Why science, labelling and simplicity matter for food safety

Typically the first thing people notice when they pick up a product in store is the price, expiry date, allergens, country of origin, and general visual appeal. Very seldom do people mention checking the nutritional facts panel, and several have noted that reading and understanding the back of the package can feel like ‘a full-time job.’ This points to a clear gap: nutrition information needs to be more transparent and easier to navigate, especially on the front of the pack that often hastily informs purchasing decisions.

Recent research in South Africa reinforces this. A randomised controlled trial examined how different front-of-package labelling formats influenced consumer choices. The findings showed that simple nutrient warning labels (icons) that clearly indicate high levels of sugar, salt, or fat were significantly more effective at helping shoppers identify less healthy products than more complex systems such as traffic lights or daily intake charts. Similarly, a randomised experiment conducted in Mexico in 2020 found that red Warning Labels (WL) and Multiple Traffic Light (MTL) labels led to healthier shopping cart choices compared to the Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) system. Together, these studies suggest that straightforward visual warnings are more easily understood across diverse populations and are more likely to prompt healthier consumer decisions.

Still, it’s important to acknowledge that front-of-pack labelling is not without criticism. In Europe, for example, several Southern European countries, including Italy, have raised concerns over systems like Nutri-Score, which rate food based on an algorithm that considers nutrient content. Critics argue that such labels overlook cultural and dietary context, particularly portion sizes and consumption patterns. For example, olive oil or Parmigiano Reggiano may receive lower scores due to their fat or salt content per 100 grams, despite being staples of the Mediterranean diet and widely recognised for their health benefits when consumed in moderation. Opponents worry that simplified scoring systems could mislead consumers into favouring ultra-processed foods with higher scores over traditional, nutrient-dense products with lower ratings. This doesn’t negate the value of front-of-pack labels, but it does highlight the ongoing need to make them not only clear and science-based, but also culturally and nutritionally realistic.

This research emphasises an important point: labelling only supports public health if people can interpret it. That’s where scientific literacy ‒ the ability to understand and apply scientific knowledge ‒ becomes essential. In communities where this kind of literacy is limited, consumers are more susceptible to persuasive terms like ‘natural,’ ‘clean,’ or ‘organic.’ These labels are often loosely defined and can mask a product’s true nutritional profile.

Science has a responsibility here. Health and nutrition claims must be more than just factually correct. They need to be understandable and actionable. A scientifically-valid label is of little use if the average shopper cannot decipher what it means.