree, arguing that the Facts Up Front campaign is underused: the nutrition facts label, which is federally required to appear on the back or side of packages applied, on the other hand, appears on billions of products.
“Front-of-pack labeling is only reliable for consumers if it occurs across the entire food supply, and not just on products from a handful of manufacturers that opt for a voluntary program,” said Eva Greenthal, senior food chain policy scientist. and the health care group Center for Science in the Public Interest, which first petitioned the FDA in 2006 to implement front-of-package labels.
She also said Facts Up Front doesn’t provide enough context to be helpful.
“Facts up Front does not provide additional tools to help consumers interpret that information,” she said. “We need something like the word ‘high in’.”
Courtney Gaine, president and CEO of the Sugar Association, the trade association for the U.S. sugar industry, said her group supports transparency but questions whether mandatory front-of-pack labeling will improve Americans’ eating habits.
“It just doesn’t seem like this has the evidence to show that this will make a difference,” she said.
But Greenthal and other advocates say there is data from around the world to support it. In Chile, which in 2016 became the first country to adopt front-of-pack nutrition information, studies show that people have made healthier consumer purchases and are choosing from healthier product reformulations.
“I think it’s a very classic anti-regulatory tactic for the food industry to deny that the science supports a new policy that may be difficult to implement but is beneficial to society,” Greenthal said.
In its own review of the scientific literature on front-of-package labels, the FDA concluded that the labels “can help consumers identify healthy foods” and “appear useful for those with less nutritional knowledge and busy customers.”
The discussion comes as the percentage of Americans considered overweight or obese has risen, with obesity affecting about 42% of American adults. According to the FDA, more than 1 million Americans die each year from diet-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain cancers.
The statistics don’t mean that the nutrition facts box that was required on the back or sides of food packages 30 years ago has been a failure, says Xaq Frohlich, an associate professor of history at Auburn University and author of the book “From Label to Table: The regulating food in America in the information age.
“Every time there has been a label change, the food industry has reformulated its foods,” he said. “So even if you don’t read the label, the food changes and has such an impact.”
Greenthal said there are many people who would benefit from more nutrition information on the front of packages: busy parents rushing through the grocery store, people with low nutritional literacy and anyone with limited time and energy to invest in their food choices.
“Policies like front-of-pack labeling couldn’t have come sooner,” she said. “Diet-related chronic diseases are one of the most important issues facing our country and hindering the health of our population.”