On July 1st, Mexico’s new labeling for packaged foods and non-alcoholic beverages came into effect, as part of the National Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Overweight, Obesity, and Diabetes. The labeling was designed based on scientific studies to assess its comprehensibility and to establish limits and recommendations regarding nutrients. Among other things, the aim is to alert consumers about the intake of fats, sugars, and sodium. All of this aligns with the label reform launched by the FDA in the United States, although the changes are not identical.
It is known that previous nutritional content labeling was not entirely understandable. On the other hand, it is one thing for a person to know how to interpret the label (multiplying the content by the number of servings, understanding where their calories come from, what the three types of fat mean, what the recommended daily percentage is, and other data), and quite another for this information to actually change their daily food choices.
The right to information about what we consume is inalienable and regulated; however, if the strategy of simplifying labels aims to have a significant effect on reducing and preventing obesity and diabetes, it falls very short. A nutritionist tracks calories to design diets and sometimes educates patients on reading labels. But eating and the way we choose what we put in our mouths is much more than counting calories and selecting nutrients. It carries an enormous emotional, social, cultural, economic, environmental, and circumstantial weight. And, although the school of methodological individualism says otherwise, these actions are not coldly calculated, rationalized, and planned by individual motivations most of the time.
Analyzing the strategy, the actions are more focused on controlling consumption than on truly promoting a culture of comprehensive well-being; all of this is based on studies about variations in the consumption of certain products according to restrictive policies. The pillars of the strategy are label control, increased taxes, and advertising regulation. There is no analysis of the real situation faced by Mexicans to meet their nutritional needs. However, there is alignment with international standards.
In Mexico, aspects related to understanding why and how we eat what we eat are often ignored. It’s not that such studies are nonexistent in the country; the problem is that the results may not be very popular. Let me explain: it’s easier to state in a report that food labeling was changed as a preventive measure for the population: “We care about the situation, and if you don’t believe me, look at the label—it’s new.” It is less appealing to implement strategies based on true contextualizations of the situation (not only studying how bad things are, but also the comprehensive aspect of why and how we can sustainably correct our course). These evidence-based strategies with long-term results also take years to bear fruit. For example, it would be less popular to regulate urban planning to promote physical activity or to implement food education that goes beyond bombarding children with information and instead teaches them about taste, enjoyment, selection, preparation, and consumption of food from an early age. Why bother, if a prevention strategy won’t yield results within the term when accountability is required?
The essential problem is that an action is not a strategy, and when it comes to our eating behavior, humans contextualize our choices, consciously or unconsciously. And this duality, whether we like it or not, is what makes us human.
@Lillie_ML
#labeling #nutrition #publicpolicy
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.