A recent study from Georgetown University (US) casts doubt on the effectiveness of front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling in improving public health. Despite widespread use, researchers found no strong link between FOP labelling and better diets, healthier food choices, or lower obesity rates.
In fact, those most likely to read labels—typically well-educated, health-conscious individuals—are often the ones who need them least. Meanwhile, obesity remains a critical issue: as of 2023, every US state and territory reported adult obesity rates over 20%.
The study, supported by the Portion Balance Coalition and Natural Marketing Institute, suggests that lower-income consumers—who face price as a primary decision driver—are less likely to read labels, especially when healthier options cost more.
Study Highlights
- Only 23–31% of the least healthy consumers regularly read food labels.
- Healthier individuals (lowest BMI) reported the highest label usage (71%).
- Labels may unfairly penalise certain foods (e.g. dairy, confectionery) despite moderate or occasional consumption.
- Consumers may become desensitised to warning-style labels over time.
Rather than doubling down on labelling schemes, the researchers advocate for a focus on portion control—which ranked higher than labelling in the 2014 McKinsey Global Institute report on obesity interventions. While the study questions the health impact of nutrition labels, it acknowledges their role in transparency—something consumers still value.
Key findings of the study
- Engagement Gap: Consumers most likely to use nutrition labels (‘Well Beings’) tend to be those with healthier lifestyles and lower body mass index (BMI). Conversely, groups with higher obesity rates (‘Magic Bullets’ and ‘Eat, Drink & Be Merry’s’) demonstrate lower engagement with labels, reading them only 23–31% of the time.
- Socioeconomic Factors: Obesity rates are disproportionately higher among lower-income and less-educated populations. For these groups, price is often the overriding factor guiding food purchases, making healthier but more expensive options less accessible and reducing motivation to consult labels.
- Label Fatigue and Bias: The study notes consumer desensitisation to label warnings over time, particularly in countries with established systems like Chile. Additionally, current labelling frameworks may unfairly penalise certain product categories, such as dairy and confectionery, despite moderate consumption patterns.
- Limited Impact on Obesity: Global obesity rates remain persistently high despite multiple labelling systems. The study references the 2014 McKinsey Global Institute report ranking labelling lower than other interventions like portion control, product reformulation, and clinical treatments.
Implications for Policy and Industry
The study’s findings suggest that while nutritional transparency through labelling is valuable, it is insufficient as a standalone measure to address obesity and dietary health challenges. There is a clear need for a multi-pronged strategy that combines labelling with other evidence-based interventions.
Recommended Next Steps
1. Prioritise Portion Control Initiatives:
Encourage policies that support consumer education and product innovation focused on portion sizes. Portion control is highlighted as a more impactful approach to reducing caloric intake and managing weight.
2. Address Socioeconomic Barriers:
Design targeted programmes to improve access to affordable, healthier foods for lower-income populations, recognising that price remains a primary purchasing driver. Consider subsidies, pricing strategies, and community-based nutrition education.
3. Reform and Harmonise Labelling Systems:
Work towards more equitable and culturally sensitive labelling frameworks that avoid penalising traditional or culturally significant foods. Harmonisation across regions may improve consumer understanding and industry compliance.
4. Integrate Multi-Sector Collaboration:
Foster partnerships between government agencies, industry players, public health organisations, and academic institutions to develop comprehensive strategies that combine labelling with product reformulation, marketing regulation, and behavioural change initiatives.
5. Monitor and Evaluate Impact:
Implement robust monitoring frameworks to assess the long-term effectiveness of labelling policies alongside complementary interventions, ensuring continuous improvement based on data-driven insights.
Conclusion
The Georgetown University study underscores the limitations of front-of-pack labelling as a singular public health tool.
Bottom line: Labels alone won’t solve the obesity crisis. For meaningful change, public health efforts may need to shift towards affordability, education, and practical tools like portion guidance. Tackling obesity and improving diet quality requires a coordinated, multi-faceted approach that goes beyond labelling to include portion control, affordability, education, and systemic reforms.
By adopting these broader strategies, stakeholders can better support healthier consumer choices and more effectively combat the obesity epidemic.
Read More:
Full study report
https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/78q85bxgt1grmadx6ck1xagog10j8pfg
