Dive Brief:
-
The Office of the United States Trade Representative wants to curb the ability of NAFTA countries to require consumer warning labels on some kinds of junk food. The U.S. position was revealed in confidential draft documents reported by The New York Times.
-
This strategy is coming from the Trump administration and from soda and CPG manufacturers, the Times reported. It's a response to recent discussions by Mexico and Canada about requiring colorful warning symbols or shapes on foods and beverages containing large amounts of sugar, salt and fat.
-
Public health advocates have been urging such labels since Chile's 2016 decision to mandate black stop signs as warning symbols on some foods. "We have shown that a simple message and a symbol is enough to communicate that you should be consuming less of certain foods,” Dr. Camila Corvalán, a University of Chile nutritionist who helped develop the logos, told the newspaper. “There’s nothing misleading about a warning logo, and clearly this is what worries the industry.”
Dive Insight:
Big U.S. food and beverage companies and the Grocery Manufacturers of America have been pushing the Trump administration to limit the ability of NAFTA members and other countries to warn their citizens about the dangers of junk food.
According to a written statement from GMA, the trade group says it supports voluntary labeling and a renegotiated NAFTA agreement that "will ensure standards are based on science, minimize unnecessary trade barriers, and benefit consumers in all three countries. U.S. law requires food labels to be truthful and not misleading, and we believe that an updated NAFTA should be consistent with foundational U.S. fact-based regulations. Given the close integration in the North American market, unnecessary differences in regulations increase costs without benefiting consumers.”
CPG manufacturers of sugary drinks and fatty products understandably want to avoid having to use on-pack warning labels since consumers could be likely to put items back on the shelf when they are aware of potential negative health impacts for products ranging from potato chips to ice cream and sugary sodas.
Meanwhile, obesity is a growing concern globally and, according to a 2017 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. and Mexico have the world's highest per-capita rate of obese people. But whether warning labels on junk food would really deter people from buying and consuming such items is another question. Most people are likely to know whether a candy bar or other food or beverage item is healthy, and nearly everyone gives in to indulgence sometimes.
This isn't the only area where U.S. companies have bucked calls for strong on-product warning labels. Congress mandated surgeon general warning labels on the side of cigarette packages in 1970. In 1981, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission told Congress that the labels had scant impact on either public knowledge or attitudes toward smoking. Following that, Congress required four specified health warning messages on all cigarette packages and advertising.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. warning labels on cigarette packaging "are weaker and less prominent than those of many other countries," which could be why they haven't had more of an impact. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration debuted a series of very graphic warning labels for cigarette packaging in 2011, but tobacco companies challenged the agency in court. The proposed requirements were found to be a violation of free speech. Since then, FDA "has been undertaking research related to graphic health warnings." And while cigarette smoking on the whole is becoming less popular in the United States, about 15.5% of U.S. adults were smokers in 2016, according to the CDC.
If U.S. makers of foods and beverages with high levels of sugar, salt and fat believed this NAFTA warning label discussion is likely to end up setting a precedent in trade agreements, they might start now by cleaning up their formulas and developing better-for-you options. However, given the level of opposition coming from the highest levels of the government, and the nation's history with cigarette warning labels, that isn't likely to happen — at least not if Mexico and Canada want the U.S. to sign a renegotiated NAFTA trade deal.