The NutriScore debate also continues at Codex Alimentarius where the World Health Organization, WHO, reaffirms its position in favor of this approach. In antithesis to the one that Ferrero and Coldiretti imposed, as it turned out, on the Italian government. (1)
European consumer organization Foodwatch, meanwhile, lays out five-color flags in front of Food Drink Europe ‘s headquarters (see cover image). Synthetic nutrition labeling on the Front-of-Pack (FOP) cannot wait any longer.
Codex Alimentarius Commission for Food Labeling (CCFL)
CCFL-the Codex Alimentarius Commission for Food Labeling-is holding its 46th meeting session these days. For once by videoconference, rather than in Ottawa, Canada, according to tradition. And it is the work of this Commission that is responsible for the evolution of FAO and WHO member state regulations on consumer information. (2)
Codex Alimentarius Commissions theoretically express the broadest democratic participation in the development of food law. Taking into account the possibility, at least theoretically, of intervention by the 194 WHO members. But theoretical democracy and governance, at the international rule-making stage, give way to industrial lobbies.
CCFL, government delegations and governance
Big Food
– in addition to influencing i.e., corrupting scientific research on nutrition and obstructing related policies at the WHO (3,4) – participates in meetings of Codex Alimentarius Commissions:
– as a stakeholder (affected social party), on a par with other categories (e.g., consumers, farmers, distributors), through their respective representations. But also
– within government delegations themselves, where Big Food lobbyists participate as ‘experts’. That is, citizens are represented by industries.
The Italian delegation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for Food Labeling (CCFL), for example, features Paolo Mascarino (Ferrero, V.President Federalimentare with responsibility for nutrition, consumer information and nutrition education) and Luca Ragaglini (deputy director of Unione Italiana Food, where Ferrero is on the podium). Alongside officials from MiPAAF, MiSE and the Ministry of Health. In grotesque violation of WHO recommendations on nutrition policies and conflicts of interest. (11)
CCFL, FOP nutrition labeling
FOP nutrition labeling, under agenda item 6 of the 46th CCFL session, is the focus of attention. At the 21-22.9.21 meetings of the ad hoc working group, a definition was finalized and submitted to the plenary assembly.
‘Front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL) is a form of supplementary nutrition information that presents simplified, nutrition information on the front-of-pack of pre-packaged foods.
It can include symbols/graphics, text or a combination thereof that provide information on the overall nutritional value of the food and/or on nutrients included in the FOPNL. This definition excludes nutrition and health claims‘.
Topics under discussion, the ABCs
The details are crucial so that nutrition information systems on the label front can be widely disseminated and thus contribute to public health goals. ABC:
A) compulsoriness. First, the possibility-perhaps even the recommendation, for member states-to require operators to adoptfront-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOLP) should be clarified, (5)
B) exclusions. One must then consider whether certain categories of products can be exempted. Food supplements (as they are essentially devoid of nutritional functions), foods intended for specific nutritional purposes and infant formulas (as they are subject to special requirements). Perhaps even single-ingredient foods (e.g., flours, oils, sugar. Russia’s proposal). The real pitfall would be to exclude small packages, benefiting single-portion junk-food and packaging waste,
C) governance. Governments and public agencies in charge of public health must take the lead in this initiative. Without making use of ‘collaboration,’ but rather, if anything, just ‘consultation’ with the relevant social partners.
WHO, position on FOP nutrition labeling
WHO, World Health Organization, reiterated its position on FOP nutrition labeling in a special press release. (6) To clarify urbi et orbi, once again, what has already been set out with crystal clarity in the document ‘Guiding principles and framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diet‘. (7)
WHO regards front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPL), as a form of supplementary nutrition information, as an important policy tool to promote healthy diets. This makes it easier for consumers to understand the nutritional properties of foods and to choose the healthiest ones. And it drives Big Food‘s product reformulation, as necessary and urgent as it is worth adding (8,9).
Nutrition information on the front label, WHO guidelines
WHO guidelines on front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPL) refer to five key principles:
1) consistency. the FOPL system must be aligned with national public health and nutrition policies and food law, as well as WHO guidelines and Codex standards,
2) Uniqueness. A unique system should be developed to improve the impact of the FOPL system,
3) complementarity. Mandatory nutrition claims on food labels are a prerequisite of FOPL systems,
4) quality. A monitoring and review process should be developed to foster continuous improvement of the system,
5) accessibility. The goals, scope and principles of the FOPL system must be transparent and easily accessible. (7)
Nutri Score and other systems, which one to choose?
The World Health Organization recalls how several FOP nutrition information schemes have already been developed by authorities in different countries. From
warning labels
in Central and South America (Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico) to the 5-star rating in Australia, the keyhole system in Scandinavian countries. As well as in England and Israel.
In the European Union, the NutriScore system is gaining popularity, which started right in the Mediterranean and has gained acceptance among Spanish consumers themselves. As well as the French, Portuguese, Belgians, Dutch and Germans. And from IARC(International Agency for the Research on Cancer). (10) WHO encourages member states and research institutes to continue data analysis to better understand the impact of different schemes on nutrition and health.
Interim conclusions
The NutriScore system now appears to be the way forward ‘in Europe and beyond,’ as suggested by, among others, the International Agency for Research Against Cancer as a result of a review of the available scientific literature.
Italy is once again a victim of the interference of industrial lobbies and Coldiretti in politics. (11) And public health is at stake on this front, in terms of preventing serious and chronic diseases. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, who pays for them?
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) Dario Dongo. NutriScore, Ferrero and Coldiretti against all. GIFT(Great Italian Food Trade). 7/16/21, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/etichette/nutriscore-ferrero-e-coldiretti-contro-tutti
(2) National standards aligned with Codex standards are recognized as legitimate in the WTO (thanks to the WTO-SPS agreement, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures), with respect to possible challenges of hindering the free movement of goods among member states. Therefore, the transposition of standards adopted by Codex Commissions is increasingly widespread and timely
(3) Dario Dongo, Andrea Adelmo Della Penna. Conflicts of interest in scientific research. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 9/26/20, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/idee/conflitti-d-interesse-nella-ricerca-scientifica
(4) Marta Strinati, Dario Dongo. Nutrition and health, here’s how Big Food thwarts WHO. GIFT(Great Italian Food Trade). 3.9.20, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/idee/nutrizione-e-salute-ecco-come-big-food-ostacola-l-oms
(5) If the Codex standard contemplates the possibility of member states to impose Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling (FOLP), it will be ruled out a priori that such measures could be challenged by other states with which they have free trade agreements. As has already happened to Mexico. V. Dario Dongo. NAFTA, CETA and health. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 3/25/18, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/salute/nafta-ceta-e-salute
(6) WHO(World Health Organization). State of play of WHO guidance on Front-of-the-Pack labelling. Press release. 9/27/21, https://www.who.int/news/item/27-09-2021-state-of-play-of-who-guidance-on-front-of-the-pack-labelling
(7) WHO (2019). Guiding principles and framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diets. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/guidingprinciples-labelling-promoting-healthydiet
(8) Marta Strinati. Baby food, 68% is junk food. European research. GIFT(Great Italian Food Trade). https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/mercati/alimenti-per-bambini-il-68-è-junk-food-ricerca-europea
(9) Marta Strinati. Nestlé to Ferrero. Almost all baby foods are harmful. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 3.9.21, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/da-nestlé-a-ferrero-quasi-tutti-gli-alimenti-per-bambini-sono-nocivi_1
(10) Dario Dongo. NutriScore, full marks of IARC and citizens in Spain. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 9/18/21, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/salute/nutriscore-pieni-voti-della-iarc-e-dei-cittadini-in-spagna
(11) WHO Executive Board, 142. (2018). Safeguarding against possible conflicts of interest in nutrition programs: draft approach for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programs at country level: report by the Director-General. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274165
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
