Abstract
In October 2019, the Mexican government reformed its General Health Law thus establishing the warning approach to front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL), and in March 2020, modified its national standard, revamping its ineffective FOPNL, one preemptively developed by industry actors. Implementation is scheduled for later in 2020. However, the new regulation faces fierce opposition from transnational food and beverage companies (TFBCs), including Nestlé, Kellogg, Grupo Bimbo, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo through their trade associations, the National Manufacturers, American Bakers Associations, the Confederation of Industrial Chambers of Mexico and ConMéxico. Mexico, as a regional leader, could tip momentum in favor of FOPNL diffusion across Latin America. But the fate of the Mexican FOPNL and the region currently lies in this government’s response to three threats of legal challenges by TFBCs, citing international laws and guidelines including the World Trade Organization (WTO), Codex Alimentarius, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)/US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). In this perspective, we argue that these threats should not prevent Mexico or other countries from implementing evidence-informed policies, such as FOPNLs, that pursue legitimate public health objectives.
Highlights
In 2016, Chile became the first country in Latin America to adopt a directive interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL) with warning labels, which provides simplified nutritional information on packaged foods and beverages.[1]
The fate of the Mexican FOPNL and the region currently lies in this government’s response to three threats by transnational food and beverage companies (TFBCs) citing international laws. We argue that these industry threats of legal challenges should not prevent Mexico or other countries from implementing evidence-informed policies that pursue legitimate public health objectives
While the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement cautions against any regulation that unnecessarily restricts trade, it recognizes that each World Trade Organization (WTO) Member has a
Summary
FOPNL unnecessarily restricts trade. - Article 2.2 (technical regulations should not create unnecessary obstacles to trade). - Article 2.4 (where relevant international standards exist Members should use them as a basis for their national technical regulations except when such international standards would not effectively fulfill the legitimate objectives pursued).[4,5]. - Article 2.2 (technical regulations should not create unnecessary obstacles to trade). - Article 2.4 (where relevant international standards exist Members should use them as a basis for their national technical regulations except when such international standards would not effectively fulfill the legitimate objectives pursued).[4,5]. While TBT Agreement cautions against any regulation that unnecessarily restrict trade, it recognizes that each WTO Member has the basic right to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of human health and safety.[7]. - WTO member states have successfully argued for FOPNL in WTO TBT Committee discussions as ‘providing consumers with sufficient information about the food which they consume and reducing non-communicable diseases;’ ‘provide consumers with information so as to make appropriate dietary choices and reduce the risk of diet-related NCDs;’ and ‘empower consumers to make an informed choice in order to foster effective competition and consumer welfare.’[8] - Similar trade concerns were raised in Chile, Peru and Indonesia in 2013, Ecuador in 2014, and Uruguay in 2019,8 but these countries have moved forward with FOPNL. - WTO member states have successfully argued for FOPNL in WTO TBT Committee discussions as ‘providing consumers with sufficient information about the food which they consume and reducing non-communicable diseases;’ ‘provide consumers with information so as to make appropriate dietary choices and reduce the risk of diet-related NCDs;’ and ‘empower consumers to make an informed choice in order to foster effective competition and consumer welfare.’[8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
