ABSTRACT
Background Front-of-pack labeling (FOPL) has been implemented in several countries in the Americas, with Chile being the first to introduce a mandatory ‘high in’ warning FOPL in 2016. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) food classification criteria, considered a best practice for FOPL regulations, has been adopted by Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia. Canada’s FOPL regulations were recently approved and will take effect in January 2026, but it is unknown how these regulations compare to FOPL regulations that have already been implemented in other parts of the region.
Objectives To compare the Canadian criteria for FOPL regulations with other FOPL criteria implemented in the Americas, and to determine their ability to identify ultra-processed products (UPPs).
Methods Packaged foods and beverages (n=17,094) from the University of Toronto’s Food Label Information and Price (FLIP) 2017 database were analyzed using three FOPL criteria (Canadian, Chilean and PAHO criteria) and the NOVA classification system. The proportions of products that would be subject to displaying a ‘high in/excess’ FOPL and UPPs that would not be subject to FOPL regulations were examined under each system’s criteria. Agreement patterns were modeled using a nested sequence of hierarchical Poisson log-linear models. The Wald statistics for homogeneity were used to test whether proportional distributions differ significantly.
Results Under the Canadian, Chilean and PAHO criteria, 54.4%, 68.4%, and 81.3% of packaged products would be required to display a ‘high in/excess’ FOPL, respectively. Disagreements between the Chilean and the Canadian criteria with PAHO’s were significant, but the greatest disagreement was between the Canadian and PAHO criteria. According to the Canadian, Chilean, and PAHO criteria, 33.4%, 18.4%, 2.3% of UPPs would not be subject to FOPL regulations, respectively.
Conclusions A significant proportion of products that should be subject to FOPL regulations according to the PAHO criteria would not be regulated under Chilean and Canadian criteria, resulting in high proportion of UPPs that would not be subject to FOPL regulations. The Canadian FOPL criteria are the most lenient, with the highest proportion of UPPs that would not display a FOPL. Results can inform improvements for FOPL regulations in Canada, Chile and other countries.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
