Better nutrition labelling on packaged foods: Are large fonts enough?

Last month, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Fssai) approved an amendment to the Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 (Business Standard, July 9, 2024). Accordingly, packaged foods will now have to display information regarding salt, sugar, and saturated fat content in bold and relatively large font. The move has been driven by the fact that India is facing increasing levels of obesity and a diabetes crisis, triggered by improper dietary habits. The hope is that improving the information displayed will impart a greater level of consumer consciousness about the nutritional content of foods they consume. The big question is, will it make a difference? And when did all this start?
 

US authorities mandated the display of nutritional content on packaged foods in 1994; the UK followed in 1998. It was a full 10 years later that Indian authorities made it mandatory (though several global majors present in India had adopted the display practices earlier). The move by the authorities in the US and UK was triggered by the alarming rise of lifestyle illnesses caused by improper dietary habits. In a sense, it seems nothing much has changed in 30 years.
 

While the intentions have been laudable, across the world there has been criticism about nutrition labelling, calling it less visible, difficult to comprehend, and of limited effectiveness. A variation of the back-of-pack nutrition label is the front-of-pack display of health-star rating. In this Australasian system, foods are labelled as half-star (not healthy) to five-star (most healthy).
An expert committee set up by the Fssai (Government of India) comprising IIM Ahmedabad faculty recommended a front-of-pack star system.
 

Global nutrition researchers have been trying to find out the impact of nutrition labelling. Has this led to widespread habit change? Are all consumers equally motivated by the information provided?
 

A study to classify consumers based on their food and health-related behaviour, covering a third of a million consumers across 17 countries, revealed seven consumer segments (Livingstone S, Brand Strategy, February, 2006). There are the Compensators (10 per cent), consumers who are very conscious about dieting and weight loss. Traditionalists (17 per cent) are the group that generally feels very healthy; they have a regular healthy diet but rarely exercise. Go-for-it Guys (11 per cent) are active young men who are very physique conscious; while they don’t worry about what they eat, they do exercise a lot.

Carefree (15 per cent) are young adults of both sexes; they are not into healthy eating but do a little bit of exercising. Sports Beer & BBQ (13 per cent) are older males who may play sports regularly but do not follow a regular diet. Indulgers (15 per cent) are people who spend time in front of the television (now maybe a smartphone); they are more conscious of their kids and don’t worry about looking good. Finally, there are the Disengaged (19 per cent); this is the biggest segment that is least interested in their health or physical appearance.
 

If we superimpose nutrition information availability on the various consumer segments, we will see that some of them are a lost cause. They are least bothered about health and nutrition. But there are many out there who could be swayed by better information content on packaging: The Compensators and the Traditionalists. Add to them the Indulgers who may be swayed because of their concern about their children’s health. If you add these, you get a total of over 40 per cent. That is a good start.

Then comes the issue of comprehending the information provided. Most packs provide information converted to 100 gms and per servings (approx 28 gms). Not many consumers can interpret this information to their daily consumption. Information like recommended daily percentage is an attempt at simplifying the information (if you eat 28 gms of this pack of chips, you will get 25 per cent of your daily recommended dose of fats, for instance). But it is not clear how many consumers can make the calculation and incorporate it into their daily habits. Finally, in India, there is the challenge of English literacy; only around 10 per cent of Indians can read English. For all the others, the back-of-pack table is just a set of numbers. In this regard, the Australasian system of ‘Star Rating’ seems to be a good solution. Electrical goods carry a ‘Star Rating’ of their power consumption and seem to have been well accepted (further research is needed to confirm this).
 

The other challenge is that consumers know that not all goods are ‘healthy’ but they still consume them as indulgences. Indian sweets. Indian savouries. Ice creams. Chocolates. All of them fall into this category. There is a fear that branding all of them ‘unhealthy’ could impact these sectors. So, should there be two categories: health foods (labelled as health foods carrying a star rating) and indulgences (that are labelled as fun foods without a star rating)?
 

Two last points that should be relevant as we try to regulate the packaging of processed foods. It is widely reported that globally 30 per cent of food gets wasted (some at the farm level, some on the way to the store, and some at the stores/homes). In India, too, over one-third of all foods produced is wasted. Processing food is one way of reducing waste (at least from farm to home). As a country, we should focus on ensuring that foods don’t get wasted at the farm level, or at storage or transportation stages. We should be encouraging processed foods that are still healthy, not just loaded with fats, salt and sugar. 
 

Finally, there is a need to bring about better nutritional awareness. There is a need to get the entire medical fraternity to become more nutrition-conscious and ready to dispense nutrition information. A widespread media campaign along the lines of the polio vaccine campaign needs to be unveiled. These efforts need to be done on a sustained basis to bring about a significant attitude and behaviour change.
 

Better nutrition labelling is just the start of this long and arduous journey. It is erroneous to assume all the change can happen with just a font size change. Changing consumer behaviour takes a lot more than that.

The writer is a best-selling author of 11 books. He can be reached at ambimgp@brand-building.com.