FAO.org

Over the last decade, front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) has become a crucial measure in public health efforts to combat non-communicable diseases (NCDs).[1] By presenting nutritional information prominently at the front of the package, FOPNL assists consumers to make more informed dietary choices.

The effectiveness of FOPNL heavily relies on the nature of the nutritional information provided and the benchmarks used for its interpretation. FOPNL schemes have been made mandatory in sixteen countries and adopted on a voluntary basis in many others.[2] There are, however, many differences among existing national FOPNL models. Some simplify nutrient-specific information (e.g. daily reference intakes or traffic light systems), while others evaluate the information (e.g. positive endorsements or health warnings). Among the latter, the scope of nutrients and additives covered also differs, with some schemes covering not only fats, sodium, and sugar, but also sweeteners and caffeine.[3] 

Labelling regulations can also have substantial implications for international trade. Under WTO law, labelling requirements must not create unjustified restrictions on trade. Codex standards are considered as reference standards for food safety requirements under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and have also been considered as reference standards under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.[4]

National measures based on Codex standards are meant to be compliant with WTO law.  For this reason, standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, like CXS 1-1985 (Labelling of Prepackaged Foods), CXG 2-1985 Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling, and 192-1995 (Additives), are relevant to policy discussions on FOPNL.

Notably, domestic FOPNL regulations that deviate from Codex standards could potentially be considered as unnecessary trade restrictions under WTO law.  However, when tested in practice, arguments based on the differences between domestic FOPNL requirements and Codex standards have not led to the invalidation of FOPNL policies. In one case, Colombian beverage corporations filed a complaint against FOPNL requirements with the General Secretariat of the Andean Community.[5]

They argued that the warning "contains sweeteners", without specifying quantities, breached Codex's General Standard 192-1995's directive for clear consumer information on sweetener content. Reiterating the Andean Tribunal's established jurisprudence, the General Secretariat held that this argument was outside its jurisdictional scope. In another case against the 2020 Mexican regulation on FOPNL, Codex standards were invoked to justify the adoption of FOPNL. In that case, in fact, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice quoted the standard CXS 1-1985 on labelling to reaffirm the importance of providing truthful and clear information to consumers - which is exactly the goal of FOPNL policies.[6]

Codex standards on FOPNL may become even more influential in the near future. In 2021, Codex adopted guidance for FOPNL schemes, incorporated as Annex 2 to the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling.[7]

While these Guidelines stop short of endorsing a specific FOPNL model or dictating the precise nutrients and additives to be included, they lay out foundational principles for the implementation of FOPNL schemes. This newly established guidance will likely serve as a critical benchmark supporting FOPNL regulations in future policy discussions and litigation. This development underscores the role of Codex standards as one that supports, and does not go against, public health measures like FOPNL.

Margherita Melillo