Do they really support “your freedom of choice”? FoPNL and the food industry in Brazil

Abstract

IntroductionIn 2020, Brazil approved the introduction of a new front-of-package nutrition labeling (FoPNL) in the format of a magnifying glass (MG) after years of discussion. There is currently a lack of understanding of the role of the food industry in that process. This study aimed to describe the corporate political activity (CPA) of the food industry and conflicts of interest situations, as they happened during the development and approval of a new FoPNL system in Brazil.Materials and methodsWe undertook bibliographical and documentary searches using material from food companies, trade associations and front groups involved in the regulatory process. We (1) collected information about the case study context, (2) collected data from documentary sources, and (3) prepared a synthesis of the results and a timeline of key events.Results/DiscussionDuring the FoPNL regulatory process in Brazil, the food industry opposed the introduction of warning labels, a model supported by health authorities and implemented with success in other countries in Latin America. The food industry rather promoted a traffic-light labeling system, known to be less effective at guiding individuals to make healthier food choices. Later in the process, when it was evident that its preferred model would not be used, and a MG would rather be introduced, the food industry argued for the use of a different version of this FoPNL model. We found that the food industry, all along the process, was directly involved in and influenced the development of the FoPNL, by providing technical support, advising and lobbying policymakers. The food industry also established relationships with a consumer non-governmental organization and nutrition professional societies. The food industry also produced and disseminated information supporting its position in order to influence public opinion and high-level decision makers, and used the legal system to delay the process.ConclusionThe FoPNL in Brazil is neither aligned with the recommendations of international health organizations nor with existing independent scientific evidence. The new FoPNL, as adopted in Brazil, reflects some of the preferences of the industry; it is likely that the influence of that sector during the legislative process was pivotal, even if its initial proposal was not adopted.

How can advocates leverage power to advance comprehensive regulation on ultra- processed foods? Learning from advocate experience in Argentina

“…The potential of FOP warning labels to open the door to additional regulation could also be applicable in other contexts; however, additional research, such as that which examines the in uence of the order in which policy measures are introduced on political and public support for climate policy [123,124,125], is needed to examine the generalizability of this strategy outside the Argentine context. In addition, as in Argentina and other cases [126,127] it must be noted that industry stakeholder can still capitalize on neoliberal narratives of individual responsibility to successfully undermine FOP warning labels, despite their function as an information-provision tool.…”

The bio-food industry’s corporate political activity during Health Canada’s revision of Canada’s food guide

“…Once the documents were obtained and extracted on a personal computer, a research team member (MCR) analyzed their content according to a framework developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) 17 that has been used in dozens of countries to classify the biofood industry's CPA. [9][10][11]14,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] In this deductive approach to data analysis, we first…”

Brazilian Front-of-Package Labeling: A Product Compliance Analysis 12 Months after Implementation of Regulations

“…However, after years of mandatory nutrition labeling, ANVISA found practical limitations in the legislation [7]. The requirements for describing portion sizes and their respective nutritional values were described at intervals, resulting in heterogeneity within products of the same category, thus allowing the manipulation of portion sizes to present nutritional values, further complicating the comparison between similar products from different manufacturers [7][8][9].…”

“…Also, there were inconsistencies between the rules for nutrition tables and nutrition claims [8]. As a voluntary declaration, nutrition claims were conveyed in an ostensible way, using more friendly language than in nutrition tables and highlighting only positive aspects, without necessarily a direct relationship with the overall quality of the food [7][8][9].…”

“…Therefore, the past model could influence food choices and have misleading potential in consumer understanding, as it overestimates the positive nutritional properties in foods with an unbalanced general nutritional composition [5,8,9].…”