Dietary Glycaemic Index Labelling: A Global Perspective

Abstract

The glycaemic index (GI) is a food metric that ranks the acute impact of available (digestible) carbohydrates on blood glucose. At present, few countries regulate the inclusion of GI on food labels even though the information may assist consumers to manage blood glucose levels. Australia and New Zealand regulate GI claims as nutrition content claims and also recognize the GI Foundation’s certified Low GI trademark as an endorsement. The GI Foundation of South Africa endorses foods with low, medium and high GI symbols. In Asia, Singapore’s Healthier Choice Symbol has specific provisions for low GI claims. Low GI claims are also permitted on food labels in India. In China, there are no national regulations specific to GI; however, voluntary claims are permitted. In the USA, GI claims are not specifically regulated but are permitted, as they are deemed to fall under general food-labelling provisions. In Canada and the European Union, GI claims are not legal under current food law. Inconsistences in food regulation around the world undermine consumer and health professional confidence and call for harmonization. Global provisions for GI claims/endorsements in food standard codes would be in the best interests of people with diabetes and those at risk.

Perspective: The Glycemic Index Falls Short as a Carbohydrate Food Quality Indicator to Improve Diet Quality

“…This evidence supports DGA guidance to consume foods high in dietary fiber and whole grains. The GI is not included by any national food agency in major food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) ( 37 ), though some countries allow GI labeling ( 38 ).…”

Methodology for the Review and Update of Nutrient Criteria Underpinning Front-of-Pack Labeling: Application to the Glycemic Index Symbol

“…Nutrient criteria can play an important role in improving population health by classifying or ranking foods according to their nutritional composition ( 1 ). As an underlying factor in the development of front-of-pack labeling (FoPL) systems, such as Australia's Health Star Rating (HSR) ( 2 ), the Glycemic Index (GI) Symbol ( 3 ), and the Guiding Stars intervention in the US ( 4 ), all of which aim to highlight healthier food products within a food category for all population groups, nutrient criteria assist consumers in making healthier food choices ( 1 , 3 , 5 ), and are considered a valuable tool in the prevention of diet-related chronic disease ( 6 ). However, no methodology for the development of new nutrient criteria by food regulatory bodies has been published, and the detailed methods used by these bodies are rarely disclosed.…”

“…Worldwide, inconsistency surrounds the nutritional components that underpin nutrient criteria and how these are regulated within food labeling systems, potentially creating confusion for consumers and increasing product costs if re-labeling is required, especially when products are imported into other nations with different food regulatory systems ( 3 ). This inconsistency is amplified when one considers the wide spectrum of methods used to make nutrition, health, and related claims; in addition to FoPL systems, these methods include nutrition content claims (presence or absence of a nutrient), health claims (a food or property of the food has a health effect), and endorsements (nutrient content or health claims made with the permission of an endorsing body) ( 3 ). FoPL systems have different nutritional measures that are designed to rate the overall nutritional profile (i.e., ‘healthiness') of packaged foods ( 8 ), and perform differently in the context of increasing the nutritional quality of food choices ( 8 , 9 ).…”

“…FoPL systems have different nutritional measures that are designed to rate the overall nutritional profile (i.e., ‘healthiness') of packaged foods ( 8 ), and perform differently in the context of increasing the nutritional quality of food choices ( 8 , 9 ). Country specific FoPL regulations have resulted in foods manufactured in some countries being required to meet a strict set of nutrient criteria to make a nutrition, health or related claim, while in other countries, nutrient criteria for the same claims are lacking ( 3 ). For example, while the strict nutrient criteria underpinning the GI Symbol ensures that healthier low GI food products are highlighted in Australia and New Zealand, the regulatory approach to GI claims on food labels is inconsistent globally, creating confusion around the selection of healthier choices, particularly in those with or at risk of diabetes ( 3 ).…”

“…Country specific FoPL regulations have resulted in foods manufactured in some countries being required to meet a strict set of nutrient criteria to make a nutrition, health or related claim, while in other countries, nutrient criteria for the same claims are lacking ( 3 ). For example, while the strict nutrient criteria underpinning the GI Symbol ensures that healthier low GI food products are highlighted in Australia and New Zealand, the regulatory approach to GI claims on food labels is inconsistent globally, creating confusion around the selection of healthier choices, particularly in those with or at risk of diabetes ( 3 ). Furthermore, some FoPL systems developed by the private sector have been suggested to be used for marketing purposes and potentially mislead consumers ( 8 ).…”