The food industry has sounded the alarm about as-yet-unannounced plans that could change package labeling, and companies have warned they will oppose the new order.
The Biden administration has directed the Food and Drug Administration to create a system of front-of-package labels for food. Nutrition and consumer advocates say that with diet-related illnesses on the rise and more than 40 percent of Americans obese, labels like this help consumers make better nutrition choices. said it is possible.
Current industry regulations require that nutritional information, such as serving size and sodium, be printed on the back of food packaging. Nutrition labels were last updated in 2016, more than 20 years later, with changes such as bolding calorie counts and disclosing the amount of added sugar. Food companies want the posting of such nutritional information to remain voluntary. They warn that inflation could push consumer prices even higher.
Photographer: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images
A woman buys frozen meals, sodas, and other sugary drinks at a supermarket in Monterey Park, California, in 2014.
“Skull and Crossbones is an attempt to keep consumers away from certain types of products or to take away the autonomy to make the right choices for consumers and their families, which is something we are concerned about.” PepsiCo Vice President in charge of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association, which is a member of major food companies such as. Inc. and General Mills Inc. are its members.
Although the FDA has not yet developed a concrete plan for front-of-package labeling, an FDA spokesperson has expanded research on the topic, examining systems in other countries and convening focus groups to encourage consumption. said it plans to assess how people feel about the label. label. Other countries have also mandated changes in recent years, with Mexico adopting stop sign icons in 2020, he said, to indicate that food contains too much of nutrients such as sugar and fat.
Read more: US aims to change ‘healthy’ food labels to fight malnutrition
“Slightly Temporary”
The Summit on Hunger, Nutrition and Health held at the White House in September produced an extensive list of policy recommendations. Last month, the FDA announced plans to change the standards companies can use to label their food products as “healthy.” This highlights the nutritional industry’s increased focus on the risks of added sugars and reduced fat content.
Changes to food labeling standards across the industry could affect more products, and consumer advocates say it could have a bigger impact on Americans’ food intake.
“The wording is a little tentative, but it’s certainly something you’ve never heard before,” said Peter Lurie, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. to require front-of-package labels that show the amount of nutrients in foods, such as warning marks if snacks contain too much sodium.
A survey by the International Food Information Council found that more than half of consumers said the label on the front of the package influences their food decisions, and more than 20% said it had a significant impact. says. However, not all labels on the front of packages are the same. Lurie is wary of food labels that list specific nutrient numbers without including the context informing consumers of the amount of that particular nutrient.
A trade group has devised a voluntary label called Facts Up Front. It is already used by many companies including Kellogg’s and Coca-Cola. The system allows companies to place nutritional amounts of calories, saturated fat, sodium, sugars, and other nutrients on the front of food packages. Food companies argue that a voluntary program will suffice.
FMI Chief Public Policy Officer Jennifer Hatcher said: The trade group has also created a digital her label that allows customers to check more detailed nutritional information on the Internet, Hatcher said.
The Facts Up Front style guide has recently been updated with added sugar. This highlights the benefits of an industry-led, voluntary approach to front-of-package labeling, according to Gallo of the Consumer Brands Association.
“We are a little more agile and move a little faster than the agency itself,” Gallo said.
inflation, legal risk
Lurie dismissed the idea of voluntarily changing nutritional information from back to front of the package.
“We don’t get any interpretation. It’s arbitrary,” he said. “So we don’t think this is an appropriate intervention.”
Interpretive labels that use things like traffic lights and stop signs to warn people about certain snacks — what many consumer groups want — have drawn fierce opposition from big food companies.
Jason Crotta, president of the Midwestern Food Association, said it would be costly to force businesses to do so because food prices are already so high. Food costs jumped him 13% in September from a year earlier, according to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
READ MORE: Rising Food Costs Hit Biden, Putting More Pressure on US Consumers
Culotta said his industry group, which primarily includes canned and frozen food processors, is concerned that it will require companies to comply with another label change after it has already transitioned under the FDA’s new 2016 label. said.
An order from the FDA may also face legal challenges from companies. Gallo said the Consumer Brands Association will analyze the legal implications of such changes, including whether it has the authority to enforce such changes.
Jennifer Pomerantz, a public health attorney and assistant professor at New York University, said the FDA needs to consider potential free speech issues when drafting its regulations. Food companies have used the First Amendment to oppose mandatory disclosure in the past, and such arguments could be triggered if the FDA required certain types of labeling. Tobacco companies won a major lawsuit challenging certain health labels in 2012 with similar free speech claims.
“I would like each agency to consider this,” Pomerantz said, adding that commercial speech has constitutional protection and rulemaking needs to recognize it. “There are hundreds of options, some clear choices that violate the First Amendment, some clear choices that don’t, and some ambiguous choices in between.”
To contact the reporter of this article: Maeve Sheehy in Washington msheehey@bloombergindustry.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Anna Yukhanov and ayukhananov@bloombergindustry.com; Robin Mesory and rmeszoly@bgov.com
Comments
Post a Comment