Company insight
The FOPL initiative proposed by the FDA comes on the heels of other countries with interpretive labels or warning labels to help consumers clearly identify foods high in sodium, sugar and fat. FOPL is meant to complement the nutrition facts table but also provide an easy way for those who have difficulty interpreting it. This could include seniors, people with poor eyesight, who speak a different language or those with lower literacy rates.
■ South Africa – Like the work in process in the US, India and Canada, South Africa is also working towards regulations that mandate FOPL on packaged foods. These FOPL will be black and white triangular warning signs when a product is high in fat, sugar or salt.
■ Europe – European countries have been at the forefront of FOPL with the Nutri-Score (NS) rating. The NS rating is based on colour coding from ‘green’
“Based on a study of Phase I of Chile’s food labelling law and published in 2021 by ‘Lancet Planet Health’, it is estimated that purchases of food high in sodium decreased by 37% following implementation of FOPL regulations.”
A study published in the journal Nutrients in August 2022 positively demonstrated the presence of FOPL helped consumers to identify food products high in sodium, sugar and fat. Countries around the world are seeing the value of FOPL and are establishing guidelines for either voluntary or mandatory FOPL: ■ India – Similar to what has been recently proposed in the US, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is studying consumer acceptability, reliability and understandability of the currently used FOPL symbols. The food culture in India, like in so many countries, is experiencing increased consumption of processed food and seeing an increased rate of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, among other non-communicable diseases.
■ Canada – In 2022, Health Canada published regulations requiring FOPL on pre-packaged foods high in sodium, sugars, and saturated fat. Food manufacturers have until January 2026 to implement the changes, sparking reformulation and new product development work by companies who are looking to avoid adding warning labels to their products. Foods that contribute 15% or more of the daily value of sodium, sugar or saturated fat must display the new black and white, dual language nutrition label. For entrees with a serving size greater than 200g or packaged foods containing less than 30g, the threshold will be appropriately higher or lower.
Ingredients Insight /
www.ingredients-insight.com
for healthy, ‘orange’ for moderately healthy and ‘red’ for unhealthy. The NS rating is based on an algorithm and scores sugar, calories, salt and saturated fat. This system has been criticised for needing some knowledge of nutrition in order to decode the rating; however, researchers compared NS with other rating systems and determined it to be the best performing of those tested.
■ Thailand – As early as 2014, Thailand’s National Food Committee proposed a nutrition symbol to be placed on the front of packages to help consumers make healthy choices. The nutrient- specific data used in Thailand provides information without characterising the product as good or bad. While this method has helped lower the suspicion of FOPL being a way for marketers to encourage one brand over another, it still requires the consumer to have some knowledge of nutrition to decipher the nutritional value. Later in 2016, a voluntary “Healthier Choice” logo was introduced for certain foods indicating that the product met certain sugar, fat and sodium criteria, making it a healthy food choice.
■ Australia and New Zealand – The voluntary Health Star Rating (HSR) system used in Australia and New Zealand ranks the food product using stars. Through calculations, it compares negative nutrients (energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium) against positive nutrients (protein, dietary fibre, fruits,
vegetables, nuts and legumes) to score up to five stars for the nutritional profile of packaged foods. A recent change came into effect in November 2022 that gives lower ratings for products with high levels of salt and sugar.
■ Latin America and the Caribbean – Latin American countries have become leaders in promoting policies for FOPL. The Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) was the first to adopt WHO’s nutrient intake recommendations when devising its model for FOPL. Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil have all adopted some level of FOPL – over the past ten years. Based on a study of Phase I of Chile’s food labelling law and published in 2021 by Lancet Planet Health, it is estimated that purchases of food high in sodium decreased by 37% following implementation of FOPL regulations.
FOPL guides consumers’ decisions Across the globe, consumers are exposed to highly processed foods that are generally high in fat, sugar and sodium. The overconsumption of these unhealthy foods can increase the risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Will FOPL be enough to serve as warning signs and educate people to choose foods that promote a healthy eating pattern? Some say it’s a good start pointing in the right direction. Others say immediate action by food manufacturers to reduce fat, sugar and sodium is needed to offer healthier food in the first place. Much of the Western Hemisphere, Latin America and Canada, have jumped on board with FOPL. The US may be trailing behind now but is taking steps to research and propose a regulated FOPL system. It is a notable effort, one that will certainly raise debate among stakeholders in the US. It is critical that the ultimate goal – preventing diet-related non-communicable diseases – is not lost in the debate. Helping consumers make healthier eating choices, paired with food manufacturers offering healthier options, are key and sound strategies to achieve this goal. ●
www.nuteknatural.com 75
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90
