Veteran food industry watchdog Marion Nestle once called the International Food Information Council (IFIC) “the most rational of all industry front groups.” Rational or not, IFIC remains an industry-funded research firm paid to support corporate interests, and its bias is on full display in a recent IFIC publication outlining findings from a series of experiments on front-of-package (FOP) nutritional labels.
Details of industry-funded front-of-pack label studies
The food industry has for more than a decade blocked progress toward U.S. regulations that would require simple nutrition information on the front of food packaging to promote transparency and healthier food choices, so it’s not surprising that IFIC spokespeople are presenting the recent study’s findings as an argument against strict front-of-pack labeling regulations.
The main conclusion of the IFIC report (which was not peer reviewed) is that “no single FOP scheme was best.”
IFIC, to its credit, was fully transparent in sharing its study questions and results. But the group’s main experiment did not test the labeling format being considered by the FDA, which most closely resembles the front-of-package labeling preferred by most public health advocates and already adopted in more than a dozen countries. They also chose to focus their conclusions on null results, ignoring important findings that did not fit IFIC’s preferred story. These choices reveal pro-industry bias and a clear intent to influence FDA policy in favor of the industry-preferred “facts-forward” style of labeling.
The long road to regulating front-of-pack nutrition labeling
By way of background, the Institute of Medicine first called on US regulators to introduce front-of-pack labeling in a series of reports between 2010 and 2012, which prompted the FDA to consider making such labels mandatory under the Obama administration. In response, the two largest food industry trade groups, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Brands Association) and the Food and Drug Administration (FMI), have circumvented regulation for over 13 years by introducing the voluntary, industry-led “Facts Up Front” label. Facts Up Front allows manufacturers to display icons showing calories, saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars per serving (“nutrients to limit”), as well as up to two “recommended nutrients,” such as dietary fiber, protein, calcium, potassium, and vitamins A, C, and D.
Public health advocates and nutrition researchers point out that no study has shown that Facts Up Front-style labels encourage healthier choices. But other label formats have proven highly effective, particularly label formats that use simple terms like “high” to describe nutrient levels in context, rather than relying on the numerical information already on the Nutrition Facts label, as Facts Up Front does.
Over the past few years, the FDA has shown renewed interest in adopting a mandatory front-of-pack labeling system, with a proposed rule expected this summer. As expected, industry has been urging the FDA to select the Facts Up Front design (or something very similar). The industry argues that if the FDA were to replace Facts Up Front with a new one, the new system “would have to demonstrate that it is clearly superior to already widely used and accepted front-of-pack nutrition labeling approaches.” In doing so, the industry is effectively arguing that an effort it began primarily to thwart regulation should be considered both the status quo and the gold standard.
