Food labelling was introduced as a safety measure for consumers due to foodborne illness outbreaks in the 1850s. The United States became the first country to enact mandatory food labelling in 1913 when it passed the Gould Net Weight Amendment to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, paving the way for the adoption of mandatory nutrition labelling later in the twentieth century.ah, ai, 264 By the 1960s, food labels did not provide any information regarding the nutrient content of the food, as there was little demand for nutritional information. Although humans have been processing food ever since learning how to cook, preserve, ferment, freeze, dry or extract, the influx of modern processed foods entering the marketplace since the 1960s has led consumers to seek information to better understand the products they purchase.
Food labelling is one of the primary means of communication between actors along the value chain from the producer to the consumer.265 Nutrition labelling is used to convey the nutritional characteristics and attributes of food products to consumers, enabling them to make informed food choices.266 In 1987, the American Heart Association created the Heart Guide symbol, the first food label that aimed to provide consumers with a single symbol that would indicate whether a food was “heart-friendly”.267 Since then, systems and symbols used in food labelling have proliferated. A variety of systems have been developed by food manufacturers, retailers, non-industry experts, nonprofit organizations, industry and non-industry consortia, and government agencies.
In 2004, WHO first proposed nutrition front-of-package-labelling (FoPL) as a policy measure to improve diets and health.268 The objective of FoPL is twofold: (i) to provide consumers with additional information for healthier food choices; and (ii) to encourage the industry to reformulate products for healthier options.269 Globally, FoPL has been implemented through government policies in a myriad of ways utilizing different terminology.
There are two main approaches to characterize FoPL, which are the level of interpretation and the type of information provided (see examples in Table 5.1). Non-interpretive schemes only include the transfer of some or all the nutrition information through a logo considered relevant from the nutrient declaration, without any guidance on the interpretation of the label. Interpretive schemes such as warning labels, multiple traffic lights and Nutri-Score appear to lead to better consumer understanding and support healthier food purchases. FoPL effectiveness depends on intrinsic factors (e.g. food taste) and extrinsic factors (e.g. price, food category, culture, politics and economics). Lack of availability of similar alternatives, low understanding of FoPL importance, and lower income and education levels also impair FoPL effectiveness.270
TABLE 5.1EXAMPLES OF INTERPRETIVE AND NON-INTERPRETIVE FRONT-OF-PACKAGE LABELLING
SOURCE: Authors’ own elaboration based on Croker, H., Packer, J., Russell, S.J., Stansfield, C. & Viner, R.M. 2020. Front of pack nutritional labelling schemes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence relating to objectively measured consumption and purchasing. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 33(4): 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12758
Policies that require simplified FoPL are becoming increasingly common across the globe to contribute to a healthy food environment and enable consumers to make more nutritious food choices. This is because a more simplified nutrition labelling scheme provides supplementary nutritional information in the form of an easy-to-understand label displayed on food products on the front of the pack, providing the content of foods, drawing consumer attention to the benefits and risks of particular nutrients or ingredients of public health concern, and motivating manufacturers to produce foods that have healthier nutrition profiles. As of 2022, 44 countries had introduced simplified nutrition labelling systems. The protection of public health is the driving factor behind the proliferation of such schemes.271
Labelling policies within the World Trade Organization framework
There has been increasing global interest in nutrition labelling as a policy tool through which governments can guide consumers to make informed food purchases and shift demand towards healthy diets. This interest comes as countries contend with an emerging epidemic of diet-related NCDs. Nutrition labelling includes nutritional specifications, which could be mandatory for pre-packaged foods and defined nutrients, and supplementary nutrition information including FoPLs.
Mandatory FoPL initiatives have been raised several times as specific trade concerns in the WTO TBT Committee (see Box 5.4). Although nutrition labelling has been consistently considered as a legitimate policy objective in a TBT context, queries are being raised regarding the potential trade restrictiveness of the measures, as well as the scientific evidence for their effectiveness and consistency with international standards. Under Article 2.5 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, WTO members can request justifications for another member’s measure if it significantly impacted trade. The reasoning should be based specifically on Articles 2.2 and 2.3, including the ‘’necessity test’’ of the policy in relation to its impact on trade, its effectiveness in achieving the objective of the measure, its proportionality to the impact involved, and whether there are alternative measures that could address the objective with less impact on trade.aj
BOX 5.4Nutrition labelling and the World Trade Organization Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was founded in 1995. Two agreements that were established at this time, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), are relevant to food labelling standards. The scope of measures covered by the two agreements is wide. These agreements aim to strike a balance between legitimate objectives such as consumer and human health promotion without creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It is important to refer to both agreements when developing a labelling policy. According to the SPS Agreement, sanitary or phytosanitary measures include all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures, as well as packaging and labelling requirements directly related to food safety. In this context, the Agreement would cover labels that provide health warnings, information on product usage, and food additive dosages as well as labelling that includes information on food additives, contaminants, pesticides and veterinary drug residues.
The TBT Agreement encompasses most other types of food labelling. The primary objective of the TBT Agreement is to ensure that technical regulations and standards, and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to international trade. This includes packaging, marketing and labelling requirements. The TBT Agreement acknowledges that members have the right to take necessary measures to ensure the quality of their exports, protect human, animal, or plant life or health, safeguard the environment, or prevent deceptive practices. However, these measures should not be applied in a way that discriminates between countries where the same conditions exist or restricts trade in a disguised manner.
The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and trade concerns
Both the SPS and TBT Agreements require members to provide notifications of draft regulations on SPS and TBT measures that affect trade and provide sufficient information before it enters into force so that trading partners have the opportunity to provide comments when a draft regulation raises concerns, or to even use the formal dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. Overall, the WTO provisions offer a comprehensive framework for addressing trade concerns and promoting cooperation among its members to facilitate smooth and predictable international trade relations.
A quantitative dataset was created to assess the extent of specific trade concerns and their impact on food and beverage regulations from 1995 to 2016.ak, 272 This study elucidated a systematic understanding of the frequency and scope of trade rules being appealed to influence the regulations. For this report, this dataset has been updated to cover the period from 1995 to 2023. The expanded dataset examines the challenges related to food and beverages only and includes an analysis of the scope, frequency and content of specific trade concerns. It also illustrates how specific trade concerns can be used to influence regulations that target products central to preventing NCDs such as ultra-processed foods, soft drinks and energy drinks within the TBT framework.
The analysis of specific trade concerns at the TBT Committee demonstrates that a growing number of food and beverage regulations are extensively scrutinized and contested on the basis of a purported violation of trade rules. Between 1995 and 2023, 77 specific trade concerns were raised by 37 WTO members concerning regulations aimed at protecting individuals from the risks associated with food and beverage products (Figure 5.3).
FIGURE 5.3Technical Barriers to Trade Committee specific trade concerns related to nutrition labelling, 1995–2023
The number of specific trade concerns for food and beverage regulations per year increased significantly over time, rising from one in 1996 to a high of eight challenges in 2016 and 2017, respectively. In total, 77 specific trade concerns were raised 375 times in the TBT Committee, suggesting that policymakers are under significant pressure to design food and beverage regulations that comply with WTO rules and regulations. However, some of these concerns were resolved bilaterally without resorting to the formal WTO TBT Committee process.
The most frequently contested measures were labelling requirements (52 specific trade concerns), which pertain to regulations for product packaging and labelling. In this process, the most frequent argument was that the regulations posed an “unnecessary barrier to trade”, suggesting that the objective of the regulation could be achieved through an alternative policy that would pose fewer restrictions on trade. Often, countries requested “further information and clarification”, meaning that more details and information were needed to understand the regulation and determine its impact (see Box 5.5 for case studies on specific trade concerns).
BOX 5.5Technical barriers to trade specific trade concerns
Chile: Front-of-package nutrition labelling for foods and drinks high in calories, sugars, sodium and saturated fat
To combat the rising rates of obesity and chronic diseases, Chile began the process of drafting a law on mandatory nutrition labelling in 2006. After an intense legislative, academic and social debate, the Food Labelling and Advertising Law (Law 20 606/2012) was approved and published in July 2012 and took effect in January 2016.
The law has four key features.294 Firstly, foods and drinks considered high in calories, sugars, sodium and saturated fat must be marked with front-of-package labelling (FoPL). The warnings would need to be placed in the middle of an icon – a black octagonal STOP sign – which must occupy not less than 20 percent of the main face of the packaging, be located in the upper right corner and be at least four square centimetres in size. The limits for these critical nutrients were lowered in three stages. Thus, while in 2016 a food product had to carry the warning sign for “high sugar content” when it contained more than 22.5 g of sugar per 100 g, this limit dropped to 10 g in the third stage in 2019. Secondly, products with FoPL are subject to restricted advertising and marketing requirements such as a prohibition on targeting children who are younger than 14 years old. Thirdly, products high in the above-mentioned critical nutrients may not be sold in schools, whether packaged or not. Lastly, schools must provide nutritional education and promote physical activity.295
Specific trade concerns were raised over the law in 12 meetings in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee from 2013 to 2016. Eleven countries raised specific trade concerns over Chile’s initial proposal and sought further information and clarification on the legislation’s content. Eight countries contested the criteria for determining the size and colour of the stop sign in light of the principle of proportionality and required further scientific and technical support that allowed the proposed label to be used.i Others noted that such legislation would create unnecessary barriers to trade, resulting in increased costs related to a redesign of the packaging for some categories of products.296, ii Between 2013 and 2016, Chile reported to the TBT Committee that it had significantly modified the labelling requirements, reducing the required size of the warning label to 4 to 7 percent of the package surface.iii, 297
Research indicates that the policy has been effective. For instance, one study using longitudinal data on food and beverage purchases from 2 381 Chilean households from 2015 to 2017 examined the mean nutrient content (overall calories, sugar, saturated fat and sodium) of purchases in the post-policy period compared to a counterfactual scenario based on pre-policy trends. The overall findings were that calories purchased declined by 3.5 percent, sugar declined by 10.2 percent and saturated fat declined by 3.9 percent.298 The policy has also influenced food manufacturers to reformulate products to avoid the negative impact of FoPL on consumer purchasing behaviour.
Indonesia: Mandatory health warning message
In 2013, Indonesia introduced a legislation draft on mandatory health warning messages on sugar, salt and fat content on labels of all foods.iv The labelling requirements were based on guidelines related to the 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, as well as data from a 2013 nutrition survey conducted by the Ministry of Health. The policy entailed that food that has claims on the labels and advertising must meet an intake per serving of not more than: 13 g total fat; 4 g saturated fat; 60 mg cholesterol; and 480 mg sodium. Food that makes such claims must provide information such as nutrition facts, designation, information for use, warning of usage of substances and other information such as maximum consumption and indications of the group of people who need to avoid the product.
Between 2013 and 2016, specific trade concerns were raised in 11 WTO TBT Committee meetings regarding Indonesia’s proposed mandatory labelling. Eight countries that raised concerns requested further clarification related to how the nutrition information and health warnings would be placed on the label, for example, as well as the testing methods for nutrition levels and the conduct of risk assessments related to non-communicable diseases.v
Others expressed concerns that the policy diverged from international standards and would create unnecessary barriers to trade. For instance, it was noted that the proposed policy deviated from the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL 2- 1985, Rev. 1 – 1993) that states that labelling should not lead consumers to believe that there was an exact quantitative knowledge of what individuals should eat to maintain good health.vi In 2016, Indonesia reported to the WTO TBT Committee that the implementation was postponed until 2019, and noted that it would reevaluate the regulation and consider alternative approaches.vii
In 2019, Indonesia launched another legislation piece on the optional Healthier Choice Logo to help consumers identify products that are healthier within specific categories, for example, ready-to-consume drinks or instant pasta and noodles, and was updated to include 20 food categories, including bakery products, ice cream, ready-to-eat snacks, peanut products and ready-to-eat cereals.299
Mexico: Health warning specific trade concerns
As of 2021, more than 35 percent of children and adolescents in Mexico were considered overweight, one of the highest rates in the Americas. A study suggests that, for school-age children, ultra-processed products represented more than 30 percent of their total calories consumed.300 In 2020, Mexico enacted a law requiring mandatory warning labels on the front of food packages that contain “excess” sugar, calories, sodium or saturated fat. These warning labels would replace an earlier measure, the 2014 front-of-pack Guideline Daily Amount nutrition labels, which were hard to understand and ineffective at conveying health risks.301
Between 2020 and 2023, specific trade concerns were raised in 12 WTO TBT Committee meetings regarding Mexico’s mandatory labelling law. Ten countries requested more information and further clarification on the law, for example, related to whether the policy had considered international standards or the scientific evidence on “excess” levels of sugar, calories, sodium or saturated fat.viii
To date, Mexico’s warning label law is still being discussed in the WTO TBT Committee. However, some studies have been conducted to examine its impact. One study suggests that the warning labels increased awareness of sweeteners and caffeine among Mexican adults and youth. Consumers also modified their perceptions regarding beverages for children. Such findings may help decision-makers improve the regulation and better target communication strategies.302
Peru: Warning labels on foods and non-alcoholic beverages
In 2013, Peru introduced Law No 30,021 – Law to Promote Healthy Eating among Children and Adolescents – aimed to reduce obesity-associated health problems by discouraging the advertisement, sale and consumption of certain foods and beverages.
More specifically, Article 10 of the law requires that warning labels be placed on foods and non-alcoholic beverages with certain levels of sugar, salt, saturated fat or trans fat.303 The warning labels developed under the law advise consumers to “avoid excessive consumption” or, in the case of trans fat, to “avoid consumption” entirely.
Additionally, Peru issued the warning label manual for food labelling under the Law on the Promotion of a Healthy Diet in 2017. The manual establishes detailed specifications for including the warnings on the front-of-package labels of products that exceed the limits for salt, sugar, saturated fat and trans fat established in the Law on the Promotion of a Healthy Diet.
The law and the manual were both discussed in the WTO TBT Committee. Between 2013 and 2017, specific trade concerns were raised in 14 WTO TBT Committee meetings, where members requested additional clarifications of the law with respect to the TBT Agreement and the General Guidelines on Claims of the Codex Alimentarius (CAC/GL 1 1979, point 3.5).ix There were also concerns that the manual’s stringent requirements for stickers and adhesive labels on food and beverages would create unnecessary trade barriers.x
The effectiveness of the policy has already been significant. One study examined the changes in sugar, sodium, saturated fat and trans fat content in ultra-processed foods and beverages, as well as the percentage of products that would carry a front-of-package warning label before and after the labels were required. Among beverages, it found significant decreases in median sugar content accompanied by an increase in the use of non-nutritive sweeteners. Given this reformulation, the percentage of beverages that would be required to carry a warning label dropped from 59 percent of the total before the law to 31 percent after. The percentage of foods that would carry a warning label also declined from 82 percent to 62 percent, primarily due to reductions in saturated fat and trans-fat content among those products.304
NOTES: iSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/W/428]. iiSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/59]. iiiSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/W/62]. ivSee Regulation of the Health Minister No. 30/2013: The Inclusion of Sugar, Salt and Fat Contents as well as Health Message on Processed Foods and Fast Foods. 2013. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins139271.pdf. vSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/69]. viSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/63]. viiSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/70]. viii See Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/80]. ixSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/68]. xSee Meeting Minutes of the TBT Committee: [G/TBT/M/81].
Codex Alimentarius guidance regarding FoPL was published in 2021 and provides an important reference point for trade-related discussions.273 The guidelines provide general principles for establishing FoPL systems, which should be aligned with the national dietary guidance or health and nutrition policy of the country or region of implementation. Therefore, countries can still recommend specific FoPL systems, indicating that there is no global harmonization on a unique FoPL system.
While the SPS Agreement explicitly cites Codex standards as benchmarks for food safety and encourages harmonization with Codex standards, the WTO TBT Agreement does not explicitly mandate international harmonization with Codex, however, members use the Codex guidelines as benchmarks to guide the design of their national regulations (see Box 5.6).
BOX 5.6Codex Alimentarius Commission and food labelling
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established by FAO and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1963 as part of the Joint FAO/WHO International Food Standards Programme. It is considered the most important international reference point for food standards. Codex texts are developed jointly by 189 Codex members and independent experts with the aim of protecting consumer health and promoting fair practices in food trade.305 The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created with the objective of developing and publishing food standards in a “food code” that would protect public health and ensure fair practices in the food trade. In accordance with Codex General Principles, the food code is intended to guide and promote the elaboration and establishment of definitions and requirements for foods so they can be harmonized and thereby facilitate international trade. Therefore, Codex standards play a key role under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Sanitary or Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreements. For instance, the Codex text on commodity standards defines the physical and chemical characteristics of nearly 200 traded products from apples and wheat to frozen fish and bottled water.306
Codex framework on nutrition labelling
The Codex Alimentarius Commission established the Codex Committee on Food Labelling in 1964 to determine the food labelling provisions for the commodity standards being developed. In 1969, the Codex General Standard for Labelling Pre-packaged Foods was approved as the first international standard by the newly created commission. This standard is identified as “Codex-Stan 1”, highlighting its importance as the principal Codex standard for consumer protection and ensuring fair practices in the food trade. In 1985, the standard underwent extensive revision and expansion and since then numerous amendments and additions have been made to ensure that it remains the key Codex instrument for delivering information about food to consumers with the latest guidelines being published in 2021.307
The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is the subsidiary body responsible for preparing general labelling texts. The Codex Committee on Food Labelling interacts with other Codex committees such as the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Purposes, which ensure that any food labelling or related texts they develop follow the general standard and other general labelling texts. Codex standards are used by countries as guidance for harmonization and have also been used as the basis for new food labelling policies.308
The role of Codex in nutrition and labelling
Codex provides guidance on the compositional requirements of foods so they are nutritionally safe. Codex also provides guidance on general labelling of foods and the health or nutrient claims producers make on labels, with terms such as “low fat”, “high fat” among others. Codex guidance ensures that consumers understand what they are buying and that the product is accurately labelled.
The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure that nutrition labelling is effective in providing consumers with information about a food so they can make informed choices about the food they buy; in providing a means for conveying information about the nutrient content of a food on the label; in encouraging the use of sound nutrition principles in the formulation of foods that would benefit public health; and in providing the opportunity to include supplementary nutrition information on the label. The guidelines also ensure that nutrition labelling does not describe a product or present information about it that is in any way “false, misleading, deceptive or insignificant in any manner” and that no nutrition claim is made without nutrition labelling.
The Codex General Standard, initially designed as a trading standard, has evolved to include guidelines aimed at preventing the misuse of specific claims related to health and nutrition or regarding the “organic” and “Halal” nature of food. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has made various revisions and added interpretative texts to improve the information provided on food labelling, particularly in areas such as date-marking and nutrition labelling. In recent years, various front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems have been developed and used as supplementary nutrition information in different countries. Guidelines on front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Annex 2 of the latest Codex Guideline on Nutrition Labelling provide general principles to help countries develop FoPL that aligns with their national dietary guidance or health and nutrition policy.309
Codex standards and guidance are voluntary; however, they often serve as a reference point for countries to develop national policies. As the WTO recognizes Codex as an international standards-setting body, the Codex guidance plays an important role in international trade discussions (see also Box 5.4).
The variation in labelling and health warning regulations between countries may necessitate food exporters incurring additional costs while adjusting their exports or labels according to the country to which they are exporting. The costs of mandatory food labelling may include higher production costs related to the reformulation of the food product to avoid the label or the health warning, or costs associated with redesigning the packaging. Therefore, nutrition labelling regulations could potentially restrict trade. However, the discussions among countries at the TBT Committee may influence or could shape a country’s final nutrition policies related to labelling.
