Nutrition Labeling And Education Act Research Articles

Introduction

Since its passage in 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA)has become well integrated into federal food policy, although its provisions regarding health claims have generated considerable controversy, and such claims so far are little used. Health claims appear to be a good way of delivering nutritional messages, so it is prudent that we try to resolve differences over the regulation of these claims. Now is the time for constructive dialogue, because the question of whether the health claims provisions of NLEA are good legisla tion probably could be back on the national agenda given the current congressional review of the programs of all regulatory agencies. The Center for Food and Nutrition Policy convened this symposium to initiate constructive dialogue on the health claims provisions of NLEA.Over the past 2 years, we at Georgetown University’s Center for Food and Nutrition Policy have examined the public record on health claims for foods and on national food fortification policy by focusing on the B-vitamin, folate. The basic metabolism of folate is well understood. Moreover, the research needed in this case to establish the “significant scientific agreement” mandated by statute is also less complicated to obtain than other health claims because of the relatively short time between the preventive measure, folate administration in early pregnancy, and the outcome, birth. Compare folate in this regard with the relationship between calcium intake and the development of osteoporosis in the elderly, for example. Thus, assessing folate’s ability to reduce the risk of having infants with neural tube defects (NTDs) should provide a comparatively straightforward case to study in the problems of implementing health claims under NLEA.

Informational campaign effects of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 on diet

This study examines consumer response to a mass-media educational campaign undertaken as part of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990, employing media content analysis. Time and ...

Unintended Nutrition Consequences: Firm Responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act

This paper investigates how firms responded to standardized nutrition labels on food products required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Using a longitudinal quasi-experimental design, we test our predictions using two large-scale samples that span 30 product categories. Results indicate that the NLEA reduced brand nutritional quality relative to a control group of products not regulated by the NLEA. At the same time, among regulated products, brand taste increased. Although this reduction in nutrition represents an unintended consequence of regulation, there were a set of category, firm, and brand conditions under which the NLEA produced a positive effect on brand nutritional quality. We find that firms were more likely to improve brand nutrition when firm risk or firm power is low. Lower risk occurs when the firm is introducing a new brand rather than changing an existing brand, and weaker power in a category is reflected by lower market share in a category. Furthermore, firms competing in low-health categories (e.g., potato chips) or small-portion categories (e.g., peanut butter) improved nutrition more than firms competing in high-health categories (e.g., bread) or large-portion categories (e.g., frozen dinners). Recommendations for firm strategy and the design of consumer information policy are examined in light of these surprising firm responses.

Application of Epidemiological Data for Decision Making: Health Claims

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1990, authorized the use of health claims that are based on significant scientific agreement in food labeling. In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defined dietary supplements and created a legal framework for use of claims that is similar to the regulation of foods. Health claims describe the relationship between a substance (food or food component) and reduction of the risk of a disease or health-related condition; they are not intended as claims to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease, which are considered drug claims. Since the enactment of the NLEA, the FDA has developed a process to evaluate scientific evidence in support of health claims. In 1999, the FDA published Guidance for Industry: Significant Scientific Agreement in the Review of Health Claims for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements. As a result of a series of court cases, the agency developed a process for qualified health claims that characterizes the quality and strength of scientific evidence because these claims are not based on significant scientific agreement. Since 2003, the FDA has published several letters of enforcement discretion for qualified health claims that illustrate the agency's approach to evaluating the scientific literature when the strength of the evidence is not consistent with significant scientific agreement. In 2007, the agency published the draft Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims that further outlined the FDA's approach to evaluating scientific evidence for health claims. In January 2009, the final guidance was posted and replaced the 1999 guidance document as well as the interim guidance related to qualified health claims. The final guidance specifically addresses the use of observational data in the evaluation of health claims and describes the criteria used by the agency in the evaluation of such data. A copy of the guidance can be found on the FDA Web site (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm073332.htm). The guidance highlights some of the challenges that must be considered for the agency to use observational data to draw scientific conclusions on the relationship between a specific substance and disease or health-related condition for the health claim under review. This article is not subject to US copyright law.

Food for thought: the effect of counterfactual thinking on the use of nutrition information

AbstractIn three experiments, we examine the efficacy of counterfactual thinking (CFT) as a strategy to enhance consumers' motivation to process and use nutrition information on food packages. In the first study, we test whether CFT leads to greater motivation to process nutrition label information in the process of forming product attitudes. We also test whether motivation mediates the relationship between CFT and the influence of the nutrition label in product evaluation. In a second study, we test the effect of upward versus downward CFT on motivation. We also examine whether nutrition information on food packages moderates the relationship between CFT and product attitudes. In a third study, we examined the duration of the motivational effect of CFT. Results from the three studies support the role of CFT as a mechanism that enhances consumers' motivation to elaborate on and use nutrition information to form product attitudes. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Financial Literacy, Public Policy, and Consumers’ Self‐Protection—More Questions, Fewer Answers

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF FINANCIAL EDUCATION? When this special issue of the Journal of Consumer Affairs was first conceptualized, the subprime mortgage crisis was not yet front-page news. Even without the events that precipitated the crisis, there was, and is, a clear need for research in the area of literacy and consumer self-protection. As the scholars in this special issue suggest, the problems and opportunities associated with education are many and varied. The articles in this special issue examine a host of topics and issues that are linked by a common question: how can we educate consumers in the most effective manner to help them realize their goals? A worthwhile education program starts with having the participants set a goal--whether it is to be a homeowner, save for retirement, reduce debt, increase human capital through education, or start a business. Likewise, before consumer goals can be addressed, there is a need to clearly define the goals of education. The Cooperative Extension System has answered this question by stating that the goal is security. A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report places this goal of security within a macroeconomic context: Finally, I believe that a clear understanding of the country's overall condition and future fiscal outlook is an indispensable part of true literacy. The futures of the American people are shaped not only by their own personal planning and individual investments but also by the fiscal choices made in Washington ... Due to current demographic trends, rising health care costs, and other factors, we face the possibility of decades of mounting deficits, which left unchecked will threaten our economic and national security, while also adversely affecting the quality of life and opportunities available to future generations. Americans must be aware of these developments in planning for their own futures, since, for example, we can no longer assume that current federal entitlement programs will continue indefinitely in their present form. (GAO 2005, p. 2) Given this goal, the question then becomes what needs to be in place for consumers to become financially secure? The research in this special issue examines organizing frameworks for effective education delivery and environmental factors that moderate the effectiveness of programmatic efforts as well as cases of best and worst practice. What the articles also point out is the varied nature of education delivery in the United States and elsewhere. After examining these and many other contributions to the literature, the guest editors believe that there is a demonstrated need for a financial facts box that models the nutrition facts panel mandated by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). We arrived at this conclusion by looking at several key factors necessary for an effective literacy effort: information provision, education, third-party advice, the role of policy, and assessment of best practices. THE ROLE OF INFORMATION Within the realm of consumer nutrition, research demonstrates the conditions under which the nutrition facts panel aids consumers in their evaluation of food and nutrient information (Burton, Biswas, and Netemeyer 1994; Ford et al. 1996; Kozup, Creyer, and Burton 2003; Levy, Fein, and Schucker 1996). Disclosures, labels for products as it were, are also supposed to help consumers make decisions about products. But just as there is a problem with obesity in the United States, there also is a problem with its equivalent: namely, insecurity represented as excess debt, insufficient savings, poor retirement planning, and suboptimal investment behavior. Labels and disclosures on products and services provide information and provide regulatory compliance and liability protection for product and service providers. …

How the Nutrition Food Label Was Developed, Part 2: The Purpose and Promise of Nutrition Claims

The Tower of Babel—that was how former Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan characterized all the claims appearing on the food labels during the 1980s (1). These claims ranged from “rich in oat bran” to “extremely low in saturated fat.” New scientific findings about diet and health at that time had caught the attention of consumers as well as food marketers, and a plethora of claims were being made to catch consumers’ attention. The existing regulations concerning claims on foods were very limited; and, in fact, before the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (2) there were no standards for label statements for the food substances that were emerging as public health interests, such as calcium, fat, and fiber.

Do nutrition labels improve dietary outcomes?

The disclosure of nutritional characteristics of most packaged foods became mandatory in the United States with the implementation of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) in 1994. Under the NLEA regulations, a 'Nutrition Facts' panel displays information on nutrients such as calories, total and saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium in a standardized format. By providing nutrition information in a credible, distinctive, and easy-to-read format, the new label was expected to help consumers choose healthier, more nutritious diets. This paper examines whether the disclosure of nutrition information through the mandatory labels impacted consumer diets. Assessing the dietary effects of labeling is problematic due to the confounding of the label effect with unobserved label user characteristics. This self-selection problem is addressed by exploiting the fact that the NLEA exempts away-from-home foods from mandatory labeling. Difference-in-differences models that account for zero away-from-home intakes suggest that the labels increase fiber and iron intakes of label users compared with label nonusers. In comparison, a model that does not account for self-selection implies significant label effects for all but two of the 13 nutrients that are listed on the label.

Availability of Nutrition Information from Chain Restaurants in the United States

Although obesity and poor dietary habits are complex multifactorial problems, away-from-home food has been identified as one likely and important contributor. Restaurants provide a growing and substantial portion of the average American's diet, yet the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which went into effect in 1994, explicitly exempts restaurants from most labeling requirements. Thus, this study examined the availability of nutrition information from the largest chain restaurants in the United States. Between January and August 2004, we surveyed the 300 largest chain restaurants by telephone, e-mail, or examining company websites (response rate was 96%). The top chains, as ranked by revenue, were selected based on 2002 ratings in Restaurants and Institutions. Fifty-four percent of the 287 largest chain restaurants made some nutrition information available. Forty-four percent had nutrition information for the majority of their standard menu items. We found no significant differences in the availability of nutrition information based on the size of the restaurant chain. Of those restaurants with nutrition information, 86% provided information on the company website. The number of restaurants providing nutrition information has increased over the last 10 years. However, making informed and healthful food choices is hampered by the absence of nutrition information at many restaurants. Given the growing and significant role that away-from-home foods play in Americans' diets, the Surgeon General and the National Academies' Institute of Medicine recommend that nutrition information be available to customers at restaurants, and state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are beginning to address the issue.

FDA perspectives on health claims for food labels

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority over health claims was clarified in 1990 legislation known as the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). This law established mandatory nutrition labeling for most foods and placed restrictions on the use of food label claims characterizing the levels or health benefits of nutrients in foods. NLEA set a high threshold for the scientific standard under which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may authorize health claims, this standard is known as the significant scientific agreement (SSA) standard. Subsequent legislation known as the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) provided an alternative to FDA review of the health claim where an U.S. government scientific body other than FDA concluded that there is SSA for a substance/disease relationship. Courts have since extended the scope of health claims to include qualified health claims (QHC) that are health claims not substantiated on evidence that meets the level of SSA standard, but include a qualifying statement intended to convey to the consumer the level of evidence for the claim. FDA has responded by developing an evidence-based ranking system for scientific data to determine the level of evidence substantiating a health claim. The following is an overview of FDA's regulations and evidence-based method for evaluating health claims.

Near-Infrared Reflectance Model for the Rapid Prediction of Total Fat in Cereal Foods

AOAC method 996.01, used in cereal foods to determine total fat as defined by the U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), is laborious and time-consuming and utilizes hazardous chemicals. Near-infrared (NIR) reflectance spectroscopy, a rapid and environmentally benign technique, was investigated as a potential method for the prediction of total fat using AOAC method 996.01 as the reference method. Near-infrared reflectance spectra (1104-2494 nm) of ground cereal products (n = 72) were obtained using a dispersive spectrometer, and total fat was determined according to AOAC method 996.01. Using multivariate analysis, a modified partial least-squares model was developed for total fat prediction. The model had a SECV of 1.12% (range = 0.5-43.2%) and a multiple coefficient of determination of 0.99. The model was tested with independent validation samples (n = 36); all samples were predicted within NLEA accuracy guidelines. The results indicate that NIR reflectance spectroscopy is an accurate means of determining the total fat content of diverse cereal products for nutrition labeling.

How Do Front and Back Package Labels Influence Beliefs About Health Claims?

One dilemma with health claims is that too much information can confuse consumers and too little information can mislead them. A controlled study is used to examine the effectiveness of various front‐sided health claims when used in combination with a full health claim on the back of a package. The results indicate that combining short health claims on the front of a package with full health claims on the back of the package leads consumers to more fully process and believe the claim. The basic finding that using two sides of a package (short claim on front; long on back) increases the believability of health claims is relevant for policymakers, consumers, and researchers.

Health Claims on Foods in Canada: Toward Successful Implementation

Agrowing body of scientific evidence supports the role of diet in maintaining health and preventing certain risk-modifiable chronic diseases. For example, it is well accepted that dietary fat type modulates blood cholesterol levels and thus risk of cardiovascular disease. Similarly, the carotenoid lycopene present in tomatoes appears to lower the risk of prostate cancer, while excess dietary sodium exacerbates hypertension in sensitive individuals and antioxidant compounds found in diverse fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of certain cancers. Foodstuffs containing such nutrients/bioactive substances in optimal amounts are called “functional foods”, since their consumption may lead to health benefits over and above simple provision of nutrients. Health Canada currently proposes to define a functional food as “similar in appearance to, or may be, a conventional food, consumed as part of a usual diet, and is demonstrated to have physiological benefits and/or reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic nutritional functions”. The main objective in establishing health claims is to communicate to consumers the role of functional foods to improve health and to reduce disease risk. Assuming that behavioural change can be achieved by health claim implementation, substantial benefits are believed to potentially accrue in terms of reduced morbidity, mortality and health care expenses. A cost-benefit study, conducted by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. on the potential impacts of changing food labeling following the establishment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), concluded that 12,600 lives and US$21 billion could be saved over a 20-year period if consumers were to change their eating behaviour. A more recent estimation by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada suggested that CAN$5 billion could be saved over the next 20 years in reduction of direct and indirect costs resulting from cancer, diabetes, and coronary heart disease and stroke if Canadians were able to alter eating habits. This estimation reflects potential health benefits that could be achieved from recent Health Canada initiatives to improve nutrition information, following the revision of nutrition labeling and nutrient content claims, as well as the establishment of health claims. Given the evidence for disease risk reduction following consumption of functional foods, Health Canada has initiated the development of a policy to allow the use of health claims on foods. The objectives of this paper are to outline Health Canada’s “Standards of evidence for evaluating foods with health claims: a proposed framework” 8 (June 2000), and to assess three aspects of health claim policy implementation, namely (i) consumer confidence in health claims, (ii) sustainable development of the functional food industry, and (iii) effective strategies for communication of health messages to consumers.

Current status of nutrition labelling and claims in the South-East Asian region: are we in harmony?

This review includes the situation of nutrition labelling and claims in six countries in South-East Asia: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. With the exception of Malaysia, there is no mandatory nutrition labelling requirements for foods in these countries except for special categories of foods and when nutritional claims are made for fortified or enriched foods. Nevertheless, several food manufacturers, especially multinationals, do voluntarily label the nutritional content of a number of food products. There is, therefore, increasing interest among authorities in countries in the region to start formulating regulations for nutrition labelling for a wider variety of foods. Malaysia has proposed new regulations to make it mandatory to label a number of foodstuffs with the four core nutrients, protein, carbohydrate, fat and energy. Other countries have preferred to start with voluntary labelling by the manufacturers, but have spelt out the requirements for this voluntary labelling. The format and requirements for nutrition labelling differ widely for countries in the region. Some countries, such as Malaysia, closely follow the Codex guidelines on nutrition labelling in terms of format, components to be included and mode of expression. Other countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, have drafted nutrition labelling regulations very similar to those of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of the United States. Nutrition and health claims are also not specifically permitted under food regulations that were enacted before 1998. However, various food products on the market have been carrying a variety of nutrition and health claims. There is concern that without proper regulations, the food industry may not be certain as to what claims can be made. Excessive and misleading claims made by irresponsible manufacturers would only serve to confuse and mislead the consumer. In recent years, there has been efforts in countries in the region to enact regulations on nutrition claims. Recently enacted regulations or amendments to existing regulations of almost all the countries reviewed have included provisions for nutrition claims. Malaysia is in the process of gazetting regulations to clearly stipulate the permitted nutrition claims and the conditions required to make these claims along the guidelines of Codex Alimentarius Commission. Only two countries in the region permit health claims to be made - Indonesia and Philippines. Other countries in the region are following developments in Codex and examining the need for allowing these claims. There are more differences than similarities in the regulations on nutrition labelling and claims among countries in the South-East Asian region as no previous efforts have been made to address these. Hopefully, through this first regional meeting, countries can initiate closer interaction, with a view to working towards greater harmonization of nutrition labelling and health claims in the region.

THE TRUTH-IN-MENU LAW AND RESTAURANT CONSUMERS

This study uses nutrition and descriptive claim information factors covered by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), the “Truth-in-Menu” law, to have consumers identify which factors are most important when choosing restaurant menu items. The results show server knowledge of menu items is the most important factor for survey respondents followed by the visual presentation. Restaurateurs use the Truth-in-Menu law to ensure that the information provided about menu items is accurate and conforms to the federal regulations set forth by the NLEA.

The Impact of Mandatory Disclosure Laws on Product Choices: An Analysis of the Salad Dressing Market

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) requires most food products to include a nutrition label. Prior to the NLEA, labeling was voluntary. This study uses nutrition label information and supermarket scanner data pre‐ and post‐NLEA to examine the impact of moving from a voluntary to a mandatory labeling regime on consumer product choice. The voluntary unraveling of information is shown to be an important market mechanism. Prior to the NLEA, all low‐fat salad dressings had a nutrition label, while the majority of the higher fat dressings did not. However, there remained large variation in fat content among dressings that did not voluntarily label. Those with the highest fat levels experienced a significant decline in sales after they were required to disclose. The results indicate that even in markets with credible, low‐cost mechanisms to disclose, mandatory labeling can have an impact on consumer behavior and health.

The Quaker Oats Health Claim

Abstract The 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) allowed food labels to carry health claims describing the relationship between a food or food ingredient and a disease or health-related condition. In 1995, The Quaker Oats Company filed a petition for the first foodbased health claim, regarding the relationship between consumption of oat products and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). After multiple amendments of the proposed claim, the FDA approved a claim that linked “soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD.” The Quaker Oats Company integrated the approved claim into a multifocal public relations campaign, delivering educational and healthcare provider information to the public and to healthcare and nutrition specialists, through a variety of print and electronic media: newspaper ads, magazine articles, TV news clips and the Internet. The company also developed educational brochures and information pieces for consumers and healthcare professionals and continuing partnerships with pro...

The Importance of Nutrition Labeling and Health Claim Regulation on Product Choice: An Analysis of the Cooking Oils Market

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) prohibits health claims for foods containing more than a certain amount of fat per serving. This disqualifier level eliminates health claims for cooking oils since these products have approximately 14 grams of fat per serving, above the acceptable threshold. However, a number of scientific studies indicate that, from a heart-health perspective, cooking oils lower in saturated fat and higher in monounsaturated fats are superior to other oils. Prior to the NLEA, firms actively competed on this basis, with manufacturers of cooking oils making explicit heart-health claims in print advertising and labeling. This study utilizes supermarket scanner data from twenty stores to examine the type of cooking oil chosen by consumers. The results indicate that after implementation of the NLEA, consumers shifted purchases toward cooking oils higher in saturated fat and lower in monounsaturated fat. This study does not address whether consumers changed their total consumption of cooking oil after implementation of the NLEA.

Market-Level Effects of Information: Competitive Responses and Consumer Dynamics

Information flowing into a market from firms can stimulate competitive activity and consumer dynamics that ultimately improve the functioning of that market (e.g., improve product quality). However, prior research has provided limited empirical evidence regarding the conditions under which (1) information confers such benefits on the market, (2) firms make strategic use of such information flows, and (3) consumer behavior influences the achievement of these market effects and strategic benefits. The author performs a longitudinal quasi-experiment to investigate these issues using the introduction of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) as a research context. Results indicate that information did promote consumer dynamics that may have fostered competitive activity among firms. Specifically, marketers changed the quality of base brands and their brand extensions in unique and opposite ways that enabled brands to occupy distinct strategic positions in the market. Market information also influenced the nature of competitive rivalry by shifting price promotion levels depending on the healthy positioning of firm brands. Such approaches were speculated to provide firms with a means of coping with the uncertainty of competitive and consumer reactions to the NLEA, extending theories of the market-level effects of information to include the strategic use of such information by firms.

Nutritional labeling legislation

With respect to nutrition labeling, many countries in the world rely on what the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the agency responsible for the implementation of the joint FAO/WHO foods standards programme) has accomplished over the past decades in this field. The Codex General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods is one of the most significant standards developed by the Commission and forms the basis for many developments in general with respect to labeling in the world. In order to promote a consistent international approach also on nutrition labeling, the Codex adopted almost at the same time in 1985 guidelines on this subject, which were worked out by the committee involved in labeling. The driving force for nutrition labeling was actually the view both of consumers and producers that neither improved ingredient listing nor a declaration of e.g. macro-nutrients such as fat and protein could replace information on the actual nutrient content of a food. In response to consumers' interest in nutrition, producers provided information about the nutrients which they considered to be attractive to the consumer. Because producers provided a hotchpotch of nutrient information (including claims) on labels, the need for a systematic presentation of this information as "nutrition labeling" was triggered. Nutrition labeling can be defined as a description intended to inform the consumer of the nutritional properties of a food. The Codex guidelines require that the nutrient declaration should appear on the label whenever a nutrition claim is made for a food. In accordance with the Codex guidelines, nutrition labeling will enable consumers to follow the dietary guidelines within their country. In 1988, a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on recommended allowances for food labeling purposes, hosted by the government of Finland, developed a set of nutrient reference values (NRVs) to serve as the reference standard for the Codex guidelines. Although the question whether nutrition labeling should be "voluntary" or "mandatory" has been under discussion for a long time, most countries of the world have opted so far for the voluntary system: the nutrient declaration should appear on the label whenever a nutrition claim is made and the labeling should follow the criteria as set out in the Codex guidelines or another set of rules such as those of the European Community Council Directive 90/496/EEC on nutrition labeling of foodstuffs. Actions of both Codex Committees (the one on food labeling and the one on nutrition and foods for special dietary uses) to come to agreement, especially on health claims, could not prevent the United States from going their own regulatory way by enacting in 1990 the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and more recently the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSH&EA). Both acts actually impede international trade. Although both the voluntary and the mandatory systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, the overall international nutrition labeling approaches have many similarities. The benefits of the mandatory approach in the field of nutrition, consumer education and developments in related fields such as the analytical, must not be underestimated. By recently throwing out the health claims temporarily, the food labeling committee agreed at its last meeting to forward the draft guidelines for use of nutrition claims to the Codex Commission for adoption at step 8, with the understanding that the table of conditions would be considered by the coming session of the committee on nutrition and foods for special dietary uses. In Europe, where the subsidiarity principle seems to prevail, it is difficult to forecast whether a worldwide uniform system of nutrition labeling can be or will be developed after the Edinburgh (1991) decision by politicians not to embark on nutrition labeling in the Community.