Some industry groups have created voluntary front-of-package labeling systems, such as Facts Up Front, started in 2011. Facts Up Front is a registered trademark of the Consumer Brands Association. This image is being used with the permission of the association.

A long-running debate over how packaged foods should be labeled is intensifying in the lead-up to a White House conference on hunger, nutrition and health scheduled for late September.

The debate is about whether packaged foods should have an additional label on the front warning consumers about high fat, sugar or salt levels to flag potential health risks.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already requires most packaged foods to display a nutritional label on the package’s back or side, but some consumer interest groups are urging the FDA to also require a label on the front.

Advocates say the labels will help consumers make more informed choices.

“The point of front-of-package labeling is to facilitate quick and easy health-conscious decisions about what to eat,” said Eva Greenthal, senior policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food and health watchdog organization. “It doesn’t restrict consumer choice in any way. It doesn’t ban anything or impose any crazy burden on industry. It’s just a transparency initiative in a country suffering from very high levels of diet-related diseases.”

Critics say current labeling requirements suffice, arguing that an additional requirement would be burdensome.

If the FDA mandates front-of-package labels, experts say it could also turn into a legal battle between the federal agency and First Amendment advocates, some of whom view required front-of-packaged labels as a form of forced speech.

Some industry groups — including the Consumer Brands Association, a trade association for packaged goods manufacturers — say they support voluntary, not mandatory, front labels.

In 2011, the association created a voluntary front-of-package nutritional labeling program called Facts Up Front. About 150 companies use the labels.

“We really don’t want a mandatory interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labeling scheme that creates winners and losers among foods (and) that demonizes certain foods,” said Roberta Wagner, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the association.

Critics also say there is insufficient evidence that front labels change consumer behavior enough to warrant a labeling overhaul.

Advocates respond that the effectiveness of a label depends on its details.

Studies have found that front labels that mainly repeat information from the nutritional label do not significantly influence consumer behavior.

In contrast, some studies indicate that consumers may change buying habits when confronted with front labels that interpret nutrient levels or give a warning.

For example, some interpretive designs use the red, yellow and green colors of a traffic signal to indicate whether something is low, medium or high in a category such as sugar. Another design uses an octagon-shaped symbol resembling a stop sign that warns consumers of health risks.

Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Israel and Iran have adopted voluntary or mandatory front-of-package labels, and Canada will join their ranks in 2026.

A 2021 study of 2,381 Chilean households published in The Lancet Planetary Health found that when front labels were required, overall sugar in food purchases fell 10%, saturated fat dropped 3.9% and sodium declined 4.7%.

People on both sides of the conflict, however, say more research is needed.

Where does the FDA land in the debate?

An FDA spokeswoman said the agency recently finished a literature review on front-of-package labeling. The FDA’s next steps, she said, will include listening to stakeholders, expanding research and watching how front-of-package labeling schemes unfold in other countries. The FDA is also creating consumer focus groups.

“Results of these focus groups would inform any other next steps,” the official said.