Do Nutrition Labels and Food Taxes Really Work? A Call for Impact Assessment
Shouldn’t policies like Nutri-Score, sugar and fat taxes, and product reformulation incentives be assessed before they’re enforced?
- These initiatives are often presented as silver bullets against obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
Too often, these policies promise a lot but deliver little.
The health benefits are marginal, the socioeconomic costs substantial.
So why are they not subject to proper, independent ex-ante assessments?
Rather than empowering citizens, these measures often serve to ease political consciences or advance ideological and commercial agendas, all under the banner of public health.
READ IT AGAIN: LUIGI EINAUDI: A LIBERAL ROOTED IN THE LAND
Suppose a front-of-pack label or tax reduces saturated fat consumption by 5 grams per day (let’s be generous).
- What’s the real health gain from that?
- And more importantly: what are the hidden costs?
- For consumers, especially low-income groups, who face higher prices and limited choices—often without adequate nutritional education.
- For individuals who develop food anxiety, obsessing over sugar or fat content rather than cultivating a balanced diet.
- For small farmers and producers in tropical countries, whose livelihoods are threatened by policies made far from their realities.
- For culinary traditions and cultural identity, increasingly eroded by standardised reformulations and labeling systems.
READ IT AGAIN: TECHNOLOGY FOR BALANCED LIFESTYLES
What if the collateral damage outweighs the supposed health benefits?
We discussed these issues in depth during a roundtable with ambassadors from major tropical commodity-producing nations (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, the Philippines, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Thailand) hosted by the Indonesian Mission to the EU.
Key questions we raised:
- NCDs and obesity are real emergencies, but do we have evidence-based policies, or just comforting narratives?
- Are the UN and HLM4 proposals impactful or merely symbolic?
- Are the expected health benefits realistic and measurable?
- What is the economic and social cost for supply chains and developing economies?
- Has anyone conducted a serious cost-benefit analysis?
The conclusion:Without rigorous, transparent, and science-based assessments, public health policies risk being ineffective in improving health, and potentially harmful to economies, supply chains, and vulnerable populations.
Good intentions are not enough.
We need better evidence, more accountability, and inclusive dialogue before acting.
