Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:55:11.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An update on the status of front-of-package labelling regulations in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Pamela Robles-Valcarcel*
Affiliation:
School of Nutrition and DieteticsUniversidad Peruana de Ciencias AplicadasAv. Alameda San Marcos cuadra 2 s/nChorrillos, Lima, Peru
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2016 

Madam

I have read with considerable interest the original research paper by Freire et al. regarding the Ecuadorian experience using the traffic light food labelling system( Reference Freire, Waters and Rivas-Mariño 1 ). It is well known that Latin America has experienced nutritional transitions that have influenced the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity( Reference Rivera, de Cossío and Pedraza 2 ). However, the progress of nutritional labelling − especially front-of-package (FOP) labelling, as a tool to fight these diseases − has been slow( Reference Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann and Wills 3 ). The discussion in Latin America is open, and some countries, like Ecuador, have already launched the development, implementation and monitoring of FOP initiatives( Reference Freire, Waters and Rivas-Mariño 1 ). On the other hand, other countries are still in disadvantage, like Venezuela or Peru, where even the declaration of a nutritional label is still voluntary( 4 ).

Motivated by Freire et al.’s paper, I have summarized the local scene on healthy eating and FOP labelling policies in ten Latin American countries (Table 1). All of them have healthy eating laws or regulations. Only four countries (Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico) have established formal guidelines for FOP labelling under the scope of laws promoting healthy eating. Ecuador and Bolivia have adopted the traffic light system, Mexico and Peru the Guideline Daily Amount system, and Chile its own system based on a hexagon-warning label. Peru is the only one that has FOP guidelines, but the declaration of them is still voluntary. I found no information on FOP labelling regulations for the other countries.

Table 1 Overview of front-of-package (FOP) labelling status in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela

The Ecuadorian experience deserves special recognition due to the progress made so far and for the evidence collected about the contribution of FOP labelling in lowering the consumption of ultra-processed foods with high levels of fat, sugar and salt( Reference Freire, Waters and Rivas-Mariño 1 ). It is the concern of every Latin American country to set policies that include the FOP labelling topic. Countries could even discuss the creation or adoption of one unique model for the entire region, in order to reduce the inconsistencies between labelling requirements( Reference Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann and Wills 3 , 5 ) and trade barriers( 6 ).

However, future research considering the potential role of different FOP systems in the behaviour, comprehension and purchase practices in Latin American countries is needed, especially in nutritionally at-risk populations( Reference Ducrot, Méjean and Julia 7 ). Encouraging the early implementation and regulation of these labelling systems can definitely contribute to decrease overweight and obesity rates( Reference Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann and Wills 3 ).

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest: The author declares to be an external consultant for a food industry company. Authorship: P.R.-V. is the exclusive author of this manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: Not applicable. This is a Letter to the Editor. It does not involve any primary research with human or non human subjects.

References

1. Freire, WB, Waters, WF, Rivas-Mariño, G et al. (2016) A qualitative study of consumer perceptions and use of traffic light food labelling in Ecuador. Public Health Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).Google Scholar
2. Rivera, , de Cossío, TG, Pedraza, LS et al. (2013) Childhood and adolescent overweight and obesity in Latin America: a systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2, 321332.Google Scholar
3. Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann, S & Wills, JM (2012) Nutrition labeling to prevent obesity: reviewing the evidence from Europe. Curr Obes Rep 1, 134140.Google Scholar
4. European Food Information Council (2015) Global update on nutrition labelling: executive summary. http://www.eufic.org/upl/1/default/doc/GlobalUpdateExecSumJan2015.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
5. Pan American Health Organization (2016) In ‘Together for food labelling: the Americas united to face the challenges’. Session at the 55th Directing Council of the Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA, 26–30 September 2016.Google Scholar
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) Discussion paper on principles of harmonization of Codex and labelling. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/meetings/cclac/cclac19/CRDs/LAC19_CRD09s.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
7. Ducrot, P, Méjean, C, Julia, C et al. (2015) Objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels among nutritionally at-risk individuals. Nutrients 7, 71067125.Google Scholar
8. Ministerio de Salud, República de Argentina (2009) Apruébanse la Estrategia Nacional para la Prevención y Control de Enfermedades no Transmisibles y el Plan Nacional Argentina Saludable. http://www.msal.gob.ar/images/stories/bes/graficos/0000000203cnt-2013-07_estrategia-nacional-prevencion-control-ent-as.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
9. Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2016) Ley de Promoción de Alimentación Saludable. http://www.gacetaoficialdebolivia.gob.bo/index.php/normas/view/153495 (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
10. Portal Brasil (2015) Brazil signs the National Pact for Healthy Eating. http://www.brasil.gov.br/cidadania-e-justica/2015/11/brasil-firma-o-pacto-nacional-para-alimentacao-saudavel (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
11. Library of National Congress of Chile (2012) Nutritional Composition and Food Advertising. https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1041570 (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
12. National Institute of Health, Republic of Colombia (2009) Law 1355 – Through obesity and non-communicable chronic diseases associated with it are defined as a public health priority and measures are taken for their control, care and prevention. http://www.ins.gov.co:81/normatividad/Leyes/LEY%201355%20DE%202009.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
14. Official Register, Body of the Government of Ecuador (2014) Substitute Health Regulations on Processed Food Labeling for Human Consumption. https://www.registroficial.gob.ec/index.php/registro-oficial-web/publicaciones/suplementos/item/1774-segundo-suplemento-al-registro-oficial-no-318.html (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
15. Government of Mexico (2013) National Strategy for prevention and control of overweight, obesity and diabetes. http://promocion.salud.gob.mx/dgps/descargas1/estrategia/Estrategia_con_portada.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
16. Congress of the Republic of Peru (2013) Law 30021: Law promoting healthy eating for children and adolescents. http://www4.congreso.gob.pe/pvp/leyes/ley30021.pdf (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
17. National Institute of Nutrition, Government of Venezuela (2013) Food and Nutrition Public Policy. http://www.inn.gob.ve/innw/?page_id=81 (accessed October 2016).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Overview of front-of-package (FOP) labelling status in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela