Currently browsing posts about: FOP(Front-of-Package)Labels

I was in Mexico City last week giving the keynote at the FoodTech Summit & Expo.   I could hardly wait to get to the nearby Chedraui supermarket to see what the Mexican warning labels on food packages looked like in practice.

Mexico has high obesity prevalence, especially in children (~35%).  Public health officials hope the warning labels will alert the public to avoid overconsuming processed foods.

Here’s what I saw.

I.  It looks like at least half the products on shelves carry warnings of excessive salt, sugar, saturated fat, or calories, or artificial sweeteners.

II.  One of the regulations says that if a product aimed at children requires a warning label, it cannot display cartoon characters.  For products made before the law, supermarkets comply by pasting stickers over the cartoons.

III.  Food companies are doing everything they can to hide the warning labels.  They make sure the warnings are hidden when they stock the packages on shelves (the only reason you can see the two bottles with the warnings is that I turned them around.

The warnings must be working.  Food companies are evading, undermining, and fighting the new regulations.  Several lawsuits are in progress.  I will be following their progress with great interest.

My messages to the food technology congress:

• Do not make ultra-processed junk food.
• Stop fighting public health measures.

I signed a letter organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest calling on the FDA to do more to research front-of-package labels.

This is in response to the FDA’s announcement of what it plans to test in developing a front-of-package labeling scheme.

We asked the FDA for specific additions to the research proposals, among them this one:

• Consider testing additional High In scheme designs with attention-grabbing features like these:

We noted that the FDA states three goals for the research:

1. Participants’ ability to correctly interpret the nutritional profile of the product
2. The speed at which participants make their decisions
3. Whether or not participants search for more information to answer the question (i.e., whether they click a link to view the Nutrition Facts label)

We argued that

Of the three outcomes, we believe that participants’ ability to correctly interpret the nutritional profile of the product is the most important [because it is the only one that is independently and objectively desirable. In contrast, the desirability of faster decision-making is dependent on whether the decision is correct, and it is unclear what would be the more desirable outcome with respect to searching for the Nutrition Facts label. Searching for the Nutrition Facts label could be positive (if the labeling scheme spurs consumers to learn more about the product’s nutrition information and ingredients) or negative (if the labeling scheme is not noticeable or confusing and thus participants need to seek more information).

Front-of-package labeling has been in the works for a long time.  It’s great the FDA is getting to it.

Center for Science in the Public Interest is campaigning for mandatory front-of-package labeling—like these.

Here’s what you need to know about the campaign:

• Comment from CSPI responding, point-by-point, to industry arguments opposing mandatory front-of-package labeling
• Sign-on comment filed in support of CSPI’s front-of-package labeling petition
  • Signatories include American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Public Health Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, and more
• Comment filed in response to FDA’s proposal to conduct quantitative research on front-of-package labeling
• Factsheet summarizing the importance of mandatory front-of-package labeling in the U.S. (from January)
• Factsheet summarizing findings of a public opinion poll commissioned by CSPI in March (we found widespread support for mandatory front-of-package labeling)

Guess what!  The food industry opposes this kind of labeling.  A lot.

Why?  Because it might discourage purchase of ultra-processed junk foods.  That, after all, is its point.

Scotland

The Food and Drink Federation of Scotland is lobbying the government to stop proposals to restrict promotion of HFSS snacks, ostensibly because of inflation.

The industry would like the government to “help ensure the future success of our vital industry by investing in productivity and supporting food and drink businesses on the journey to Net Zero.”

Spain

Spain’s new dietary guidelines recommend limits on meat consumption: a maximum of 3 servings/week of meat, prioritising poultry and rabbit meat and minimising the consumption of processed meat.”

This is a big deal because Spain currently has the highest consumption of red meat in Europe.

European Union

Scientists and health professionals for Nutri-Score, the front-of-package labeling scheme that originated in France, are trying to get it accepted throughout the EU.

They are collecting signatures on a petition to the Europen Commission. 

In an email, Serge Hercberg, the originator of Nutri-Score, writes

The objective of this Group aims to defend science and public health against lobbies and to remind the EC that Nutri-Score has been the subject of numerous studies following a rigorous scientific process justifying its adoption…The lobbies, totally denying science, have managed in recent months to spread at European level their false arguments through platforms, think tanks, associations, web media, lobbying agencies and events organised by permanent representations of certain states to EU.

He invites experts to support this effort.  Information is on the website here.

You can sign on through the contact page.  The more, the better he says.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Last week I did a post on the FDA’s reorganization.   I should have made one other point: the long-standing inadequacy of FDA funding.  For decades, Congress has assigned tasks to the FDA but provided inadequate funding to do those tasks adequately (hence 1% of imported foods are inspected).  Congress also assigns the funding for specific purposes.

Yes, FDA ought to be doing more, but it is not up to the agency to decide how to deploy its funds.

One more point: For long-standing historical reasons, FDA funding comes from congressional Agriculture committees, even though it is an agency of the Public Health Service.  That is one reason why USDA’s food safety programs are funded at so much higher a level than FDA’s.

With that said, the FDA has come out with some recent initiatives of interest.

I.  Front-of-Package labels.  The FDA is proposing to research a front-of-package symbol: “an easy-to-understand, standardized system that is 1) mandatory, 2) nutrient-specific, 3) includes calories, and is 4) interpretive with respect to the levels of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat per serving.”

It is doing this in response to a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The comments that have come in so far are here.

It is examining the use of front-of-pack symbols in other countries.

It also plans to conduct research on consumer understanding of multiple designs.  Here are the prototype packages on which the designs will be tested.

None of these is likely to be as effective as the ones used in other countries.

Here is one of the better options, in my opinion.

To file comments, go here.  It’s important to do this because the Consumer Brand Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers Association) and other industry groups are unlikely to accept any labeling scheme that might discourage you from buying a product.

II.  Qualified health claim: cocoa flavanols.  The FDA has approved a qualified health claim for cocoa flavanols and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

This was in response to a petition from the Swiss chocolate company, Barry Callebaut.

Here’s what the FDA will allow.  Yes, this is absurd (look at what the FDA has to go through to get to this), but companies must think statements like this will sell their products.

• “Cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, although FDA has concluded that there is very limited scientific evidence for this claim.”
• “Cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. FDA has concluded that there is very limited scientific evidence for this claim.”
• “Very limited scientific evidence suggests that consuming cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder, which contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols, may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
• “Very limited scientific evidence suggests that consuming cocoa flavanols in high flavanol cocoa powder, which contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols, may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. This product contains at least 4% of naturally conserved cocoa flavanols. See nutrition information for_____ and other nutrients.”

III.  GRAS panels.  The FDA has issued final guidance on best practices for panels deciding which ingredients can be Generally Recognized as Safe.

This lays out the guidelines for

• Identifying GRAS panel members who have appropriate and balanced expertise.
• Steps to reduce the risk of bias, or the appearance of bias, that may affect the credibility of the GRAS panel’s report, including assessing potential GRAS panel members for conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest.
• Limiting the data and information provided to a GRAS panel to publicly available information.

A lot of this is headache-inducing.  FDA rulemaking takes forever.  Can’t wait to see how all this turns out.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The FDA has announced a proposed rule for a “healthy” claim on food packages.

It proposes to align “healthy” with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 and the Nutrition Facts label.

The proposal has two requirements for the “healthy” claim.  To make the claim, products must:

1. “Contain a certain meaningful amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (e.g., fruit, vegetable, dairy, etc.) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines.”
2. “Adhere to specific limits for certain nutrients, such as saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. The threshold for the limits is based on a percent of the Daily Value (DV) for the nutrient and varies depending on the food and food group. The limit for sodium is 10% of the DV per serving (230 milligrams per serving).?

Food comes first!  What a concept!  The FDA will only allow a “healthy” claim on foods, not ingredients.  It also will only allow the claim on foods that are quite low in saturated fat, salt, and sugars (with exceptions for real foods).

The press release gave an example.  To qualify,

A cereal would need to contain ¾ ounces of whole grains and contain no more than 1 gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars.

The FDA is also researching a symbol to illustrate the “healthy” claim.  In March, it proposed research to develop this symbol.  The proposal did not illustrate prototypes, but some examples were published by a law firm.  ConscienHealth also published them under the heading of “A new roadmap for marketing healthy-ish food”

I see several things going on here.

1.  Positive, not negative.  This says foods are healthy.  Choose this!
2.  It adds sugars to disqualifying ingredients.
3.  It heads off warning labels—“high in fat, sugar, salt”—like those in Chile, Brazil, and Israel (see, for example, a previous post).  Avoid those!
4.  It heads off ultra-processed warnings (although this will exclude most, if not all, ultra-processed products).
5.  It supersedes the FDA’s efforts in 2010 and 2011 to put zero, one, two, or three stars or check marks on products.

I love Ted Kyle’s “Healthy-ish.”  As I keep saying, health claims are not about health; they are about marketing.

Companies love health claims; they sell food products.  Everyone falls for them; it takes serious critical thinking to resist them.

The FDA’s proposal will make “healthy” claims difficult for many products currently marketed with a health aura (Antioxidants! Gluten-free! No carrageenan!).

The time for comments is now.  I can’t wait to see the ones from companies making ultra-processed foods.

Next from FDA: a definition of “Natural?”

************

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Serge Hercberg, who originated the NutriScore front-of-package labeling system used in France and several other European countries send me a link to this review by several Italian investigators.   To refresh memory, this is how NutriScore works.

It’s a bit complicated but this paper is even more so.  Its writing seems obfuscating, but judge for yourself.

The review: Uncovering the Effect of European Policy-Making Initiatives in Addressing Nutrition-Related Issues: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis on Front-of-Pack Labels.  Nutrients2022, 14(16), 3423; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14163423

Conclusions: “The most recent goal of EU policy-makers is to find a harmonized and universal labelling system to adapt in all European countries. However, observing the structure of the extant literature, there might be two current risks that should be avoided. The first risk is to outline a labelling scheme that is not fully supported by converging evidence as derived from multiple different constructs. The second one refers to the risk of implementing a labelling scheme grounded on valid results and high levels of citations, supported by a network of authors, but overlooking the fragmentation of other valid positions in the literature that together contribute to depicting an environment in which the different and still valid results reflect the diversity of alternatives that are equally effective, but less supported. In conclusion, the right choice of FoPL would benefit both consumers and the food industry, but there are still additional knowledge and usage gaps that must be fulfilled to define the proper universal option that supports consumers toward healthier and more informed food choices.”

Funding: The research received non-conditional funding from Federalimentare.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment: Federalimentare is the Federazione Italiana dell’Industria Alimentare, the major Italian food trade association.  It strongly opposes use of NutriScorre (no surprise).  The authors do have a conflict of interest, but either do not recognize it or are denying it.

I think what they are saying that NutriScore and other front-of-pack systems are not “fully supported by converging evidence,” suggesting that better alternatives would “benefit both consumers and the food industry.”

But what’s really going on here is that front-of-pack labels discourage puchases of ultra-processed foods.  It is understandable that the food industry dislikes them.

This paper is part of a concerted effort by the Italian food industry to discredit NutriScore.

Serge Hercberg, a professor of nutrition at the University of Paris, is under intense personal attack from Italian Twitter trolls, who have been posting insulting and threatening anti-Semitic tweets about his background (Polish Jewish) and his work with NutriScore.

Nutri-Score is not perfect (no such scheme can be) but the only explanation for these attacks must be that it is working.  The attacks are strong evidence for its effectiveness.

Who would ever imagine that a front-of-package food label would elicit anti-semitic vitriol.

Tough times, these.

Since I’ve figured out how to enbed videos, you might want to take a look at this one.

This one is about Nutri-Score, a front-of-package labeling system that started in France but is used in several European countries.  The system balances the healthful and unhealthful aspects of processed foods, and assigns a composite color-coded score, from A (very healthy) to E (oops), and from green to red.

Once you know how the system works, you can easily figure out which ultra-processed foods are best avoided.

The video is in French with English subtitles (but also comes in French without subtitles or with Spanish subtitles).

For more about Nutri-Score go here and here.
For what I’ve written previously about Nutri-Score, go here.