Christopher Tufton | Clarifying issues on front-of-package labels

There is a coalition of advocates at the local, national, and international levels that is calling for cost-effective front-of-package (FOP) warning labels (‘high in’) on food items. Given the crises of lifestyle diseases (non-communicable diseases – NCDs) and premature illness and deaths directly linked to the consumption of unhealthy processed foods, there is need to clearly communicate the risks of consuming certain foods to consumers who might not be aware of the excess salts, sugars, and fats that are in their foods.

There is pushback from processed-food manufacturers who are far more well-resourced than any coalition. The coalition’s efforts and resources expended on consumers’ right to know what they are consuming is in no way comparable to the significant budgets assigned by private brands to promote their products, as is their right in a free market economy.

The consequences of an unhealthy diet, especially over the long term, are dire. Up to 70 per cent of our population die from an NCD. The state has an obligation to its citizens and to taxpayers who fund public health to do its part in promoting greater awareness of what we eat, with a view to reducing unhealthy food consumption. We believe that an effective and mandatory regulatory method should be implemented as one way of doing this. This is the position of the Ministry of Health and Wellness.

THE COMMON GOOD

Government policy must balance the interests of competing stakeholders, private and public. However, the principle of the greater good must ultimately prevail, and in this instance, premature illness, pain, suffering, and death are the ultimate ends of unhealthy lifestyle practices, with unhealthy consumption playing a major part.

There are social and economic consequences for not implementing a mandatory, effective, and contextually relevant labelling system: billions of dollars spent on public health, lower quality of life, and low labour productivity.

CORRECTING INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES

There is an information asymmetry (a form of market failure) problem where food labelling is concerned. It is the duty of the Government to correct this market failure, which is detrimental to public health. As pointed out by the Caribbean Institute of Health Research (CAIHR), approximately 12 per cent of labels on pre-packaged food and beverage products contain erroneous or missing information, while 67 per cent to 83 per cent of all pre-packaged beverages and 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all pre-packaged foods contain harmful levels of additives and ingredients. Further, even where labels are accurate, they are complex and difficult to understand, serving no useful purpose to the average consumer, and in effect, breaching the principle of the consumer’s right to know.

FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE

Research has shown that the front-of-package warning labels that are being pursued in our region is the right step for addressing the current ignorance around product choice. Further, mandatory labelling is more effective than voluntary. Mexico implemented a voluntary guideline daily amount (GDA) label in 2011, which was ineffective, and moved to a mandatory warning labelling in 2019. Chile has successfully implemented front-of-package labelling, with 92 per cent of people rating this label as good or very good, and more than 50 per cent of people reporting choosing foods with fewer warning signs. The warning label being put forward by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as part of the response to the Caribbean NCD crisis is not an “alien concept” addressing a “foreign concern” as is being suggested. Rather, it is contextual and relevant, and to refuse its introduction is to be insensitive to the plight of the Jamaican people.

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

The interests lobbying against the front-of-package labelling proposal being put forward by CARICOM have not put forward a suitable alternative. They have concerns, and they say they support the proposal “in principle” but are otherwise stalling.

There are a number of claims on negative impact that require deeper analysis. The most significant is the likely impact on trade, with some industry players arguing that front-of-package labelling would have a negative impact on their capacity to trade. However, one only has to look at the case of Mexico to challenge this trade-impediment theory. Mexico, the Unites States’ biggest trading partner in goods ($614.5 billion in total for goods traded during 2019), has implemented mandatory front-of-package warning labelling to protect the health of its population for nearly two years. This move has benefited their consumers, and there is no evidence that it has affected trade with their closest neighbour. There is nothing to say that FOP labelling should affect Jamaica’s trade with the US, Canada, or any other trading partner for that matter. Indeed, some of our major markets have shown support for warning labels. Further, major markets have not initiated any formal disputes at the WTO. In fact, the WTO recognises the right of members to implement measures to ensure the protection of human health and safety or protection of the environment. We, too, should recognise and take this right seriously.

QUESTION OF CHOICE

As it now stands, manufacturers have a choice to voluntarily reduce excess salts, sugars, and fats in their products or provide effective labelling. In fact, this is a way to avoid FOPL requirements: to simply reduce unhealthy ingredients and conform to healthier processed-food standards. As the policy proposal now indicates, products that are below the threshold for unhealthy amounts of salt, sugar, and fats would not require a warning label. And where goods exceed this threshold, manufacturers would be allowed a period of time, up to a few years, to comply with new regulations.

Blaming poverty or people’s individual choices for high levels of NCDs without examining the role of advertising and information asymmetry in relation to consumers’ knowledge about high levels of sodium, sugars, and fats is not helpful. We must find common ground and agree that unless there is voluntary action taken by the private sector to reduce the availability and promotion of unhealthy foods so that we can protect Jamaicans from NCDs and its devastating consequences, then the Government must pursue the most effective and mandatory food labelling regulatory option.

- Dr Christopher Tufton is Jamaica’s minister of health and wellness and member of parliament for St Catherine West Central. Send feedback to cctufton@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.