In the previous article, we based our discussion on whether the food content high in sugar, salt and fat should have warning labels.
Let us discuss exactly first on the types of warning labels on front-of-pack
A front-of-pack label is a simplified nutrition communication system placed on the front of a packaged food or beverage.
There are several different styles of it
A] Warning labels
They identify nutrients present in excessive amounts
Eg HIGH IN SUGAR
B] Traffic-light labels
Colours such as green, amber and red to communicate whether the amount of a nutrient is low, medium or high.
C] Nutrient-summary systems
These provide information such as calories, sugar, fat or sodium relative to a reference intake.
Now, the question here would arise is why should we not use the existing nutrition label that currently exists in our system?
Most packaged foods carry a nutrition information panel. So why add another label?
The answer is information processing.
Nutrition panels require consumers to locate information, understand serving sizes, compare products and interpret numerical values.
For example, suppose a packet says: Total sugars: 18 g per 100 g
Is that high? Consumers will have to search up more information to interpret this understanding.
How about: Sodium - 450 mg per 100 g
Does that quantify as a lot?
The average consumer may not know.
A prominent warning converts a numerical question into a much simpler decision cue. Eg “High in sugar” which requires considerably less interpretation.
This is particularly relevant because nutrition labels are read by consumers with different levels of literacy.
What does the Indian evidence tell us?
A randomized field experiment involving 2,869 Indian adults across six states compared several types of front-of-pack labels, including warning labels, traffic-light labels, Guideline Daily Amount information and Health Star Ratings. Participants were shown packaged foods high in sugar, sodium or saturated fat. [1]
The results were striking. Among participants who saw the control label, only 39.1% correctly identified all products high in nutrients of concern.
With a warning-label system, this increased to 60.8%.Traffic-light labels increased correct identification to 54.8%, while Guideline Daily Amount labels increased it to 55.0% and Health Star Ratings to 45.0%. [1]
In other words, the warning label substantially improved consumer's ability to recognise products high in nutrients of concern.
The study however did not find that the labels reduced stated purchase intentions. This distinction matters.
A label can improve knowledge without necessarily changing behaviour and changing behaviour is ultimately what public-health policy aims.
The researchers therefore concluded that warning labels appeared particularly effective for helping Indian consumers identify products high in nutrients of concern, while noting that further research using behavioural outcomes would be needed. [1]
Evidences from other countries
One of the most studied examples in this is Chile.
Chile introduced a comprehensive food-labelling and marketing law in 2016. The policy included mandatory front-of-pack warning labels, restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children and restrictions on the sale of certain products in schools. [2]
Researchers examining household beverage purchases found that purchases of beverages classified as “high in” nutrients of concern decreased substantially after implementation.
High-in beverage purchases fell by approximately 23.7%, equivalent to around 22.8 mL per capita per day. Purchases of sugar and calories from these beverages also declined. [2]
More importantly, subsequent research examining the longer-term effects found continued reductions.
Three years after implementation, purchases of products high in nutrients of concern were associated with reductions of approximately:
36.8% in sugar
23.0% in energy
21.9% in sodium
15.7% in saturated fat
compared with the counterfactual trend. [3]
These findings are encouraging, but they require careful interpretation.
Chile did not introduce warning labels in isolation. Its policy also included restrictions on marketing to children, school sales restrictions and later advertising restrictions.
References:
1] Singh SK, et al. Front-of-package labels on unhealthy packaged foods in India: evidence from a randomized field experiment. Nutrients. 2022;14(15):3188.
2] Taillie LS, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Popkin B, Corvalán C. An evaluation of Chile's Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: a before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):e1003015.
3] Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, Rebolledo N, Reyes M, Corvalán C. Decreases in purchases of energy, sodium, sugar, and saturated fat 3 years after implementation of the Chilean food labeling and marketing law: an interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2024;21(9):e1004463.