Search results: front-of-package

How about let’s end this year with some cheery news.

The Global Health Advocacy Indicator (“Changing Policies to Save Lives”) has produced a series of international case studies of successful advocacy for a healthier food environment.

• How Advocates Protected Heart Health in Brazil: Brazil approved strict limits on trans fat in food following strategic advocacy led by local civil society organizations supported by the Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI). Our new case study describes the process and lessons learned. Read the case study
• A Victory for Healthy Food Policy in Argentina: Argentina passed a Front of Package Labels bill with some of the strongest standards in the region in October, thanks to incredible advocacy by civil society organizations FIC Argentina, Fundeps, SANAR and Consumidores Argentinos.  Read more
• How Advocacy Communications Supported Healthy Food Policy in Colombia: Colombia adopted a new Front of Package Labels law in August. We asked our civil partners how they how they used communications to advance advocacy and mobilize public support. Read the responses from Red PaPaz, Colectivo de Abogados, Dejusticia and FIAN Colombia. Read the responses
• Trans Fat Policy Win in Bangladesh: In November, Bangladesh set new trans fat limits in line with international best practices. “The approval of trans fat regulations in Bangladesh illustrates the power of civil society advocates to impact public health policy,” said Muhammad Ruhul Quddus, GHAI’s coordinator of cardiovascular health work in Bangladesh. Read more
• Case Study: Trans Fat Elimination in the Philippines: Read our new case study about the advocacy that led the Philippines to mandate the elimination of industrially produced trans fat from its food supply in July.  Read the case study
• Resource: Legal Issues in the Design and Implementation of Public Health Measures: Our new resource, Legal Issues in the Design and Implementation of Public Health Measures, describes how our legal experts evaluate public health policies and legislation. Download the Guide
• Report: Behind the Labels: Big Food’s War on Healthy Food Policies:  Our new report describes how the ultra-processed food and beverage product industry is attempting to derail effective front-of-package warning label policies, and shares key activities public health advocates are using in response. View the report
• New Case Study: Protecting Heart Health in India: Our new case studies describes how Indian advocates supported new national limits on trans fat, a particularly harmful food component.  Read the case study

Advocacy can succeed when it is done well.  It’s working in all these countries.  We could do that too!

The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) has developed a Nutrient Profile Model, which it describes as “a tool to classify processed and ultra-processed food and drink products that are in excess of critical nutrients such as sugars, sodium, total fat, saturated fat and trans-fatty acids.”

To understand how it works, go to the website.  Watch the video.

Its purpose, as explained in the print publication is to help governments to identify unhealthy products and use public policies to discourage the consumption of those products.

The Expert Consultation Group described in this report was commissioned to develop a Nutrient Profile Model for the Pan American Health Organization – the PAHO NP Model – to be used as a tool in
the design and implementation of various regulatory strategies related to the prevention and control of obesity/overweight, including the following:
• Restriction in the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children
• Regulation of school food environments (feeding programs and food and beverages sold in schools)
• Use of front-of-package (FOP) warning labels
• Definition of taxation policies to limit consumption of unhealthy food
• Assessment of agricultural subsidies
• Identification of foods to be provided by social programs to vulnerable groups.

The criteria for ultra-processed foods to be avoided or eaten in small amounts:

It’s a start.

PAHO produces its  Nutrient Profile Tool in Spanish, of course: Perfil de Nutrientes – OPS/OMS | Organización Panamericana de la Salud (paho.org)a

It also has a report listing ultra-processed foods in Latin America, and many other useful documents.

As for me, I rather like the broader definition of ultra-processed foods described by the Brazilian public health academics who defined the term:

A practical way to identify an ultra-processed product is to check to see if its list of ingredients contain…either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).

All of these are great resources for food policy in Latin America.

Let’s hope governments respond.

I always like writing about Nestlé, the huge multi-national food company based in Switzerland, because it gives me the opportunity to explain that no, I am not related to it (although colleagues have suggested that I claim to be the black sheep of the family).

Judith Evans, writing in the Financial Times, had a big story about the company (behind a paywall but can also be read at the Irish Times site).

Its headline: “Nestlé says majority of its food portfolio is unhealthy.”  She based her story on a leaked internal document.

Nestlé, has acknowledged in an internal document that more than 60 per cent of its mainstream food and drinks products do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories and products will never be ‘healthy’ no matter how much we renovate”….Within its overall food and drink portfolio, some 70 per cent of Nestlé’s food products failed to meet that threshold [a rating above 3.5 under Australia’s health star rating system], the presentation said, along with 96 per cent of beverages – excluding pure coffee – and 99 per cent of Nestlé’s confectionery and ice cream portfolio.

Because infant formula, pet food, coffee, and the health sciences products were not counted in this analysis, the data apply to about half of Nestlé’s €84.35 billion ($102.6 billion) total annual revenues—Nestlé is indeed Big Food.

I was interviewed for this story, and quoted:

Marion Nestle (no relation), visiting professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University, [*] said Nestlé and its rivals would struggle to make their portfolios healthy overall.

“Food companies’ job is to generate money for stockholders, and to generate it as quickly and in as large an amount as possible. They are going to sell products that reach a mass audience and are bought by as many people as possible, that people want to buy, and that’s junk food,” she said.

“Nestlé is a very smart company, at least from my meetings with people who are in their science [departments] . . . but they have a real problem . . . Scientists have been working for years to try to figure out how to reduce the salt and sugar content without changing the flavour profile and, guess what, it’s hard to do.”

[*]  Oops.  That should have been Professor Emerita at NYU.  I asked for a correction and thought I had gotten one, but maybe only in the Financial Times.

I was also interviewed by Margarita Raycheva at IHS Market Connect(formerly Food Chemical News, and also behind a paywall):

Marion Nestle says labeling systems fail to account for ultraprocessed foods

While Nestlé’s plans to improve nutritional profiles have sparked some hope in nutrition experts like Hercberg, at least one other leading expert remains skeptical. According to Marion Nestle, a leading nutrition expert and professor at New York University, successful efforts to improve nutrition would have to go beyond meeting thresholds set through label ratings.

“What is at issue in this discussion is whether a somewhat healthier option is a better choice or even a good choice,” Nestle told IHS Markit on Monday (June 1).

While label-rating systems may flag some nutrients of concern, they do little to reduce consumption of ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to both obesity and chronic disease, Nestle noted.

“NutriScore gives points for less sugar and salt, even to foods that are still ultraprocessed, and so do other nutrient-based front-of-package labeling systems, making all of them gameable by taking off a gram or two,” she said.

“Calling for reduction of consumption of ultraprocessed foods is much simpler, but it would exclude most of Nestlé’s products, even with tweaks,” she added.

The Swiss food giant has confirmed it will update its nutrition and health strategy after British newspaper the Financial Times published leaked internal documents acknowledging that nearly 70% of its main food and drinks products, making up about half of Nestlé’s CHF92.6bn total annual sales, do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories will never be healthy”…. Read more

No matter how much Big Food companies say that want to promote health and wellness, they can only do so if their products continue to make the same kids of profits as do ultra-processed junk foods.  The company knows this and got caught saying so in public.

As for the uncounted other half of this company’s revenues? I’m keeping an eye on pet food.  Pet Food Industry reports that Nestlé is investing 1 billion yuan in pet food manufacturing in China.

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.

I was fascinated to see this FoodNavigator account of the recent United Nations’ call for action on nutrition.

The lengthy new UN resolution on “a healthier world through better nutrition” begins with pages of preliminary comments before getting to bland admonitions that member states should improve nutrition, health conditions, and living standards; address hunger and malnutrition; and promote food security, food safety, and sustainable, resilient, and diverse food systems.

The resolution encourages member states to strengthen nutrition policies that promote breastfeeding and control the marketing of breast-milk substitutes.

It also promotes physical activity. It

Calls upon Member States to develop actions to promote physical activity in the entire population and for all ages, through the provision of safe public environments and recreational spaces, the promotion of sports, physical education programmes in schools and urban planning which encourages active transport.

What got FoodNavigator’s—and my—attention, however, was its encouragement of member nations to:

develop health- and nutrition-promoting environments, including through nutrition education in schools and other education institutions, as appropriate.

Nutrition education?  That’s it on improving the nutrition environment?

Nothing about curbs on food industry marketing practices, front-of-package food labels, soda or sugar taxes, or other policies established to be effective in improving nutritional health (see, for example, the policies listed on the World Health Organization’s database, or the NOURISHING database of The World Cancer Research Fund).

The UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report on the value of education in improving the food environment.  Its author, Corinna Hawkes, makes it clear that education is useful, but is far more effective when it thoroughly involves policies to change the food environment.

nutrition education actions are more likely to yield positive results…when actions are implemented as part of large, multi-component interventions, rather than information provision or direct education alone. It is notable that governments have been taking an increasing number of actions involving multiple components, such as combining policies on nutrition labels with education campaigns, public awareness campaigns with food product reformulation, and school food standards with educational initiatives in schools.

The resolution says none of this.  Even so, it did not pass unanimously.  The vote:

• Yes:       157 countries
• No:           2 (Libya and the United States)
• Abstain:    1 (Hungary)

And why did the United States vote no?  The US mission to the UN explains its position on the grounds—and I am not making this up—that the resolution:

• Favors abortion:  “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”​
• Promotes free trade in medicines: “This could lead to misinterpretation of international trade obligations in a manner which may negatively affect countries’ abilities to incentivise new drug development and expand access to medicines.”​
• Promotes migration: “we believe [the resolution represents]…an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign rights of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws and interests.”​

To be clear: UN resolutions are non-binding.  The UN cannot tell member countries what to do.  All it can do is exert leadership and moral force.

When it comes to the food environment these days, we need all the moral force we can get.  We didn’t get it here.

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.

Danone North America, Mars Inc, Nestlé USA (no relation), and Unilever US have left the Grocery Manufacturers Association to form a new organization, the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance.

Its stated purpose (as explained in the press release):

• Consumer Transparency: Improving the quality and accessibility of information available to consumers about the food they purchase for themselves and their families.
• Environment: Advocating for innovative, science-based solutions to take action against the costly impacts of climate change, build more resilient communities, promote renewable energy, and further develop sustainable agriculture systems.
• Food Safety: Ensuring the quality and safety of food products and the global supply chain.
• Nutrition: Developing and advocating for policies that help people make better-informed food choices that contribute to healthy eating while supporting sustainable environmental practices.
• People and Communities: Advancing policies that promote a strong, diverse, and healthy workplace and support the supply chain, including rural economies.

The Alliance says it intends to:

• Urge policymakers to ensure the Farm Bill and other farm policies emphasize water quality and conservation issues, improved soil health, and renewable energy (particularly wind and solar).
• Explore the economics of sustainability, including financial incentives to reduce emissions and transition to low-carbon alternatives and to create value for farmers, ranchers, and others.
• Advocate on behalf of environmental policies at the state, national, and international levels, including the Paris Climate Agreement and Clean Power Plan.

Sounds good, no?

As I told the Washington Post, I would like

to see how the four companies address more inconvenient environmental and public health policies, such as limits on bottling water from national forests or mandated, front-of-package nutrition labeling. Those policies could potentially threaten their bottom lines — an issue Danone’s Lozano said his company did not face with its current efforts around sustainability.

Let’s give them credit for going after the low-hanging fruit first…But the real questions are what they will really do, and when.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Here is my favorite of USDA’s proposals for the front-of-package icon for GMO foods.

Translation: “be” means “bioengineered.”

Here are the options USDA proposes (thanks to FoodNavigator.com):

You can’t make this stuff up.

You have about 60 days to file comments.  By all means, do so.