Over the past decade, the global prevalence of obesity has escalated to alarming levels, prompting significant public health concerns.  In 2022, approximately 1 in 8 individuals worldwide were living with obesity (including 1 in 3 in the EU and in North America), with adult obesity rates more than doubling since 1990 and adolescent obesity quadrupling during the same period.

This is particularly pertinent because obesity is a risk factor for many serious diseases and disorders such as cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes which are major contributors to premature deaths.  The WHO acceleration plan to stop obesity has outlined strategies for governments to address this issue, including introducing nutrition labelling schemes that support consumers to make healthier choices, as well as monitoring the food environment for nutritional quality, prices and marketing practices.

Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling: A Decade of  Global Transformation

Many governments globally have introduced front of pack (FOP) nutrition labelling and regulations around sugar, fat, and salt as a key lever to combat obesity and associated non-communicable diseases.  FOP nutrition labelling can empower consumers to make healthier food choices by simplifying the nutritional information into clear visual cues, using colour, ratings or symbols, making it easier to compare products.

Figure 1 shows the countries who were early adopters of FOP nutritional labelling.  As early as 1989, Sweden added the voluntary ‘Keyhole symbol’ to their food labels, which was then added by Norway & Demark in 2009, followed by Iceland & Lithuania in 2013, and Macedonia in 2015.  Other European countries included a voluntary nutrition traffic light label in 2013 (UK & Ireland), while a similar mandatory label was implemented in Ecuador in 2014.  Australia and New Zealand also implemented a voluntary label known as the “Health Star” system in 2014.

Figure 1: Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling prior to 2015

Since 2015, various countries have implemented or proposed even more FOP nutrition labelling systems to provide accessible, at-a-glance nutritional information.  Figure 2, highlights the evolution of FOP nutrition labelling globally as of 2025.

Figure 2: Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling 2025

Notable Changes in FOP Nutrition Labelling since 2015:

• • European Union: Several EU countries have adopted the Nutri-Score system, a voluntary FOP nutrition labelling scheme that rates the nutritional quality of food products using a color-coded scale from A (healthiest) to E (least healthy).  France implemented Nutri-Score in 2017, followed by Belgium, Spain, Germany, and others.
  • Latin America: In 2016, Chile implemented black octagonal warning labels on foods high in calories, sugar, sodium, or saturated fat.  This measure led to a significant reduction in the purchase of unhealthy items and prompted food manufacturers to reformulate products to avoid the warning labels.  Since this implementation, several Latin American countries have also adopted similar labelling (Peru in 2019; Mexico in 2020; Uruguay in 2021; Argentina, Brazil and Colombia in 2022; and Venezuela in 2024), with some differences between countries, but all of them mandatory.
  • Canada: Health Canada introduced mandatory FOP nutrition label in 2022, with full implementation required by January 1, 2026.  The label highlights products high in saturated fat, sugars, and sodium, aiming to assist consumers in making informed choices.
  • South East Asia: Many countries in South East Asia have introduced healthier choice logo’s.  In 2022 Singapore introduced the mandatory Nutri-Grade label and advertising restrictions for all pre-packaged beverages, and out of home beverages from fountain dispensers, automated coffee machines and cafe’s / food service premises.  The Nutri-Grade system rates beverages according to their sugar and saturated fat levels, with a special sugar declaration mark for toppings added.
  • United Kingdom: In addition to the voluntary FOP traffic light label for pre-packaged foods, the UK has implemented mandatory regulations to reduce advertising of foods and drinks high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) to combat childhood obesity.  These regulations, effective October 1, 2025, include a ban on HFSS ads on TV before 9 PM and a complete ban on paid-for online ads for these products.  The regulations, as outlined in the Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024, are designed to limit exposure of children to HFSS products through advertising.
  • Middle East: Colour coded traffic light labels have been introduced for pre-packaged foods in Iran (mandatory), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (voluntary).
  • Sugar Taxes on sugar sweetened beverages: Globally over 100 countries have introduced levies on pre-packaged sugar sweetened beverages to promote healthier beverage choices by consumers.

Future Considerations for FOP Nutrition Labelling

• • Singapore: From mid-2027, the Nutri-Grade labelling requirements and advertising prohibitions will be extended to key contributors of sodium and saturated fat intake.  These measures will apply to 23 sub-categories of prepacked salt, sauces, seasonings, instant noodles, and cooking oils (SSSIO) sold in retail settings.
  • China has started to encourage companies to actively adopt the recommended standards of “Guidelines on graphic symbol of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in pre-packaged Food” , which introduced four front-of-pack nutrition labels simultaneously depending on products’ nutritional profile, including a black-and-white warning label, an A-D rating, and a “Smart Choice” message.
  • India: FSSAI engaged with the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) to seek expert advice on the most consumer-friendly front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) system used globally.  IIM conducted an in-depth survey to assess consumer preferences for various nutrition labels in India.  The results indicated that the Health Star Rating (HSR) system was the most preferred, owing to its ease of identification, understanding, reliability, and influence on consumer choices.  Based on these findings, in February 2022 FSSAI decided to adopt the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR), a modified version of Australia’s HSR, tailored to suit Indian consumer behaviour and dietary patterns.
  • USA: On January 14, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the long-awaited Proposed Rule on Front-of-Package (FOP) Nutrition Labelling.  The Nutrition Info box will categorize the levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars as “Low,” “Med,” or “High,” making it easier for consumers to understand the nutritional content at a glance.  There are also plans to remove certain foods and beverages HFSS from SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) US.

While these initiatives have shown promise in influencing consumer behaviour and encouraging product reformulation, their impact will be determined by regulatory framework, industry acceptance, and market restrictions.  For FOP nutrition labelling to be fully beneficial it must be paired with broader public health policies that address the needs of healthy and sustainable dietary habits, such as education, accessibility, and cultural needs.  As obesity rates continue to rise globally, the adoption and refinement of FOP nutrition labelling remain critical components of public health strategies.

Disclaimer: This article is based on information available as of June 12, 2025.

The decisions made by the USDA on Child Nutrition Programs focus on improving child health through nutritious school meals and addressing challenges such as added sugars, sodium levels, whole grains, and procurement of American-grown foods. Here are some of the notable updates:

Added Sugars and Sodium Limits:

USDA has introduced a gradual, multi-year approach to limit added sugars in high-sugar products like grain-based desserts, breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milk. By School Year (SY) 2027-2028, the limit will ensure that no more than 10% of calories per meal come from added sugars. Sodium limits will also be gradually reduced over several years, with a focus being packaged meats and meals. By SY 2027-2028, schools will implement a 10% reduction for breakfast and a 15% reduction for lunch.^1,2

Whole Grains and Flavored Milk:

Schools are required to ensure that 80% of weekly grains are primarily whole grain, but they can occasionally offer non-whole, enriched grain foods. Flavored milk is allowed for all K-12 grades, with proposed changes that may limit it to certain grade levels. USDA is seeking public input on this matter.³

Flexible Meal Planning and Traditional Foods:

The proposed rule allows more flexibility at breakfast by including meats and meat alternates such as yogurt, eggs, or tofu. It also supports more culturally inclusive meals, including traditional Indigenous foods. A significant financial investment in the Healthy Meals Incentives initiative, with $100 million dedicated to improving the nutritional quality of school meals, is also part of the changes.^1,4

Supporting Local Foods and Schools:

The USDA is providing nearly $1 billion to support schools in purchasing American-grown foods for their meal programs, aiming to ease procurement challenges and encourage the use of locally grown products. The Keep Kids Fed Act, which was signed into law, also provides extra resources to schools, summer meal sites, and childcare food programs to address high food costs and supply chain disruptions.⁴

Why are these changes happening?

These updates to school nutrition standards aim to align with international practices by limiting added sugars and reducing sodium content. For instance, the new regulations will cap added sugars at 10% of total caloric intake by 2027 and implement a 10% reduction in sodium for breakfast and 15% for lunch by the same year. These standards resemble approaches in countries like the UK and Canada, where similar limits on sugars and sodium have been implemented to combat rising concerns about childhood obesity and health.^1,4

In the UK, the School Food Standards require that high-quality meat, poultry, or oily fish are provided, and limits are set on the amount of sugar and fats available in school meals. Meanwhile, Canada’s guidelines focus on providing meals rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while minimizing processed sugars and sodium, aiming to foster healthier eating habits among children.⁵

These international approaches underline a common global trend towards enhancing children’s health through better nutrition standards in schools, emphasizing reduced sugar and sodium while promoting whole grains and locally sourced foods. This convergence suggests a growing recognition of the importance of healthy school meals as a foundation for lifelong healthy eating habits.

What does this mean for the industry?

For food manufacturers, these changes mean investing in research and development to reduce the sugar and sodium content of their products without compromising taste or texture. For example, the new rules set limits on added sugars in flavored milks, a popular item in school cafeterias, which will push dairy processors to innovate lower-sugar formulations that still appeal to children.¹ Similarly, with sodium reduction targets set for the coming years, manufacturers of processed foods products such as bread rolls, meats, packaged products, etc. typically used in school meals will need to find ways to maintain flavor while reducing salt content.

Additionally, the emphasis on locally sourced and unprocessed agricultural products opens new markets for local farmers and producers but poses challenges for larger, national manufacturers who may need to adjust their supply chains to meet local sourcing requirements. This could mean forming new partnerships with local farmers or investing in local production facilities.^1,4

These changes not only reflect an increased focus on health and nutrition in school meals but also represent a growing consumer demand for healthier, locally sourced foods across the market. Food manufacturers who successfully adapt to these standards can not only continue to serve the school meals market but also leverage their innovations to cater to broader consumer trends towards healthier eating.

• • Sodium’s role in health
  • Tax and legislation initiatives on sodium reduction being enacted globally, and their impact
  • Voluntary initiatives from food industry and impact on sodium intake
  • What to expect in the future

Effects of Excess Sodium Intake on Health

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) account for most non-communicable deaths (NCDs) globally¹, which equates to 17.9 million people annually ².   Of these deaths, an estimated 1.89 million each year is associated with excessive intake of sodium in Europe ³, which is a major driver of high blood pressure in many countries ⁴, which is the leading risk factor for CVD ^5,6.

Salt is the main source of sodium in foods⁷, therefore reducing salt intake can naturally translate into a lower sodium intake, which is beneficial for health ^4,8, and is associated with reduced cardiovascular events ¹.  However, sodium isn’t all bad!  The human body requires a small amount of sodium for critical body function such as muscle contraction and relaxation, conduction of nerve impulses, and regulation of body fluids ⁷.  Unfortunately, our intake far exceeds the amount required by the human body and, hence, has a negative impact on health ³.

The global average dietary sodium intake in adults is 4,310mg per day (10.78g salt per day) which is more than double the recommendation advised by World Health Organisation (WHO) (2000mg sodium/day = 5g salt per day) ^9,10.  In general, daily sodium intake targets range between 2,000mg and 2,400mg per day (5 – 6g) across the globe ^9,11-13.  Alarmingly, reports from international organisations reveal that the Middle East has extremely high rates of salt consumption, with an average per capita consumption of more than 12g per day ¹⁴.

According to the UK National Diet & Nutrition Survey (NDNS), the main contributors of dietary salt are bread, cheese, and processed meat products ¹⁵.  This is similar for Europe, with a large proportion of salt intake coming from foods that don’t necessarily taste salty such as potato products and tinned produce ¹⁶.  On the other hand, sources of dietary sodium have been shown to differ between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) ¹⁷.  For instance, in Southeast Asia, manufactured and processed foods provide 80% of the dietary salt intake in HICs, whereas most of the consumed salt in LMICs is added during food preparation and cooking and/or discretionary table salt^17,18.  It is important to bear in mind that, in general, consumption of processed foods is still relatively low in South Asian countries.  A study conducted in South India identified key food sources of sodium were pulses (29.7%), rice-based dishes (27%), and vegetables (16.7%) ¹⁹.

What Actions are Being Taken to Lower Sodium Intakes?

Implementing highly cost-effective sodium reduction initiatives could potentially save an estimated seven million lives globally by 2030, according to the WHO ²⁰.  Many countries have implemented salt reduction targets for commonly consumed foods as part of a strategy to reduce salt intakes.  In 2013, the WHO Member States adopted a voluntary global target of 30% reduction in mean population salt intake by 2025 ²¹.  In 2023, the WHO published a global report on sodium intake reduction that details countries which have adopted and implemented sodium reduction policies ⁶.

Although there has been an increase in the number of salt reduction initiatives around the world since 2014 ²², efforts must be urgently accelerated and replicated in other countries, with more rigorous monitoring and evaluation of strategies needed to achieve salt reduction targets.

Table 1. National sodium/salt reduction initiatives by WHO region ²²

South-East Asia:  To align with the WHO global sodium reduction target, in 2013, the WHO South-East Asia countries set an intermediate regional target of 10% reduction in mean salt intake over the next 5 years ¹⁰.

Europe & UK:  Many countries in Europe either have mandatory and/or voluntary salt reduction initiatives such as maximum permitted salt levels in foods and reformulation programs.  Policies include strategies such as taxes on high-salt food (Hungary), mandatory high-salt content labels (Finland), and targets for reformulation and close monitoring of the food supply (UK) ²³.

Eastern Mediterranean:  The Eastern Mediterranean Region, which includes 22 countries and a population of approximately 580 million people, is a region that has a high burden of CVD ^17,24.  National sodium/salt reduction strategies have been identified in Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Tunisia, and the UAE ¹⁷.  The least common initiative was taxation on foods and beverages, whereas the most common strategy was reformulation (100%), followed by consumer education (77%), initiatives in specific settings (54%), and front of pack labelling (46%).  However, only 27% of Eastern Mediterranean countries monitored activities, and impact evaluations are lacking ²⁴.

Taxes and Legislation

Taxing high salt products – Case Study in Europe

In 2011, Hungary implemented a tax called Public Health Product Tax (PHPT) on packaged foods that contain high levels of salt such as salty snacks and condiments.  The aim of introducing taxes is to reduce the consumption of food products that are not beneficial to public health ²⁵.  However, it is not easy to prove causality between the implementation of a nutrient tax and a reduction in consumption of that specific nutrient.

For Hungary, an evaluation was conducted after the introduction of the PHPT to monitor its impact on the population.  Unfortunately, the consumption of taxed products by the adult population did not decrease, thus the salt tax had a minimal impact on Hungarian consumers behaviours ²⁶.

Establishing mandatory upper limits on salt content of foods

Americas

On December 6, 2023, the Ministry of Health of Colombia issued Resolution 2056 which amended their “sodium rule”.  This amendment allows US exporters to use self-declarations to certify compliance with Colombia’s maximum sodium levels in processed products, which will help facilitate the trade of processed products to Colombia ²⁷.

Europe & UK

European countries, including Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Netherlands, and Portugal, have implemented mandatory maximum salt targets on products with a generally high salt content.  The main products of focus are those that significantly contribute to dietary sodium intakes.  The United Kingdom is often viewed by other countries as a good example for addressing an issue in public health ²⁸.  It implemented a successful voluntary salt reduction initiative, and now the government legislated to restrict the promotion, location and advertising of products deemed high in fat, sugar, and/or salt (HFSS) ²⁹.

Warning labels on high salt foods

Across the globe, many countries use front of pack nutrition labels or warning labels that highlight the content of energy and usually these four nutrients – fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt in foods and beverages.  It is widely accepted that one of the most effective ways to reduce sodium intake at a population level is through lowering the sodium content of foods that are consumed frequently.  Engaging industry on a voluntary basis to reformulate products high in salt is a key strategy to achieve success ²³.  Many countries have established voluntary industry-led initiatives with category-specific salt targets for a wide range of food products.

Europe & UK

The EU is planning to propose a unified front-of-pack labelling scheme for all member states in 2025.  European food industry and retailers show Reference Intakes (RI) on the front of product packaging, where the content of the above mentioned are displayed along with the daily RI for energy and for the four nutrients per portion ³⁰.  In addition, the energy value is also expressed per 100g/100ml.    In recent years many countries have adopted similar front-of-pack labels displaying information on sodium (or salt).  For instance, in mainland Europe, several countries have implemented the Nutri-Score labelling scheme which grades the nutritional value of foods from A to E ³⁰.  From January 2026, companies using the Nutri-Score logo must adopt the latest, and more restrictive, Nutri-Score algorithms for food and beverages ³¹.

In Finland, numerous activities have been undertaken to reduce salt, in particular voluntary initiatives, and compulsory front-of-pack warning labels.  Warning labels are required if a specific product contains sugar or salt above a defined threshold.  For example, foods that are high in salt are required to carry a “high salt content” warning ³².  Interestingly, since their introduction, the average sodium content in food products in Finland has decreased by 20-25% ³².

Americas and Canada

Many countries in Latin America such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and soon Brazil, have adopted front-of-pack black warning labels that indicate if a product is high in calories, fat, sugar, and salt ^30,33 (Figure 1).

In October 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration published new voluntary sodium reduction goals for the food and beverage industry ³⁴.  Due to pressures to reduce sodium intake, the targets are only for 2.5 years compared with those issued previously.  The strategy supports sodium reduction already achieved by industry, provides targets for defining and measuring progress, and provides companies with the flexibility and time to meet these targets.

In Canada, as of January 2026, a front-of-package nutrition symbol is mandatory for pre-packaged foods that meet or exceed set levels for saturated fat, sugars or sodium.

South-East Asia

In most South Asian countries, salt reduction initiatives are still in the planning phase and are yet to be fully implemented, with outcomes not evaluated or reported ¹⁰.  Scaling up community-wide salt reduction strategies in this region is imperative for reducing salt intakes.

From a public health perspective, voluntary industry initiatives can be more effective, as they may be more achievable than government measures which can be hampered by pressure from interest groups, political gridlock, and bureaucratic inertia.  They may also achieve public health objectives quicker, more efficiently and less intrusively than governmental regulation.

An Industry Perspective

There are many positives with engaging in nutritional improvement of products, such as public health responsibility, creating positive publicity for the brand, goodwill among stakeholders and preventing binding government regulation and fiscal measures.  Product reformulation has large potential effects on the quality of the diet and has the potential to improve population health ¹⁶.

One primary hurdle is that reformulation can alter the sensory attributes of food products and influence consumer liking.  However, there is evidence that consumers do not detect gradual decreases in the salt content of foods when slowly reduced over time ³⁵.

Examples of successful industry-government partnerships for salt reduction

Community-based salt reduction programs have been conducted in many parts of the world, resulting in reduced salt intake, increased awareness and lowering of BP ¹⁰.  Of all the WHO 194 Member States, 79% (154) have committed a policy towards sodium reduction and these commitments are usually included in national nutrition plans (n = 82), non-communicable disease plans (n = 94) or health sector plans (n = 40) ⁶.  In 2023, the WHO published their global report on sodium intake reduction providing detailed examples of sodium intake reduction initiatives across their Member States ⁶.

Western Pacific

A community-based Eat Less Salt intervention in Vietnam decreased community salt intake from 21.5 to 20.4 g per day together with reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure between baseline and follow-up of 1-year intervention ¹⁰.  A similar project in Australia demonstrated a mean salt intake reduction from 8.8 to 8 g per day over a 3-year period.  A study in Japan found significant reduction in community salt intake, and a corresponding reduction in BP ¹⁰.

Europe & UK

Similarly, a research study conducted in Portugal reported a significant reduction in community salt intake, and a corresponding reduction in BP ¹⁰.  Many EU governments in countries including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain have proposed a collaborative approach with industries on setting voluntary salt targets.  In Ireland, a salt reduction program was run over ten years from 2003 to 2013 which led to a reduction in daily adult salt intake by 1.1g³⁶.  In 2021, the Irish Government published their ambitious ‘Reformulation Roadmap’ with 2025 targets for reducing calories (20%), saturated fat (10%), salt (10%) and sugar (20%) in products that contribute to the most intake of these nutrients ³⁷.

Recently, the UK released the fifth sets of voluntary salt reduction targets.  The UK’s gradual salt reduction program has been successful in reducing population-level salt intake: it achieved an overall reduced salt intake of 1 g per day in the adult population, reducing adult average sodium intake from 3,752 mg per day (9.38 g per day) in 2000 to 3,352 (8.38 g per day) in 2018 ³⁸.  This is a great step forward for public health despite the intake still being considerably higher than the UK recommended intake of 2,400g per day.

Conclusion

Many countries have taken and will continue to take actions to reduce population sodium intake.  High sodium intake is associated with not only increased BP but also risk of CVD.  Global sodium consumption is too high, so reducing intake will significantly improve public health.  For this reason, the sodium levels in products will continue to be scrutinised and the pressure on industry to reformulate products will continually increase.

The role of salt is essential in the preservation, flavour, and structure of food products; therefore, it is essential that governments and food industry collaborate to educate consumers, invest in new technologies and develop innovative reformulation methods and practices.

This article was originally published on 13 October 2021. It is being currently updated January 2026.

Sugar, in the form of the carbohydrate glucose, is the primary energy of life.  It is the main source for the human body, as all carbohydrates are broken down into sugars by our body to perform.  For instance, the human brain needs around 50 grams of sugar per day to function.  This is one of the reasons humans evolved to find the taste of sugar favourable.  This was especially important during human evolution when sources of sugar were not as easily accessible as they are now.  However, there is a difference between naturally occurring / free sugars and added sugars. How do consumers tell the difference? 

The WHO definition of term free sugars refers to ‘monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates’.  By this definition, for example, fruit juice would contain free sugars but might not be considered an ‘added sugar’ unless it was added to another food or beverage for the purpose of sweetening.  The EFSA and FDA go into further detail about definitions of what is and isn’t an added sugar.  Added sugars are considered empty calories (i.e. supplying energy but little else nutritionally) and therefore have been the focus of increasing attention in dietary guidelines in recent years. 

As per European Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers “sugars” are defined as “all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols”.  To date, there is no similar clear-cut definition of the term ‘added sugars’ in the same piece of Regulation.

However, Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods does reference a “No Added Sugar” claim as “where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties.” Within the food industry, this then prompts discussion on how to define “any other food used for its sweetening properties”.  

In the United States, the FDA definition of added sugars includes sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono- and disaccharides), sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices that are in excess of what would be expected from the same volume of 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice of the same type.  The definition excludes fruit or vegetable juice concentrated from 100 percent fruit juice that is sold to consumers (e.g. frozen 100 percent fruit juice concentrate) as well as some sugars found in fruit and vegetable juices, jellies, jams, preserves, and fruit spreads. 

It is the consumption of increased added sugars that is blamed for various health conditions such as increase of a person’s risk for heart disease, type two diabetes, and obesity.  Additionally, there is a strong link between sugar intake and dental caries, or more commonly known as tooth decay or cavities.   It has been estimated that, globally in 2010, US$ 298 billion was spent on direct costs associated with dental caries (WHO). 

It’s no surprise the focus from the authorities around sugar reduction.  Reducing sugar consumption is a global focus as a health imperative, the World Health Organization recommends reducing free sugar intake for both children and adults to under 10 percent of total daily calories, equivalent to around 50 grams of free/added sugar maximum for the average person per day.  It is undeniable that overconsumption of sugars – added sugars – has been recognized as a worldwide problem by top public health agencies and consumers’ interest regarding reducing sugar consumption over time is maintained high.  

Environmental Impact of Sugar Production 

Sugar is a major industry with significant effects on the global environment resulting from growing, harvesting, refining, and distribution.  On average, sugarcane accounts for nearly 80% of global sugar production, with some 110 countries currently producing sugar from either cane or beets. For the period October/ September 2019, the top 10 producing countries (India, Brazil, Thailand, China, the US, Mexico, Russia, Pakistan, France, and Australia) accounted for nearly 70% of global output, with more than 170 million tonnes consumed annually (International Sugar Organisation).  The production of sugar is a highly water intensive operation, especially from sugar cane which has deep roots. 

According to a recent sugar life cycle analysis and report conducted by Kerry, manufacturing 1kg of cane sugar uses 1,110 litres of water and leads to 0.42kg of CO₂ emissions.  For the case of beet sugar, it would require 640 liters of water and emit 0.85kg of CO₂ emissions (LCA). 

The increase in global demand for sugar is resulting in high water consumption, air and water pollution, soil degradation, and change in natural habitat.  It is estimated that 10% of soil is lost during harvest of beet sugar and 3-5% of soil in sugar cane harvest.  This has resulted in the clearing of natural habitats such as rain forests, coastal wetlands, and savannah (WWF Action for Sustainable Sugar). 

Get KHNI articles delivered to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE

Global Sugar Reduction Initiatives   

Following the 2015 publication of the World Health Organization’s “Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020” (GAP), 20 governmental bodies introduced taxation intended to reduce obesity and rising levels of diabetes, most often by targeting sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) as they have been determined to be a major source of added/ free sugars.  By mid-2018, 39 countries, states and cities had introduced nutritional taxation with more working toward voluntary sugar reduction approaches to encourage optimised nutrition. 

Today, that number continues to grow, with more than 50 countries or jurisdictions having implemented taxes on sugary drinks as a way to discourage consumption.  Among the latest places to turn to taxation as a means of encouraging healthy habits and fighting obesity-related illness are Spain and Poland, which introduced new sugar taxes in January of 2021. 

In the same time, there are front-of-pack labelling initiatives that are implemented across the countries on a global level.  Those initiatives seem to attract even more consumer’s attention.  They are easier to be interpreted by the consumer and have alerted manufacturers since they have an impact on the marketing of a products as they may restrict the advertisement of unhealthy foods.  

• Although sugar taxes have been a developed world reality, some of the earliest and most enthusiastic adopters are emerging markets.  According to the PLoSONE journal article “Regulatory initiatives to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in Latin America”, 14 Latin American countries have adopted public and private SSB initiatives since 2006.  These include Mexico, which has one of the highest rates of diabetes globally, and Chile which coupled its tax with warning labels on foods high in sugar, fat or sodium. 
• Hungary was another early adopter, with the introduction of its broad “health tax” in 2011 which took aim at a range of products including those containing high fat and sodium. Today, around a dozen European countries have some form of sugar or health tax, including the UK, Ireland, France and Portugal. 
• Canada introduced a front-of-pack nutrition symbol in 2023 that is required on foods high in sugar, sodium and/or saturated fat.  The United States does not currently have a national strategy for SSB taxation, although city authorities such as those in Berkeley, California, and Boulder, Colorado, have introduced local measures. 
• Among nations in the Middle East and Africa, sugar taxes are in play in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.  In Asia Pacific, several long-standing sugar taxes are in effect and more recent legislation has been applied in Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia. 

The structure of the taxes often follows a similar pattern, usually with a tiered system that awards a higher tax for products with higher sugars.  In most cases the tax is passed on to the final consumer, though some manufacturers have managed to mask price increases through the introduction of smaller pack sizes.
  

In addition to applying pressure to cost-conscious consumers, sugar taxes incentivise manufacturers to rethink recipes and create nutritionally optimised food and beverages.  For example, ahead of the introduction of the UK Soft Drink Industry Level (SDIL) sugar tax in April of 2018, manufacturers began reformulating products, shrinking the number of high- and mid-sugar soft drinks in their portfolio and increasing their low- and zero-sugar offerings. 

A study in BMC Medicine found that six of the top ten brands affected by the SDIL reformulated more than half of the products in their portfolios between 2015 and end of 2018.  As these products hit the market, the total volume sales of high- and mid-sugar soft drinks was cut in half, while volume sales of low- and zero-sugar drinks rose by 40%.  A separate report on the SDIL found that around its implementation, sugar content in soft drinks was reduced by an average of 44%. 

A similar pattern can be seen across Latin America, where 15% of the carbonated soft drinks launched in 2023 had a reduced/low/no or free sugar claim, reflecting the current focus of both the industry and the consumer.  In Brazil, the food and beverage industry agreed to voluntarily reduce sugar in over 1,100 products by 2022.  Some participating manufacturers have also made voluntary commitments to the reduction of sodium, suggesting that overall  nutrition optimisation is an increasingly popular goal.  New labelling requirements, including in Mexico and Brazil, are also pressuring brands to create lower sugar products. 

Even in markets and categories without formal legislation, there is still considerable pressure on manufacturers.  In the United States, The National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative (NSSRI) is in the process of setting voluntary sugar reduction targets after having gotten widespread commercial support for its salt reduction infrastructure.

In the UK, some SSBs that fall outside of the SDIL purview, including unsweetened juices and sweetened milk-based beverages, have seen sugar reductions of around 10% following requests from Public Health England.  In Germany, voluntary targets have been set and, although no official taxes have been introduced, a small consumer survey suggests such efforts would have popular approval. 

As low sugar, no added sugar, reduced and free sugar claims become more prominent in new product launches, reformulation efforts are improving and consumer perceptions about reduced sugar beverages—which have historically faced taste and texture challenges—are changing.  

Consumers Attitudes Toward Different Sweeteners

Striking the balance between taste and nutrition is now more crucial than ever before.  People are not demanding but expecting food and drink that provide them with accessible and nutritional solutions that also cater to their taste buds.   

The need for sugar reduction is undeniable – 79% of global consumers believe that reduced sugar food and drinks are healthier than full sugar versions. Consumer’s sweetness expectations are no longer nebulous.  They are voicing their sugar reduction desires and laying down rules.  The degree of ‘desired’ sugar reduction is complex.  

What sweetener? In what product? Natural or artificial? And how much?  

The type of sweetener used in food and drink is important to 77% of consumers globally.  There’s lots of variables in the reduced sugar conversation, and consumers’ preferences vary considerably depending on the food or drink in question.  The figure below shows consumer familiarity when it comes to different types of sweeteners:

This understanding is important to consider when we look at which sweeteners consumers would prefer.  In the table below, honey was the most preferred sweetener among all consumers, followed by sucrose.  Neotame, advantame were the least preferred (do not prefer).

Preference for Sweeteners (% – Global; Base = Total Respondents)

Although taste remains a primary driver of sugar consumption, consumers increasingly acknowledge and turn to reduced sugar products as healthier alternatives.  

81% of global consumers indicate diabetes and weight gain as significant drawbacks of sugar consumption, which are major deterrents.  Hence, the need for sugar reduction is undeniable, with 79% of global consumers believe that reduced sugar food and drinks are healthier than full sugar versions. (© Kerry Proprietary Consumer Research | Sensibly Sweet 2023 | n=12.784) 

In a World That Loves Sugar’s Familiar Qualities…Where to Start for Successful Reduction? 

The responsibility and cost of helping consumers reduce their sugar intake is being pushed onto the food and beverage industry.  Why so many sugar-reduced products fail?  Though consumers cite taste as the biggest driver of their intention to repurchase, what are the other key factors that may stop great-tasting products from getting off the shelf. 

Every product category has different challenges when reformulating or developing from a low/no sugar added base.  From Beverages to dairy, from bakery to sauces the approach is different.  Reducing sugar or developing from a low/no sugar base in beverages needs to address simultaneously various challenges; low overall sweetness, high sourness, appearance of bitterness and off-notes while product mouthfeel is low.  

Considering the bakery product category the challenges are different to beverages; sweetness and mouthfeel are low, however now parameters as texture, shelf life, colour and crumb porosity are also impacted. 

There is not one solution fits all.  T he approach is usually a combination of various ingredients that work in synergy to address the various challenges.  From the selection of the desired sweetening system, to texturants and preservation systems the choices are dependent to your formulation and target consumer.  However, as taste is the primary driver when it comes to consumer’s purchase behaviour, flavours have a significant role to play in the formulation of reduced and low/no sugar containing products.  Flavours with modifying properties, mouthfeel, and masking are used to optimise the sweetness profile of the product, deliver clean sweet taste and offer full-bodied mouthfeel with no off notes while optimising the flavour profile when sugar is being reduced/ low or not present in the product formulation.  They work in synergy with the rest of the ingredients present in food and beverages enabling great clean taste without off notes that consumers will crave for.  

The sugar market has been greatly challenged the last years, with global deficit in the 2021/22 season replaced by a global surplus in 2022/23 season.  This crop uncertainty has a high impact on the whole supply chain of sugar.  Sugar is universally used across food and beverages industry.  Hence there is a major need for cost stabilisation and potentially savings in the various product offerings to address consumer need for affordable nutrition in the current volatile environment.  

Conclusion 

Although there has been significant progress in sugar reduction and sweetness optimisation technology, there is still some way to go.  The sugar consumption is increasing in the years.  Diabetes, obesity and teeth decay are still high in the health agenda’s agendas globally.  Therefore, there is still much to play for as manufacturers stride to offer great tasting products that meet lower sugar targets and do not impact taste, texture and shelf life. 

By following a sustainable diet, the general population can meet their nutritional requirements; whilst also adhering to the environmental impact concerns that we currently face today.

What is a Sustainable Diet?

A sustainable diet as described by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – is a dietary pattern that promotes all dimensions of health and wellbeing; has a low environmental impact; is accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and is culturally acceptable.

In essence, a sustainable diet is one that is nutritionally complete and that accounts for the environmental and cultural context of food consumption ^1,2.  This definition of sustainable diets is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development goals (SDGs).  The SDGs ensure that we promote prosperity whilst also protecting the planet.

As we move forward towards a more sustainable way of producing food, it is very important for food manufacturers and consumers to be mindful of the role that sustainable FBDGs play in the future of food production and consumption.

How to Make Diets More Sustainable?

Many countries have started to incorporate sustainability aspects in their FBDGs.  Some have more robust guidelines than others, however it is encouraging to see that year on year there are more countries taking ownership of sustainable diets by involving their national governments.  In the current FBDGs set out by several countries, there are many overlapping topics, such as: biodiversity, reduction of food waste and incorporating more plants into the diet ^3,4.

At the 2024 Federation of European Nutrition Societies conference (FENS) in Serbia, several member countries presented how sustainability is incorporated into their FBDGs and how the messages were rolled out to the nationally.  They discussed their campaigns, how the projects were communicated to the public and some of the key themes.  For instance, Denmark and Flanders in Belgium highlighted key messages discussing the importance of eating plant rich foods, increasing vegetable consumption, decreasing meat consumption, choosing wholegrains, choosing plant oil, reducing sweet/salty and fatty foods, quenching thirst with water and choosing sustainably sourced foods ⁵.

The Italian government has created a dedicated sustainability chapter in their FBDGs that discusses aspects such as packaging, socio-economic sustainability and myth busting of mis-interpreted statements related to sustainability ⁶.

Several organisations have commented on how important it is that the principles of sustainability are led by experts in the field.  By correctly establishing these requirements in relation to public health, national governments can guarantee adherence to policy and feel confident that they can begin to transform their current food systems ^7,8.

What can Consumers Do?

In addition to FBDGs, consumers can adopt approaches to eat in a more sustainable way.  Variety in the diet is important to ensure adequate nutrient consumption and fuelling the body with enough energy.  Boosting variety can be accomplished by incorporating more fruit, vegetables, and plant-based sources.

Although it may be it is easier for the body to absorb nutrients from meats, there are ways that to improve nutrient absorption from plant-based foods.  For example, having a source of vitamin C (such as a glass of fresh orange juice with a meal) can assist with the absorption of iron.  For more detail, click: Nutrition for Plant-based Diets: Managing Nutrient Intake and Bioavailability

In addition to increased diversity in the diet, another focus should be reducing the amounts of high fat, salt and/or sugar-containing foods in the diet.  This is effective to reduce carbon production as the production of these foods contribute to greenhouse gas emissions along with high water consumption ^9,10.

Food waste also contributes a large component to climate change with approximately one third of food produced each year being wasted prior to consumption ¹¹.  This is why it is important to minimise food waste where we can by only purchasing what we are going to consume, eating seasonally and understanding the difference between ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates ^12,13.

Conclusion

As we move toward transforming how food is consumed and produced, achieving a sustainable food system must be considered.  Many countries are including sustainable nutrition recommendations as part of their FBDGs to encourage their population to reflect on the environmental impact as well as the health impact of their food choices.

Many governments globally have stressed the importance of consumer buy-in to ensure the effective implementation of these guidelines.  Sustainability is a key word for the public to be aware of and by strengthening their understanding of this, it will be easier to integrate environmental recommendations into public health legislation and policy.

As a result, in 2006,the nutrition and health claims (NHC) regulation was published (Regulation 1924/2006/EC as amended) to protect consumers from misleading claims in the EU. This legislation establishes permitted nutrition and health claims for use on foods sold in the EU as well as associated conditions of use and restrictions (if any).  As part of this legislation, nutrient profiles were to be established which would guide the use of NHC on foods.  They would ensure that claims were not made on so called ‘unhealthy’ foods, setting limits for nutrients such as fats, sugars and salt in order for the product to bear a claim. However, it has been more than 15 years since this regulation was published and there is still not agreement on the exact nutrient profiles to be used. What barriers have caused this process to take so much time, when can we expect unified guidelines on nutrient criteria for claims and front-of-labelling, and how will it impact the food and beverage market?

Challenges and steps forward in setting unified nutrient profiles

Multiple, different nutrient profiling schemes are in use in different jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions have their own nutrient profiling schemes already, and they can differ by region. In Australia and New Zealand, certain nutrient requirements must be met in order for certain products to bear a claim. In Europe, there are different profiling systems in use which affect advertising. Although these do not guide nutrition and health claims on labels, they do create debate around which set of criteria would be best for that purpose. The WHO in Europe has designed a nutrient profile model for use by European governments for the purposes of restricting food marketing to children. A number of European countries (Denmark, Norway and the UK) have nutrient profile models for restricting marketing of foods to children which have been either developed by governments or (in the case of the Danish model) endorsed by government.

Agreeing on unified nutrient profiles in the context of the European legislation proved challenging, which significantly delayed their implementation. They were to be established by 2009 but it proved impossible for the European Commission and Member States to agree on a system. There were a number of reasons for this, including the fact that some food products which are included in national healthy eating guidelines would be excluded from bearing claims on the basis of the nutrients to be considered for profiling (e.g. cheese due to its high saturated fat content while being recognized as an excellent source of calcium).  Furthermore, traditional foods in some countries could be excluded from bearing claims.  For example, olive oil, a traditional food in many Mediterranean countries, would not be allowed to bear claims because of its high fat content even though it’s very high in unsaturated fatty acids compared to a lot of other vegetable oils.

The ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy will attempt to harmonise front-of-pack nutrition labelling

In the time between 2006 and 2020, numerous attempts were made by the European Commission to progress or at least evaluate the need for unified criteria through surveys with Member States, targeted consultations, and workshops and in 2020 the issue of nutrient profiles was elevated in priority as part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy. The strategy announced that ‘to promote sustainable food consumption and facilitate the shift to healthy and sustainable diets, the Commission will adopt measures to empower consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices.…. The strategy further announced that to stimulate sustainable food processing and reformulation but also to facilitate the shift to healthier diets, the Commission will set nutrient profiles to restrict the promotion (via nutrition and health claims) of foods high in fat, sugars and salt’.

As part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ initiative, the Commission made a request to EFSA for scientific advice on the development of harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPL) and the setting of nutrient profiles for restricting nutrition and health claims on foods.   The European Commission also published an inception impact assessment to cover the topics of front of pack labelling and nutrient profiles (among others).

When can we expect agreement on nutrient profiles, and what impact will it have on the food and beverage industry?

In November 2021, EFSA published a draft opinion advising on the development of nutrient profiles, aiming to inform nutrient profiling modelling.  They have not yet evaluated or proposed a model. The draft opinion defines the criteria that could guide the choice of nutrients (including non-nutrient components of food, e.g. energy, dietary fibre) for the nutrient profiling of foods. The opinion takes into account the nutrients called out in the legislation (i.e. fats, salt, sugars) but also nutrients which are inadequate in specific population groups e.g. iron, calcium, vitamin D, folate, iodine and potassium.  It also advises on scientific considerations regarding nutrients of public health importance for European populations, food groups which have an important role in the diets of European populations and considers national food based dietary guidelines.  This should ensure a much more robust system for the creation of nutrient profiles.

The final EFSA opinion should be published by the end of March 2022, and the establishment of nutrient profiles could result in the need for reformulation for certain food and beverage manufacturers and is likely to result in changes in labelling for many. While it is not currently foreseen to propose a nutrient profile model, it will inform the European Commission’s dialogue on creating new legislation on nutrient profiles.  This EFSA opinion and the consideration of more rounded nutrition science should ensure a more robust discussion on the setting of nutrient profiles between the European Commission, Member States and stakeholders (including the food industry).  Following this dialogue, it has been suggested that the legislation establishing nutrient profiles in the EU should be adopted by the end of 2022.

This article will look at how extracts are made, the requirements for flavourings in organic food products, and the various factors to consider when using these flavourings in application.

What are natural flavourings? What flavourings will be suitable for organic products?

The new organic regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/848) offers 2 options regarding the use of flavourings in organic foods:

1a. Organic Suitable Flavourings

1b. Organic Certified Flavourings

2. Extracts (organic certified or not)

‘Natural Flavourings’ will no longer broadly be permitted in organic products, With the new Organic Regulation, only flavourings which are labelled as “Natural <X> Flavouring” (e.g. Natural Lime Flavouring) are permitted to be used in organic products. Within a natural ‘X’ flavouring, a minimum of 95% of the flavouring component in the flavouring must be sourced from the ingredient named in the flavouring, and the flavour source of the material must be easily recognised.  For example, with a natural lime flavouring, a minimum of 95% of the flavouring component must be derived from lime and the flavour perception of lime needs to be easily recognised. These flavours are known to be 95/5 flavours.

Since extracts are considered suitable for organic products under the new Organic Regulation, let’s review what an extract is.

What is an extract?

An extract is obtained from a material using a solvent by means defined by the Directive 2009/32/CE or by the less common more traditional press processes.

There are four main methods used to extract flavourings from source material:

Tincture: Raw materials such as leaves, roots, seeds, and flowers are combined with a blend of ethanol and water at room temperature.  The solids and liquids are separated, and the remaining liquid is a tincture.

Infusion: Like the tincture process, but instead the raw materials are combined with a blend of ethanol and water under heat. After heating, the solids and liquids are separated, and the remaining liquid is an infusion.

Distillates: Raw materials are combined with a blend of ethanol and water at room temperature and through a distillation process the liquid is fractionated. This liquid is known as the distillate.

Extracts: Raw materials are often combined with a blend of ethanol and water under heat. After heating, the solids and liquids are separated.  The solids or “crude” is concentrated and the liquid is re-used for another run. This liquid is the extract. In application (i.e. in a food or beverage) it is usually supported by a carrier such as glycerine or propylene glycol.

What flavouring source is best for different products?

There are many factors to consider when choosing the flavouring source for your product, such as:

• The raw material source, for example seeds and roots are less fragile than flowers or fruits and can therefore withstand harsher extraction processes.
• The final product and the process to make it. Such as a final product that undergoes a heat treatment step during the production.
• Cultural requirements, for instance halal products do not use ethanol as a solvent.
• The type of flavour profile desired. For example, a fresh top note versus a caramel, cooked lasting flavour.

Different methods of processing raw materials produce different types of flavour extracts. These types of extracts are processed differently but can still produce 95/5 flavours appropriate for organic products.

As mentioned earlier, according to the legislation the flavouring source must be easily recognised (e.g. lime flavouring should taste like lime). This is critical to get correct, therefore it is important to consult a flavourist team supported by sensory analysis.

Some natural flavouring sources are more delicate than others or contain less volatiles. In some cases, they are very difficult to extract or can become partially destroyed during the extraction process. Extracts in general can have less intense flavour at low application levels. All of these conditions can result in a need for high application levels.

How can the intensity of extracts be improved?

From around 3000 years BC, method and extraction processes are improving to target the best extract. But what is regarded as the best extract? It is an extract with a lot of top notes. It is fresh and authentic. A high-quality extract can make you feel like you’re tasting the real thing, like biting into a wild strawberry foraged in a forest.

However, every extraction process gives a different result in terms of taste, volatiles, and intensity. For example, water will extract more sugars than alcohol, but alcohol will be more efficient to capture organic volatiles. Therefore, usually a blend of solvents in different ratios are applied to create the desired balance. The intensity of an extract usually depends on the concentration of the flavouring source in the final product quantity. For example, black tea extracts can range in intensity from 1 to 800 times.

An experienced analytical team is crucial to support the development of extracts and flavourings. They investigate each stage of the process and analyse the quality of the final extract. This ensures the correct level of concentration is selected for the application. For instance, vanilla extracts must contain a minimum % of vanillin to be legally defined as a vanilla extract, and authorities use analytical methods to identify adulteration of this premium product. The type of analysis required to determine this is also specific, and conventional analytical techniques such as gas chromatography are unable to discriminate between synthetic and natural molecules, therefore isotopic analysis is required using a mass spectrometer.

Choosing the right natural ‘x’ flavouring

This requires a team effort. A combination of experienced flavourists, efficient extraction processes, analytical scientists, and an application technologist that is knowledgeable on the specific food process and its interaction with the flavourings are all key to produce a great tasting product.

The main legislative changes include:

1. Restrictions on volume-price promotions and locations for product selling (pre-packed products only)¹
2. TV and online advertising bans²
3. Mandatory calorie labelling for all products on menus for out of home businesses (OOH)³

These regulations target products that are deemed “less healthy” or “HFSS” (High in Fat, Sugar, and/or Salt) as defined by the 2004/2005 UK nutrient profile model (NPM)⁴. 

This article serves as a guide to help you understand the regulations and specific ways to improve nutrition of food to avoid the restrictions imposed by legislation:

1. What regulations are coming and when?
2. What is HFSS?
3. How do I move my product from HFSS to Non-HFSS?
4. What do I need to do and when?

What regulations are coming and when?

In 2021 the UK Government introduced restrictions on the marketing of foods and beverages classified as high in fat, sugar, and/or salt (HFSS). This includes two key pieces of legislation: Price promotion and location restrictions, and TV and online advertising restrictions.

Price promotion and location restrictions

From October 2022 HFSS products are no longer permitted to be sold at store entrances, aisle ends, or checkout areas. For online shopping this equates to the entry page of websites, pages where customers view their shopping basket or proceed to payment, and the side banners of pages. In October 2023, promotions that encourage an increase in the volume of product purchased will no longer be permitted for HFSS foods and beverages. This includes multi-buy promotions e.g. ‘buy one get one free’, ‘3 for 2’ etc., extra free promotions such as ‘30% extra free’, and free refills of sugar sweetened drinks in the OOH sector.  In addition,

Not all products that are classified as HFSS are included. The legislation is aimed at products that significantly contribute to children’s calorie intakes. Proposed categories include soft drinks with added sugar, breakfast cereals, yogurts, biscuits including cereal bars, morning goods, savoury snacks including crisps, crackers and pulse-based crisps, ready meals, breaded or battered fish, meat, poultry and meat alternatives, confectionary, cakes, and more.

TV and online advertising restrictions

For TV, a 9pm watershed on HFSS products and an outright ban of paid-for online HFSS advertising will be implemented by October 2025.

This new proposed regulation will mean that no HFSS adverts will be shown on TV between 5.30am – 9pm, and a total ban of online advertisements. For online, this is a bit more complicated, as it is suggested to be defined as any communication that has the effect of promoting identifiable HFSS products. The details of how the online ban will be enforced is not yet clear, which is resulting in frustration particularly within the TV industry. For television, it is easier to enforce these restrictions due to the system already in place by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, therefore the TV industry feel they may be at an unfair disadvantage.

How is HFSS determined?

In the UK, when a product is categorised as HFSS it refers to being high in fat, sugar and/or salt or ‘less healthy’ as defined by the 2004/2005 nutrient profile model (NPM).

The NPM scores products based on their nutritional content. The less energy, sodium, saturated fat, and sugar and the more protein, fibre, and % fruits, vegetables, and nuts in your product – the better the score.

The model assigns points for each of the nutrients and you subtract the ‘favourable’ points from the ‘unfavourable’. The lower the numeric score, the healthier the product is.

HFSS score = unfavourable points – favourable points

Unfavourable points, classified as “A”:

• • • Energy
    • Saturated fat
    • Total sugar
    • Sodium

Favourable points, classified as “C”:

• • • Protein
    • Fibre
    • % content of fruits or vegetables
    • Nut content

The criteria used for upcoming advertising and price promotion restrictions assign unfavourable points (A) for nutrients we should consume less of and favourable points (C) for nutrients we should consume more of to determine a product’s score. A food is categorised as ‘less healthy’ or ‘HFSS’ if it scores 4 or more points, or 1 or more points for a beverage

More resources on nutrient reformulation:

Salt and Health – What is Being Done Globally to Reduce Salt Intake?

A Study on Nutrient Reformulation’s Role in Public Health

Overcoming Sugar Reduction Challenges

Calorie Reduction: Formulating for Success

The model measures products as sold (unless a product requires reconstitution) on a per 100g basis. The NPM differs from the UK voluntary multiple traffic light (MTL) front of pack labelling scheme because it includes positive aspects of a product such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, fibre and protein, whereas the MTL only focuses on ‘unfavourable’ nutrients.

How do I move a food from ‘HFSS’ to ‘non-HFSS’?

Improving scores will focus on targeted reformulation of nutrients in the ‘A’ and ‘C’ categories above. In the example below, you can see how each change impacts individual scores as well as the product’s final score.

Flapjack example

Current                                                                                Reformulated

* If a food or drink scores 11 or more ‘A’ points then it cannot score points for protein unless it also scores 5 points for fruit, vegetables and nuts.

Tips to ensure foods are Non-HFSS

• • Before you begin product reformulation, ensure your baseline nutrition information is accurate. Products that contain many ingredients will have many different nutritional profiles feeding into the final product. Many of these ingredients may be using theoretical data, so it’s important to sense check the nutrition of all your ingredients.
  • Target any nutrients that are borderline on the scoring threshold – these could make for an easy win.
  • Include fibre when you can, you score 2 ‘favourable’ points with AOAC fibre over 1.9g/100g.
  • Add protein. However, a product can only score ‘favourable’ points for protein if total ‘A or unfavourable’ points are below 11, or the product scores 5 for fruit, vegetables, or nuts.
  • For savoury products, keep sugar below 4.5g/100g and it will score zero ‘unfavourable’ points for total sugar.
  • Fruits, vegetables, and nuts – what counts? Intact fruit and vegetables (including those that are cooked and dried) and those that are minimally processed (peeled, sliced, tinned, frozen, juices* and purees). *Fruit juice, whether freshly squeezed or made from concentrate, is regarded as fruit, but fruit juice sugars are not.
  • One portion of dried fruits or vegetables are equivalent to 2 fresh portions.
  • Think about how a food is prepared for foods intended for areas like food service. For example, nutritional optimisation of a breaded coating could result in additional fat uptake in the frying process.
  • Find out what taste technologies are available for your product. The products targeted by the legislation are also in scope of the UK reformulation targets. These targets have been in place since 2016 for sugar and 2006 for salt. Therefore, industry has made a lot of progress in technology and taste solutions in this area already.

What is happening in the rest of Europe?

The EU published their Farm to Fork strategy in May 2020 as part of the European Green Deal.⁵ This strategy proposes several initiatives that aim to improve the nutritional content of foods. These include an initiative to set maximum levels for certain nutrients to stimulate reformulation, setting nutrient profiles to restrict the promotion of HFSS products, and the proposal of a mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling system that will be consistent across the EU countries. The EU commission plan to submit a legislative proposal to the European parliament and member states before the end of 2022. On July 5^th, 2021 the EU Code of Conduct was launched. This outlines several voluntary aspirations for the food industry to put the Farm to Fork Strategy into practice and start to make changes.⁶  On the day of launch, 65 companies and associations signed up.⁷

What do I need to do and when?

These restrictions will have a major effect on how the food and beverage industry can market products and the impact to sales is estimated to be considerable. Product reformulation is a clear way to avoid this legislation while also ensuring a greater variety of healthier products are available to consumers. However, reformulation takes time and expertise to ensure you don’t lose taste, texture, or functionality in the product, so it’s advised to get started as soon as possible.

The systematic review and meta-analysis looked at data from 17 studies mainly conducted in the United States, Mexico, France, and Chile which evaluated the effects of taxation on purchases and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, either pre-and post-tax (11 studies), or between taxed versus untaxed jurisdictions (6 studies). This is the largest meta-analysis to date summarizing the outcomes from ‘real-world’ tax evaluation studies, rather than those using economic modeling.

One of the outcomes of implementing sugar taxes is to encourage voluntary reformulation of sugary beverages, which is not captured in studies like this. This means it is possible the taxes are having additional impacts on sugar consumption. For example, in the United Kingdom, over 50% of soft drink manufacturers have reduced sugar content of their products between March 2016 and April 2018 in response to tax legislation.

More data continues to be generated as time passes and more regions implement these types of taxes, meaning it will be easier to get an accurate answer about how effective they are time goes on. As the study demonstrates, emerging data is looking promising. A World Health Organization report concluded that “the evidence for meaningful health effects is strongest for taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, with suggestions that SSB prices would need to be raised by 20%, or more”, for example.

See more about the study here.

A study from Tufts University published in BMC Medicine found that changing the price on 7 foods by 10% could prevent an estimated 23,000 deaths per year from cardiometabolic disease.

The study moved beyond the idea of taxing nutrients we should get less of, like sugar, to include the idea of subsidizing healthy foods like fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts. The study also included a tax on processed and unprocessed red meats.

This research suggests taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthy foods may reduce deaths from stroke, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, especially among Americans with lower socioeconomic status.

Sugar taxes have been controversial in legislation, but research shows it is likely achieving its intended purpose. Taxing and subsidizing the bulk of the food supply would likely be quite complicated in practice, but this research shows it’s not something that should be ruled out just yet.