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

The Consumer Brands Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers Association) did a survey to prove that its icons on the front of cereal boxes and some other products are trusted by consumers: Facts up Front label earns high marks for trust in new survey

Why wouldn’t they be trusted?  They merely repeat what’s on the Nutrition Facts label.

But here’ what they say:

A new study released by the Consumer Brands Association (CBA) finds overwhelming consumer recognition and trust in the Facts up Front (FUF) label, reinforcing the role of front-of-pack nutrition labeling in helping Americans make informed food and beverage choices.

The nationally representative survey, conducted in May 2025 by independent research firm Savanta, shows that 90% of U.S. adults recognize the FUF label, with nearly 8 in 10 (79%) checking it before purchasing new products. Additionally, 75% of adults reported trusting the nutrition information it provides.

I find this really hard to believe.  I don’t think anyone pays any attention to these things.

Here’s what they are talking about.

I see them on cereal boxes, but not much else.

For the first four items, they say exactly what the Nutrition Facts label says.  They are also allowed to include “two nutrients to encourage.”  These can include dietary fiber, protein, vitamin D, calcium, iron, potassium, vitamin A and vitamin C.

Why would the Consumer Brands Association do this survey?

I’m guessing because the Association, which represents makers of ultra-processed foods, greatly prefers Facts Up Front to the FDA’s proposed “Healthy” label or its proposed front-of-package label or—heaven forbid—the kinds of warning labels that appear on packages in several Latin American countries.

Warning labels

• Can be understood by children
• Can be understood by people who can’t read
• Demontrably reduce purchases of labeled foods

None of these is true of Facts Up Front.

Hence the survey.

With much fanfare, the FDA released its proposed rule for a new front-of-package summary of the Nutrition Facts panel.  I’ve written about the history of this previously.

Of all the options tested (Food Fix had the best summary), the FDA picked this one—not my first choice.

Why not?  I don’t think it’s much of an improvement over this one, produced by industry to head off something that might be more useful.  This one is easy to ignore and pretty much everyone does.  The FDA’s is a bit better, but not nearly enough.

I was hoping the FDA would at least use traffic light colors.  Even more, I wish the FDA had used “High in” warning labels used in Latin America.

These have been shown to be highly effective in discouraging purchases of food products high in sugar, saturated fat, sodium, and calories—the point of this exercise, after all (and why the food industry so opposes it).

Will this label do as well?  We will have to wait and find out.

In the meantime, this is your chance to comment.  Please do.

To Submit Comments

Comments on the proposed rule can be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov by May 16, 2025.

Written comments can be submitted to:
Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
All written comments should be identified with the docket number FDA-2024-N-2910 and with the title “Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information.”

Here’s what the FDA says about Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling.

To meet the updated criteria for the claim, a food product needs to

1. contain a certain amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (such as fruit, vegetables, grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy and protein foods) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and
2. meet specific limits for added sugars, saturated fat and sodium.

To qualify, a breakfast cereal, bread, or any other grain food would need to have 3/4 ounce of whole grains, and have less than 10% of the Daily Value for added sugars (5 grams per serving), less than 10% for sodium (230 mg per serving), and less that 1 gram of saturated fat (5% DV).

On this basis, kids cereals won’t qualify.

Oh.  And the FDA is still working on the symbol.

Resources

• Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling | FDA
• FDA Finalizes Updated “Healthy” Nutrient Content Claim | FDA
• Constituent update
• FDA’s Updated “Healthy” Claim Definition: Fact Sheet
• Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-29957.pdf
• New York Times: What Are ‘Healthy’ Foods? The F.D.A. Updates the Labeling Terms
• The Hill: FDA updates definition of ‘healthy’ on food labels for first time in 30 years

A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post explains why the FDA should establish front-of-package nutrition labeling here and now: These countries are doing nutrition labels the right way

Christina Roberto, Alyssa Moran, and Kelly Brownell contrast the “stop signs you’ll see in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system used in France, or the Health Star Ratings in New Zealand” with the current lack of a system like those in the United States.

The only thing standing in the way: the food industry. It favors a label that displays grams or milligrams of key nutrients along with percent Daily Values — much like the Nutrition Facts Labelcurrently on the back or side of packages. ..By using symbols, colors and simple language, front-of-package labels adopted by other countries have educated people about what’s in their food, helped them make healthier choices and even encouraged companies to reduce salt and sugar in their products.

And here’s Fortune on the same topic, especially Nutri-Score.

This makes me think it’s time to review what’s happening in Europe with Nutri-Score.  I’ve written about this system previously, most recently here and about Its founder, Serge Hercberg’s, fights with the food industry here.

As a reminder, Nutri-Score accounts for nutrients but also sugar, salt, and saturated fat, in a composite grade A (eat) to E (avoid).

The food industry hates it.  For example, an article by authors with ties to industry argues that there is no independent evidence to support the value of Nutri-Score.  This induced Hercberg et al to rebut those points.

In response to some of these criticisms, the Nutri-Score team is updating its algorithm to respond to concerns about ultra-processing, among other matters.  See: Nutri-Score 2023 Update in Nature Food.

And despite the arguments, support for Nutri-Score is growing.  Authors not connected to Nutri-Score recommend it over other types of labeling for adoption by 27 EU nations.  See: Establishing an EU-wide front-of-pack nutrition label: Review of options and model-based evaluation.  Obesity Reviews, 07 February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13719

Nutri-Score is currently used in seven European countries.  It is backed by the European Public Health Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The food industry can complain all it wants, I’m guessing Nutri-Score is here to stay.  It may not capture all ultra-processed foods, but it comes close and revising the design like this should help solve that problem.

Let’s start the new year with some good news.

I was excited to read in The Lancet that Colombia has enacted a tax on junk foods.

The new tax was included in a wider reform that passed into law in December, 2022, seeking to reduce the
burden of obesity and other diseases on Colombia’s health system, while also bringing in revenue in a country that manages a fiscal deficit.

This is a tax on ultra-processed foods!

The tax is being implemented gradually, beginning at 10%, before rising to 15% in 2024 and 20% in 2025, and targets foods are high in salt and saturated fat, as well as industrially manufactured prepackaged foods.

Colombia already has warning labels.  Here’s who else has them.

The warning label movement!

Now, if we only could get these in the U.S….

But note: not everyone loves the tax.  The Guardian reports charges that it is unfair to the poor.  But so is type 2 diabetes.

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.