Front-Of-Pack Warning Labels Don’t Lower Obesity Rates

As the FDA mulls interpretive food warning labels, a Georgetown University study shows these schemes have been powerless to halt obesity trends.

In an attempt to tackle stubbornly high adult obesity rates over 40% in the US, the FDA is advancing a proposed front-of-pack (FOP) label that highlights whether a food or beverage contains low, medium or high levels of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. But a new study from Georgetown University titled Can Front-of-Pack Product Labeling Fix the Obesity Crisis says that the FDA has not learned the lessons from other countries using such interpretive food warning labels: there is no hard evidence that they have been effective in improving consumer diets or in arresting rising obesity rates.

Several countries have tried this tactic without achieving these goals. In Chile, ominous black stop signs warn people that the food is nutritionally bad; in the UK, red, amber, and green traffic light symbols show whether levels of certain offender ingredients are high; and some countries in the European Union use colors and letter grades to rate foods for their nutritional value.

I’ve said many times that food companies need to do much more to help people eat better and live healthier. But this particular measure — to borrow from Chile — deserves a big black stop sign. Here is why.

The study, sponsored by the Consumer Brands Association, examined academic research, studies and data on country obesity rates, and the short-term and long-term effects in dozens of countries where interpretive food warning labels are in place. The sobering conclusion: Yes, people may buy less of the packaged food items with warning labels. But often the effect is temporary or doesn’t look at their total diet – and sadly, people are not getting any healthier. Obesity rates have continued their upward march around the world, even in countries that use the strictest warning labels and in parts of the world where other citizens suffer from malnutrition.

Consider Chile, which has been the most aggressive in implementing interventions. Since 2016, the country has emblazoned black stop signs on food considered bad for you. While caloric, sugar, saturated fat and sodium intake did decline as a result of the labeling, adult obesity rates have continued their relentless climb. In fact, since 2010, overweight and obesity rates have steadily risen by .9 to 1.0 percent points every year to 78.8% in 2022 in spite of the three-stage implementation of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes (2014), black stop sign labels (2016) and restrictions on the advertising of labeled products (2018). The Pan American Health Organization has projected Chile’s overweight and obesity rate to hit 87% by 2030! It’s as if the climb has a mind of its own as nothing has helped to put the brakes on these trends.

Despite the traffic light warning system being in place in the UK since 2013, overweight and obesity rates climbed to 64.0% in 2022/2023 and the share of people eating 5 portions of fruit and vegetables dropped 4 percentage points between 2015/2016 and 2022/2023. Nutri-Score, first adopted by France in 2017, also did not arrest overweight and obesity rates among 15-year olds, which climbed 6 percentage points from 2010 to 2022. Even inherently healthy countries such as Sweden, which devised The Keyhole scheme in 1989, are seeing an increase.

Why Warning Labels Are Ineffective

Some of the key findings can help explain why interpretive food warning labels have not been quite so effective:

• There is no demonstrated proof that FOP labels are linked to improved health or reduction in obesity rates
• FOP labels do not effectively reach or motivate consumers most affected by overweight and obesity. Only one-quarter to one-third of the consumer segments with the highest rates of overweight and obesity look for nutrition information on food packaging.
• We do not have a handle on what consumers’ total diet is beyond the labeled products. Away-from-home meals are not incorporated into the equation, so we do not have a handle on the net quality of the diet or how many calories are being consumed.
• Portion management offers a more cost-efficient and effective strategy in addressing obesity than FOP labels.

It’s clear that interpretive food warning labels have not had their intended result, and that we need to study what type of labeling (if any) has a chance to work. Here’s what will work: offering consumers their favorite indulgences in smaller portions. According to the Power of Portions report published in March 2024, just under half of consumers are now buying smaller, single-serve foods to eat healthier and to curb their hunger. This is an especially effective approach for indulgent products as it requires the least behavioral change while delivering what consumers want most: taste, convenience, and affordability.

Policymakers Must Rethink Their Approach To Labeling

As the discussion over labeling continues, here are some things for policymakers to think about:

1. Focus on the end game: improving diets and reducing obesity rates. Whatever initiatives are advanced (interpretive warning labels; taxes; checkout bans, etc.), they should not even be proposed without first determining the ultimate consequences. At a minimum, we need to find out what foods and beverages consumers might switch to when restrictions are imposed – both at-home and away-from-home. This “substitution effect” is rarely considered. Understanding it will help us determine if a proposed measure will truly have a net effect on what and how much people are consuming.
2. Motivate the right consumer to change. Policies are mostly driven by experts attuned to the intricacies of good nutrition, who presume that those needing help will follow their directives. This is not the case. As shown in our labeling segmentation analyses, those with the highest rates of overweight/obesity read nutrition information on packaging the least. Policymakers need to get inside the heads of these people, understand what motivates them, and find better ways to persuade them.
3. The full food industry – including restaurants — must be “all in” on reducing portion sizes. A McKinsey Global Institute study demonstrated that smaller portions were the most cost-effective strategy to lower obesity rates, and had the biggest impacts on human health, compared to other interventions. Smaller portions also bring business benefits, as illustrated by the confectionery industry’s Always A Treat Initiative which delivered on its pledge to sell smaller sizes of single-serve items. The trend to smaller portions was also highlighted at last year’s Sweets & Snacks Expo where “Minis” and “Bites” were omni-present. The restaurant sector must get in the game in order to make a serious dent on improving customer health.

Addressing the obesity crisis will require commitment, money, and patience to see results. While transparency is necessary to inform consumers what they are buying, the FDA must recognize that front-of-pack interpretive warning labels are not a magic bullet; portion control must be part of the tool kit. Change won’t happen overnight — but neither did the ballooning portion sizes that have led to rising obesity rates.