From Our Print Edition

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed new front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels for most packaged foods. The labels aim to fight what health experts see as a chronic disease crisis gripping America. The question facing food brands, food retailers and others interested in a healthier nation is whether the labels, well-intentioned as they may be, will do what they set out to do.

The proposed labels will provide information on a food’s saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. It will further identify whether the item contains low, medium or high levels of those nutrients. The FDA says that this condensed information will complement the more detailed nutritional information displayed on the back of packages.

THE FDA CASE

“The science on saturated fat, sodium and added sugars is clear,” says former FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “Nearly everyone knows or cares for someone with a chronic disease that is due, in part, to the food we eat. It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go. Adding front-of package nutrition labeling to most packaged foods would do that.”

The FDA says 60% of Americans suffer from one or more chronic illnesses, such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease, the leading causes of disability and death in the U.S. The agency points to a growing body of medical research that connects chronic diseases to excessive consumption of saturated fat, sodium and added sugars.

‘Consumers are already familiar with the Facts Up Front icons.’

These nutrients are often found in ultra-processed foods, which have been singled out by Marty Makary, M.D., a cancer surgeon and public health advocate at Johns Hopkins who has been nominated by President Trump to replace Califf as the head of the FDA. In past statements and in his book Blind Spots, Makary has suggested that ultra-processed foods and pesticides used in farming may be tied to the growing number of chronic disease cases. (As of press time, Makary had yet to be confirmed.)

The FDA has opened a period for feedback on the proposal, which runs through May 16. Under the proposal, most packaged foods companies with annual sales of $10 million or more would have three years to add the FOP labels to their products. Smaller manufacturers will get an additional year.

PROS AND CONS

The American Heart Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) are among health ad- vocacy groups supporting the FOP plan. Based in Washington, D.C., CSPI points to more than a dozen other countries worldwide with similar FOP systems. “U.S. adults consume 50% more sodium, 40% more added sugars and 30% more saturated fat per day than the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends,” says Peter Lurie, M.D., MPH, president and executive director at CSPI. “Numerous randomized trials and evaluations of front-of-package labeling policies from other countries show that these policies help consumers make healthier choices and cut back on these nutrients, which are linked to chronic disease when consumed in excess.”

Jennifer Hatcher, chief public policy officer at FMI — The Food Industry Association, Arlington, Va., says the group supports the FDA’s goal of reducing the incidence of chronic diseases by giving consumers the information they need to make informed nutritional decisions in the pursuit of better health. However, she expresses concerns about the efficacy of the FDA’s FOP plan and its potential operational and financial impact on FMI members and their product suppliers.

The FDA’s proposed front-of- package nutrition labels would affect almost all consumer packaged goods companies.

Hatcher questions whether the FDA’s rules amount to an attempt to reinvent the wheel. She points to the Facts Up Front (FUF) labeling program, which FMI co-created, as a better alternative. The voluntary labeling program highlights nutritional information, including calories, saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. It also allows for the inclusion of beneficial nutrients like calcium and fiber.

“Given that consumers are already familiar with the FUF icons on well over 200,000 products, we are disap- pointed that it was not selected as part of FDA’s proposed rule,” says Hatcher.

FMI is also concerned that some companies may find the cost of complying with the rule to be financially onerous.

“We are concerned that the FOP scheme would be required to appear on the upper third of the principal display panel. This would require a redesign of most packaging labels and displace other important information like date labels, leading to significant cost increases with limit- ed corresponding benefit to public health,” adds Hatcher.

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS WEIGH IN

The Consumer Brands Association (CBA), representing grocery manufacturers from its headquarters in the nation’s capital, is concerned with multiple aspects of the FDA’s FOP plan.

Sarah Gallo, CBA’s senior vp of product policy, says the FDA proposal fails to take industry input into account. She believes the agency would be better off supporting FUF or SmartLabel, two established nutritional information programs with buy-in from the consumer packaged goods industry and food retailers.

“The proposed [FDA] rule does not include the latest research, [which demonstrates] that data-driven labels that reinforce important nutrient information, including calories, nutrients to encourage and nutrients to limit, are most effective in helping consumers make the healthiest choice,” says Gallo.

Alison Bodor, president and CEO of the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), McLean, Va., also has reservations about the FDA’s proposal. “It’s important to note that FDA released both its final Healthy rule and proposed Front of Pack Labeling within weeks of each other. While we have been pleased with FDA’s stakeholder engagement on the Healthy rule, there is potential conflicting guidance with Front of Pack labeling. AFFI will be engaging with FDA to share this feedback and ensure that any final rule reduces consumer confusion.”