Food labelling and advertising law (Chile)

Chile's food labelling and advertising law, formally titledLey 20.606, sobre la composición de los alimentos y su publicidad("Law 20,606, on the nutritional composition of foods and their advertising") establishes a regulatory framework on food security and healthy food with the intention of guiding consumers towards behaviour patterns that promote public health. After the 2012 law was enacted, its accompanying regulations came into full force on June 27, 2016.Andrew Jacobs, writing forThe New York Times, has characterized this measure as "the world’s most ambitious attempt to remake a country’s food culture" and suggests it "could be a model for how to turn the tide on a globalobesityepidemic that researchers say contributes to four million premature deaths a year."
InChile, the law — often referred to by less cumbersome names such asley de etiquetado de alimentos("food labelling law"),ley del Súper Ocho("Super Eight law"),or simplyley de alimentos("food law") — specifically regulates the delivery of nutritional information on foods high insodium,saturated fats,sugarsorcalories. The standard also prohibits the sale of such foods in educational institutions, and limits theadvertising of these products to childrenunder fourteen.
According to a 2010 national health survey, more than 60 percent of Chile's population suffers from excessive weight. The problem begins early in childhood, with more than 10 percent of children under six, more than 15 percent of preschoolers and more than 25 percent of first-grade children presenting with obesity. When the overweight and the obese children are considered as a group, more than 50 percent of them, according to the Chilean Ministry of Health, are found to suffer from malnutrition, which they consider the main public health problem in the country.Prior to the law's enactment, poor diet and high body mass index were the leading causes of premature death and disability in Chile.
In an effort to combat childhood obesity, the World Health Organization encourages implementing a three-pronged approach to promote health. Their suggestions include mandating front-of-package warning labels (FOPWL), banning marketing of foods with a FOPWL to children, and prohibiting selling these products in schools.In 1993, Finland was the first country to enact a similar law, issuing a front-of-packagewarning labelon sodium-rich products.Chile was the first country to adapt all three recommendations outlined by the WHO.
The law has eleven articles; its stipulations establish:
Health ministry decree No. 13 (April 16, 2015), amended the government's processed foods regulation to adapt it to the provisions of Law 20.606 and specifying maximum calories, sodium, sugars and saturated fats in food; the values were set to diminish by progressive stages after the regulation's entry into force.The limits stipulated by law are:
The regulation also detailed the foods that are exempted from the labelling obligation, which includes foods withoutadded sugars, honey or syrups; without added sodium and without saturated fats; those sold in bulk or portioned out, divided and prepared at the request of the public (even if they are packaged at the time of sale);infant formula; commercially prepared mincedbaby food, unless they contain added sugar; food prepared for medical use; food forweight control regimens;dietary supplementsand certainfoods for athletes; and table-topsugar substitutes.
Several countries have expressed interest in the Chilean standards and have considered their content in developing their own countries' labelling regulations, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil,Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel,Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, El Salvador and Uruguay.
International organizations — including theCaribbean Community(CARICOM), thePan American Health Organization,theUN'sFood and Agriculture OrganizationandWorld Health Organization, theUnion of South American Nationsand theOECD— have expressed support for the Chilean food labelling and advertising law and regulations and have facilitated bilateral cooperation,memoranda of understandingand the establishment of international networks.Codex Alimentariushas urged member countries to revise regulations on labelling, while theWorld Trade Organizationhas established international discussion panels on food labelling, at which Chilean representatives have been prominent speakers.
In addition, duringNorth American Free Trade Agreementnegotiations, the governments of Mexico and Canada have advocated for nutritional warnings on foods, inspired by the Chilean experience, but from 2017 to 2020, the United States government supported efforts of the commercialfood and beverageindustry to prevent the adoption of laws similar to Chile's by demandingNAFTAclauses forbidding the enactment of suchconsumer safetylaws in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Lora Verheecke, a researcher at theCorporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit group tracking corporate lobbying, has declared that once such pro-industry and anti-consumer rules are enshrined into international trade agreements, it becomes extremely difficult to overturn them in the laws of trade-pact member states: "It kind of kills a law before it can be written, and once you put it into one trade agreement, it can become the precedent for all future deals with future countries."
A strong level of awareness exists for Chile's food labelling law. A majority of Chileans were able to state the purpose of the law and its effectiveness, but few were able to address what the guideline daily amount meant.The Lancetcompared pre- and post-policy-enactment on food and beverage purchases in Chile. They found calories in purchased foods decreased by 3.5 percent overall.The total amounts of sugar and saturated fats in products decreased by 10.2 and 3.9 percent respectively.The Lancetconcluded that the law's enactment resulted in a significant decrease in the purchasing of food with labels "high in" a nutrient.However, a review of the literature from theBritish Food Journalnotes that after the implementation of the first stage, there was no correlation found between the law's enactment and a change in obesity rates.The researchers suggest continued studies after the third law's implementation to discover if there is a statistically significant effect.
TheInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activityconducted an analysis of the Chilean law's impact, specifically focusing on mothers with school-aged children. Mothers selected to participate in the focus groups had children between the ages of two and 14.In all focus groups, mothers were aware both of the policy and of its overarching goal to reduce childhood obesity.Some of the mothers reported that the policy has "uncovered" what constitutes healthy food, and has encouraged many of them to change their shopping habits accordingly.Mothers reported mixed results as to how the warning labels have influenced their shopping habits. Some report no impact, while others say they utilize it as a quick shortcut while shopping.Another group reported paying very close attention to the warnings, particularly those of a middle and highsocioeconomicstatus.Further, another study found that 78.5 percent of individuals surveyed reported that the front-of-package warning labels swayed their purchasing decisions,while perception of highly processed foods has encouraged many mothers to purchase higher quantities of natural foods.
In a focus group including mothers with school-aged children, they self-reported that schools have become advocates for healthy eating, replacing unhealthy food with fresh fruits and vegetables.Previous school events centred around eating an unhealthy treat, such as cookies or cakes, have been replaced with healthy alternatives.Similarly, theBritish Food Journalfound that over a two-year period, fruit and vegetable availability in schools increased from 0.7 percent in 2014 to 3.2 percent in 2016.Further, food products with nutrients that exceeded the recommended thresholds in schools decreased in availability from 90.4 percent to 15 percent from 2014 to 2016.
There has been pushback against the law, with many individuals, according to a study by Teresa Correa et al., citing "message fatigue" and overexposure— which, they say, dilute the ability of public health campaigns and hamper respondents' ability to digest messages.Some mothers claimed they felt the policy infringed upon their "freedom," as they were no longer allowed to give their children junk food to school, as it would likely be taken away from them.
Critics argue that in addition, the government should tax unhealthy food while subsidizing healthy food, in order to make healthy eating accessible to all socioeconomic groups, simultaneously addressing a significant barrier to healthy eating and increasing the law's effectiveness.