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

What a concept!  A government cracking down on illegally labeled Kellogg kids’ cereals, lots of them.

The Associated Press report of the matter, widely reproduced, does not say which cereals or show photos of the ones that were seized.

Mexico has seized 380,000 boxes of Corn Flakes, Special K and other Kellogg’s cereals, claiming the boxes had cartoon drawings on them in violation of recently enacted laws aimed at improving children’s diets.

These laws put warning labels on foods and beverage high in calories, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, artificial sweeteners, and caffeine.  These cover practically all ultra-processed foods.

At the same time, restrictions were placed on the advertising of unhealthy products to children, so that products with warning labels cannot be advertised to children or use cartoon characters.

I’m wondering if some of the seized products violated the law by having cartoons on the package, like this one.

Here is what the boxes of sugary cereals are supposed to look like now.

I want to know more about what got seized.

But how terrific that the Mexican government is taking this public health measure seriously.

Felicidades!

Healthy food? What’s that?

The FDA is working on a definition of “healthy” on food labels.

Blame KIND bars for all this.

The chronology of this saga.

2015: KIND puts the word “Healthy” on the labels of its whole-food bars.  FDA issues warning letter to KIND because its labels do not meet the requirements to make health claims.

2016: FDA reconsiders, says KIND can use “healthy.”   FDA issues request for information and comments on Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products.

2017: FDA says it will reevaluate use of the term; holds public meeting on how to redefine the term “healthy” as a nutrient content claim.

2018: FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy includes defining the term.

Healthy” is one claim that the FDA believes is ready for change, and we have already signaled our intention to update the criteria for this claim. The Agency is considering how to depict “healthy” on the package so that consumers can easily find it. Similarly, the FDA has also received requests for clarity on the use of “natural” in labeling. Just like other claims made on products regulated by FDA, we believe the “natural” claim must be true and based in science.

2019: The FDA proposes, and OMB approves, focus group review of a “healthy” icon on food packages.

As one of the methods for achieving this step of the Action Plan, the FDA is exploring the development of a graphic symbol to help consumers identify packaged food products that would meet an FDA definition for “healthy.” The symbol would be voluntary, allowing packaged food companies to place it on their products if the products meet the FDA definition of “healthy.”

2021: FDA again sends proposal to redefine “healthy to OMB, and announces further research on developing a ‘healthy” icon.

Nutrient Content Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy: The proposed rule would update the definition for the implied nutrient content claim “healthy,” and would revise the requirements for when the claim “healthy” can be voluntarily used in the labeling of human food products. In a separate but related action, on 7 May 2021 the FDA issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it is conducting preliminary quantitative consumer research on symbols that could be used in the future to convey the “healthy” claim on packaged foods.

The FDA has not said what definition it is considering.  I can think of three possible options:

• Nutrient-based: Below some level of sugar, salt, calories, or whatever
• Food-based: Must contain a fruit, vegetable, or whole grain
• Process-based: Must be unprocessed, processed, or minimally processed; cannot be ultra-processed

Anything other than process-based is too easy for food companies to game.

Center for Science in the Public Interest has plenty of concerns.

Allowing some products to carry a ‘healthy’ claim because they contain a minimal amount of a fruit, vegetable, or other recommended food would just make it easier for veggie chips and ‘fruit’ snacks to compete with fresh fruits and vegetables…No matter how FDA defines the term, consumers should realize that manufacturers will mostly be interested in using ‘healthy’ for marketing purposes—to sell you more processed food that you may not need.

The voluntary nature of the “healthy” symbol also raises questions.  If a food label does not use the symbol, how will anyone know if it’s not there because the product does not meet the definition of “healthy” or if its maker just chose not to use the symbol?

On “healthy,” whether word or symbol: stay tuned.

The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) has produced a report on soda taxes in the region.

What’s happening with soda taxes in Latin America is impressive.

Soda taxes, no matter where they are, seem to be doing what they are supposed to:

Latin America is a model for Dietary Guidelines (Brazil) and front-of-package warning labels (Chile).

Wish we could do these things.

The Mexican state of Oaxaca became the first to ban the sales of junk foods to children under the age of 18.

The state of Tabasco did the same.

A dozen other Mexican states are considering similar actions.  The rationale is clear: the health consequences of obesity in general and with Covid-19 in particular.

One-third of Mexicans aged 6 to 19 are overweight or obese, according to UNICEF. They may not be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 now, but they can suffer myriad health issues, especially in adulthood.

And Mexico’s new warning labels are now in effect and will be required for all packaged foods by the end of the year.

Mexico has been able to implement these measures despite overwhelming food industry opposition.

How?  I credit the outstanding advocacy work of the Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and the consumer coalition, Alianza por la Salud Alimentaria.

An article in FoodNavigator.com got my attention.  It said the French food industry was outraged by a report from the French National Assembly calling for actions to make heavily processed (“ultraprocessed”) foods healthier.

The Assembly issued its non-partisan report in two parts:

• Tome I: The report summary, details, and recommendations (If you click on this link, the site offers Google translation into English)
• Tome II: The transcripts from the hearings held by the committee

The report includes recommendations for a wide variety of measures to improve the food supply, especially for children.

With respect to ultraprocessed foods, the report is tough.  It provides evidence that the industry’s voluntary measures to improve the nutritional quality of its products are neither adequate nor effective.

Therefore, the Assembly proposes measures like these:

• Limit the number of additives that can be used in processed and ultraprocessed food products; require them to be labeled.
• Introduce regulations limiting the salt, sugar, and trans fat content of processed foods.
• Restrict TV and other electronic marketing of products likely to harm the health of children.
• Guarantee the quality of food marketed overseas by restricting their sugar content.
• Make food education compulsory from pre-school on; include school meals in the education program; train teachers and staff.  This applies to all schools by 2019-2020.
• Implement Nutri-Score* on all processed and ultraprocessed food products produced in France.
• Require labeling of origin for processed and ultraprocessed products.
• Distinguish artisanal from industrial pastry products with a “made on site” label.

*Nutri-Score, as I have previously discussed, is a front-of-package labeling scheme that awards a letter grade to processed foods based on a combination of its desirable and undesirable nutrients (A is healthiest).

No wonder French food companies are upset.  The French National Assembly wants to hold them accountable.

Last week, the New York Times published an article about how the US was inserting provisions in NAFTA negotiations to restrict the ability of Mexico to put warning labels—similar to those in Chile and other countries—on ultraprocessed “junk” foods.

Urged on by big American food and soft-drink companies, the Trump administration is using the trade talks with Mexico and Canada to try to limit the ability of the pact’s three members — including the United States — to warn consumers about the dangers of junk food, according to confidential documents outlining the American position.

The American stance reflects an intensifying battle among trade officials, the food industry and governments across the hemisphere. The administration’s position could help insulate American manufacturers from pressure to include more explicit labels on their products, both abroad and in the United States. But health officials worry that it would also impede international efforts to contain a growing health crisis.

In response to questions by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Dem-Texas), US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer argues that front-of-package labels are a form of protectionism.

Really?

A more compelling reason is that food companies are worried about the possible spread of front-of-package warning labels like those in Chile, Ecuador, and other countries.

I have a long-standing interest in front-of-package labels and wrote about opposition to the warning-label movement recently in a commentary in the American Journal of Public Health.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a statement:

More countries, and certainly the United States, Canada, and Mexico, should give consumers easy-to-read front-of-package labeling that quickly communicates the information they need to avoid diet-related diseases…This is not an “America First” policy; it is an “Industry First” policy, conducted at the expense of the health of consumers in the U.S. and abroad.

Julia Belluz (Vox) describes the effects of a provision like this on Canada’s front-of-package labeling proposals.

Mexico’s outstanding food advocacy coalition, the Nutritional Health Alliance, argues that this pro-industry effort to block warning labels poses a serious threat to consumer rights and public health.

It held a press conference last week on this issue and has produced background documents (in Spanish, but it’s always fun to try Google Translate):

• Descarga anexo de etiquetados de advertencia aquí (examples of FOP labeling from the Americas region)
• Descarga nota jurídica en torno a la homologación de etiquetados EU-México aquí (legal commentary on how such treaties violate health and consumer rights and are illegal in Mexico)
• Descarga comunicado de prensa respectivo aquí (press release)

The Israeli health ministry has developed a new front-of-package labeling scheme for foods to choose (green) and to avoid (red).  Here are the red labels:

The Israeli food industry, no surprise, does not want labels that might discourage purchases.   According to the Jerusalem Post:

Bowing to pressure from the local food manufacturing industry and importers via their lobbyists,
the Health Ministry on Wednesday decided to postpone implementation of reform it initiated last
year to mark food packages with red or green circles that will indicate whether or not the food is
healthful.
Instead of these designations being required in March 2018 as initially proposed, they will be
mandatory on only some products from January 2020. Requirements will become a bit stricter a
year later.

Here’s my prediction: front-of-package labels will be a big international deal this year and I will be writing about them often.

Hat tip to Bernard Epel of Tel Aviv University for forwarding this information.