A human rights-based approach to non-communicable diseases: mandating front-of-package warning labels

Need for a Strong FOPL in India-position Statement

Due to lifestyle changes, urbanization, and the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPF), India is undergoing a rapid nutritional transformation. These dietary shifts have significantly contributed to the rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which now account for a substantial portion of mortality and disease burden in the country. A strong Front-of-Pack Labeling (FOPL) system is recommended in this position statement as a powerful public health tool to address this issue. Through the provision of easily comprehensible nutritional data, FOPL encourages food producers to create healthier goods while empowering customers to make educated dietary decisions. Current labeling practices in India, such as the Indian Nutritional Rating (INR), fall short due to complexity and voluntary implementation. This paper evaluates international best practices, including warning labels and color-coded systems, highlighting their effectiveness in reducing the consumption of high-risk foods. We argue for straightforward, uniform, and globally evidence-based approach to mandatory FOPL implementation. Policymakers, industry stakeholders, and public health advocates must collaborate to develop an FOPL system that addresses India's unique dietary landscape. Such an initiative is crucial to reducing the NCD burden and fostering healthier eating habits nationwide.

Do they really support "your freedom of choice"? FoPNL and the food industry in Brazil

Introduction

In 2020, Brazil approved the introduction of a new front-of-package nutrition labeling (FoPNL) in the format of a magnifying glass (MG) after years of discussion. There is currently a lack of understanding of the role of the food industry in that process. This study aimed to describe the corporate political activity (CPA) of the food industry and conflicts of interest situations, as they happened during the development and approval of a new FoPNL system in Brazil.

Materials and methods

We undertook bibliographical and documentary searches using material from food companies, trade associations and front groups involved in the regulatory process. We (1) collected information about the case study context, (2) collected data from documentary sources, and (3) prepared a synthesis of the results and a timeline of key events.

Results/Discussion

During the FoPNL regulatory process in Brazil, the food industry opposed the introduction of warning labels, a model supported by health authorities and implemented with success in other countries in Latin America. The food industry rather promoted a traffic-light labeling system, known to be less effective at guiding individuals to make healthier food choices. Later in the process, when it was evident that its preferred model would not be used, and a MG would rather be introduced, the food industry argued for the use of a different version of this FoPNL model. We found that the food industry, all along the process, was directly involved in and influenced the development of the FoPNL, by providing technical support, advising and lobbying policymakers. The food industry also established relationships with a consumer non-governmental organization and nutrition professional societies. The food industry also produced and disseminated information supporting its position in order to influence public opinion and high-level decision makers, and used the legal system to delay the process.

Conclusion

The FoPNL in Brazil is neither aligned with the recommendations of international health organizations nor with existing independent scientific evidence. The new FoPNL, as adopted in Brazil, reflects some of the preferences of the industry; it is likely that the influence of that sector during the legislative process was pivotal, even if its initial proposal was not adopted.

Commercial Speech and Unhealthy Food Products: Conceptual Foundations

This article provides a critical and philosophical assessment of arguments invoked for and against the constitutional protection of commercial expression and the regulation of commercial speech with a focus on the commercialization of unhealthy food products.