Packaged foods and drinks should have easy-to-read nutritional information on the front of products to help consumers make healthier choices, according to the World Health Organization’s first-ever draft guidelines that stop short of recommending stricter warning labels.
The increasing consumption of processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat is a major driver of the global obesity crisis, with more than a billion people living with the condition and an estimated eight million premature deaths each year from associated health problems such as diabetes and heart disease. The disease, according to World Health Organization data.
However, governments have struggled to introduce policies to curb the epidemic. The UN agency told Reuters that only 43 WHO member states currently have any type of front-of-pack labeling either mandatory or voluntary, despite evidence showing that labels can influence purchasing behaviour.
The World Health Organization began working on the draft guidelines, which had not been previously reported, in 2019. They aim to “support consumers in making healthy food decisions,” says Katrin Engelhart, a scientist in the WHO Department of Nutrition and Food Safety. He told Reuters via email.
The public consultation on the guidelines closed on October 11, and the final version will be released in early 2025.
WHO guidance recommends that governments implement “interpretive” labeling that includes nutritional information and some explanation of what this means in terms of the health of the product.
Get weekly health news
Get the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday.
An example is the NutriScore programme, developed in France and used in a number of European countries, which ranks foods from A (green, containing essential nutrients) to E (red, containing high levels of salts, sugars or fats). or added calories).
Chile and several other countries in Latin America use a stricter system, with warnings that a food is “high in sugar,” salt or fat on the front of the package, in a black octagon that resembles a stop sign. The food industry has backed away from warnings and favored “non-explanatory” labels, which include nutritional information but no guidance on how to understand what it means, said Lindsey Smith Tilley, a food labeling expert and co-director of the Global Food Research Program at the University of Chapel Hill in North Carolina. So, like those used in the United States.
US Senator Bernie Sanders this week announced plans to hold a Senate hearing on stricter food labeling in December. While the WHO’s recommendation goes further than industry preferences, it is “fairly weak,” Tiley said.
“The most important thing for most countries globally is to reduce excessive intake of added sugars, sodium, saturated fats and ultra-processed foods in general – which is what warning labels do best.”
Research conducted by Taillie this summer showed that warning labels in Chile, combined with other policies such as marketing restrictions to children, meant Chileans bought 37% less sugar, 22% less sodium, 16% less saturated fat, and 16% fewer calories. 23% compared to if the law did not stipulate this. It has been implemented.
The World Health Organization said there was not enough evidence to determine the best naming system.
The International Food and Beverage Alliance, whose members include Coca-Cola and Mondelez International, said that its members already have the minimum global standards around the world. It includes listing nutrients on the back of packages, as well as front-of-pack details on at least energy content where possible, in line with the international Codex Alimentarius system.
“This is something that global companies can do, but it is clearly not enough because if you take Nigeria or Pakistan… local producers dominate the market,” said Rocco Rinaldi, FIBA Secretary General. He said coalition members broadly support WHO guidelines and nutrient-based labels.
“But the devil is in the details,” he added. “In general, we do not support tactics that discredit certain products.” “We do not believe that health warning labels belong on food products that are considered safe, approved, on the market, and loved by consumers.”
(Reporting by Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Michelle Gershberg and Kim Coghill)
