Front-of-pack labeling under controversy as experts spot shortcomings

16 Sep 2020 --- Color-coded front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) is the subject of controversy, with Copa and Cogeca – which represents European farmers and agri-cooperatives – arguing that the system “stigmatizes” highly nutritious products and often promotes unhealthy options.

Meanwhile, Action on Sugar (AoS) is firmly in favor of color-coded traffic light labeling, but is calling for the UK government to include free sugars on FOPL. This follows the discovery that 65 percent of children’s fruit snacks contain the equivalent of at least two teaspoons of sugar per portion.

“The ideal FOPL system would be color-coded traffic light labeling being mandatory across all products. Research shows that color-coding is beneficial in altering behavior resulting in consumers purchasing healthier options,” Holly Gabriel, nutritionist at AoS, tells NutritionInsight.

She explains that a color-coded system can show, at a glance, whether a product is high (red) medium (amber) or low (green) in fat, saturated fat, salt and sugars. Additionally, this labeling encourages companies to reformulate their products.

Reformulation is a major area of discussion for the F&B industry. Yesterday, Food and Drink Federation Scotland highlighted how it could be used as a tool to promote healthier lifestyles and habits.

Systems like Nutri-score rely on color to help consumers make purchasing decisions.

Points of contention
However, Copa and Cogeca flags a number of “concerns” about color-coded FOPL. It argues that the color system presents an over-simplistic classification of food products.

The organization also makes the point that the labels are not portion-based. It argues that olive oil receiving a low status based on 100 g is misleading as people are unlikely to consume this amount.

However, Gabriel of AoS notes that consumers do still use quantities of olive oil in foods like dressings and marinades, so the labels are a “good reminder.”

Finally, Copa and Cogeca notes that many geographic indication (GI) and traditional specialty guaranteed (TSG) products have a low score and cannot be reformulated.

It states that these offerings are an important part of European cultural and culinary heritage, and represent 7 percent of the total sales value of EU F&B products.

Weighing in, Gabriel comments: “FOPL should apply to all food and drinks. GI and TSG products are very niche products that can’t be reformulated, but they are a small number of products and should not be excluded.”

Broadening the system
One area that has been flagged by both Copa and Cogenca and AoSis the need for more nutrients being taken into account. Copa and Cogenca notes that the labels focus on a “very limited” number of nutrients, while AoSr specifically flags the need for more nuance around sugar.

In its survey of 56 coated, flavored, processed or extruded fruit-based products sold across leading UK grocery retailers, AoS found that all products would receive a red traffic light label for high sugars.

These are also categorized as “free sugars,” which the action group says should be reflected in mandatory FOPL instead of total sugars.

Gabriel states that fiber should also be highlighted as many UK consumers are not eating enough. “Public polling has shown us that people want these nutrients to be front-of-pack,” she says. Action on Sugar revealed that all surveyed fruit snacks would receive a red traffic light label for high sugars.

On-pack claims
AoS also argues that the fruit snacks feature “misleading” claims, with examples including “1 of your 5 a day,” “Naturally occurring sugars” or “Made from real fruit.”

“There should be no claims on products high in salt, fat and sugar (HFSS). Claims differ greatly and it may be beneficial to allow nutrition claims such as ‘high fiber,’ which is factual. However, these should never be allowed on products with added sugar such as breakfast cereal. This requires further research by those implementing this policy,” explains Gabriel.

Looking ahead to when the UK leaves the EU, she spots an opportunity to make positive changes that will boost UK consumers’ health.

“Trade deals could impact labeling changes, and we need to ensure that those negotiating trade deals are putting health first and prioritizing nutrition labeling. It took a long time to get traffic light labels implemented originally. To scrap it now to allow HFSS food to be imported would be really irresponsible,” concludes Gabriel.

By Katherine Durrell

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com