News

What will US front-of-pack nutrition labels look like?

US front of pack nutrition labels are on the way – but policymakers and researchers are divided on how best to design them.

The Food Labelling Modernization Act has been reintroduced in the US in a move to update front-of-pack (FOP) food labelling requirements.

The Act “will create easy-to-read labels on the front of packages that provide consumers with nutrition information and important warnings”, said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, Jr. “The goal,” he added, “is to make it a little easier for everyone to know what they’re buying and to stop misleading health claims”.

Most food labelling requirements in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act have not been updated since 1990 and in some cases have not been changed since 1938.

The Food Labeling Modernization Act would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, to establish a single, standard front-of-pack nutrition labelling system “in a timely manner” for all food products required to bear nutrition labelling.

The US bill would also strengthen current law to address trends in marketing that confuse or mislead consumers when they are attempting to compare food products. Specifically, the legislation will require guidelines for the use of the word “healthy”.

Front-of-pack nutrition labels are still stuck

In January 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed a new FOP nutrition label that would require a small ‘nutrition info’ box on the front of most packaged food. Saturated fat, sodium and added sugars would each be listed with a rating of “low”, “medium” or “high”. This would be based on the “percentage daily value”, as defined by the FDA, which for these nutrients is a daily limit, in one serving. The labels would also list the numeric percentage daily value.

A consultation ran last year, and was extended. There has been plenty of debate about the label, which would be in addition to the nutrition facts panel already on the back or side of most food and beverage products.

In recent interviews, Kennedy said the new labels would follow an announcement on a federal definition for ultra-processed foods, which was expected last month (April). UPFs have certainly made decisions relating to new nutrition labels trickier, but this should not derail progress following positive results from new regulations in a number of countries. Each iteration can fall back on the latest real-life experiences and research.

Researchers have suggested that to make nutrient content easier to understand the US FOP labels should only flag products that are high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat with labels that say “high in” a specific nutrient.

FDA’s design assessed by academics

While the FDA works to finalise the label, a research team led by the University of California, Davis, put forward a design that highlights products that are high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat.

They conducted an online randomised controlled trial with more than 13,000 adults across the US to compare the FDA’s proposed black-and-white nutrition info box to alternative designs to assess the effects of the labels on consumer understanding and behaviour.

As well as a no-label control and the FDA's proposed scheme, people were also shown labels with no percentage daily value and “high” highlighted in red, a single label scheme listing all nutrients contained in a high amount, or a multilabel scheme with separate labels for each nutrient contained in a high amount.

The “high in” label designs outperformed the FDA’s proposed label in helping participants quickly identify healthier choices, said Jennifer Falbe, lead author and UC Davis associate professor of nutrition and human development.

Using multiple “high in” labels, such as “high in added sugar”, “high in sodium”, or “high in saturated fat” also surpassed the FDA’s label in helping participants choose healthier foods for themselves in virtual shopping settings, she explained.

In their study, published in the journal, The Lancet Public Health, the academics concluded that “a label design that emphasises when products are high in nutrients of concern improves consumer outcomes over the proposed FDA design”.

The team also discovered that, compared to “high in” labels, the FDA’s proposed nutrition info labels caused participants to misperceive items such as processed meat and confectionery as healthier.

“That’s probably because the FDA label listed two ‘lows’ and one ‘high’ for these products,” said Falbe. “The two ‘lows’ may have created a false health halo, another reason the FDA should go with a ‘high in’ label. This label will be seen every day by millions of Americans for decades, so the FDA should pick the best label,” she added.

Choosing effective labels: A black and white decision?

In a recent interview, US health secretary Kennedy said the labels might be traffic lighted as they are in other countries. The FDA’s original proposal was for a black and white label.

Research published in January suggested that the DFA label worked best for consumers who had higher nutrition literacy, but it may not be the most effective choice for all Americans.

“Our findings support the FDA’s efforts to mandate front-of-package nutrition labels,” wrote lead author Yuru Huang, assistant professor at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center. “However, label design matters,” she added.

Responding to the UC Davis study, Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, Emerita, explained how the “winning label” helped people identify healthy products, avoid interpreting unhealthy foods as healthy and recall label contents. “The obvious interpretation: Use the winners,” she said, which are much like those used in Chile, Mexico, and other Latin American countries.

In recent years, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, and Ecuador have adopted front-of-package labelling systems.

Chile’s warning labelling and marketing rules for unhealthy foods have for example led to “significant decreases” in purchases of food and drinks with high levels of sugar, salt and fat, according to research in 2024.