Beyond the Labels: What Europe Can Learn from Chile’s Warning Labels
My latest opinion piece for HuffPost Italy explores one simple question: does the new Lancet study really prove that Chile’s warning labels work?
The answer is more nuanced than many headlines suggest. The study is scientifically valuable, but it also illustrates why public policies should be assessed not only by statistical significance, but by their overall health impact, proportionality and unintended consequences.
Key Takeaways
- The new Lancet paper evaluates Chile’s entire Food Labelling and Advertising Law, not warning labels alone.
- The reported effect is statistically significant but quantitatively modest, with an estimated reduction of only about 16.4 kcal per person per day.
- The study does not demonstrate long-term effects on obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease or population health.
- It does not assess costs, unintended consequences or broader socioeconomic impacts.
- Public health policies should be evaluated through comprehensive policy assessment—not statistical significance alone.
Beyond the Headlines
Front-of-pack nutrition labels are back at the centre of the global policy debate.
In Europe, discussions around Nutri-Score continue. Across Latin America, Chile’s black warning labels have become the reference model for more prescriptive food policies. The common objective is straightforward: encourage healthier food choices and help reduce obesity and other NCDs.
READ IT AGAIN: WHAT KEEPS US STILL
A new study published in The Lancet has intensified this debate. For the first time, researchers attempt to move beyond changes in purchasing behaviour and product reformulation by linking Chile’s Food Labelling and Advertising Law to a health indicator: a modest reduction in the probability of excess weight among children aged four to six.
This is an important scientific contribution.
However, reading the study carefully reveals a much more nuanced picture than the one presented through headlines and social media.
DO NOT MISS MY DISCUSSION WITH A 3-STAR CHEF: THE SECRET OF BALANCE
The research does not evaluate warning labels in isolation. It examines an entire regulatory package that combines front-of-pack labels with advertising restrictions, school food policies and broader changes to the food environment. Even the authors acknowledge that the individual contribution of each measure cannot be isolated.
The reported effect is also limited. Previous research cited by the authors estimates an average reduction of approximately 16.4 kcal per person per day. The study does not report weight loss in kilograms, nor does it demonstrate improvements in diabetes, cardiovascular disease, mortality or long-term population health.
This illustrates a broader lesson for policymakers.
Statistical significance should never be confused with policy significance.
READ MY ANALYSIS ON THE LAST LANCET STUDY: BEYOND THE HEADLINE ON CHILE’S WARNING LABELS
Public policies should be assessed not only on whether they produce measurable effects, but also on whether those effects are proportionate to their economic, social and regulatory costs.
This is particularly relevant for Europe. Nutrition labelling systems, such as Nutri-Score, and warning labels may influence not only consumer behaviour but also trade, market competition, regulatory fragmentation, and food innovation. These broader consequences deserve the same level of scrutiny as the reported health benefits.
A Better Question for Policymakers
The real question is no longer whether warning labels produce some effect.
It is whether they represent the most effective, proportionate and future-oriented strategy for preventing obesity.
READ PAGANINI NON RIPETE 315: WE DO NOT NEED A CLASSIFICATION FOR THE UPFS
Today we have tools that barely existed a decade ago: artificial intelligence, personalised nutrition, wearable devices, digital health, continuous metabolic monitoring and precision prevention. Combined with health literacy and the principles of the Mediterranean lifestyle, they offer opportunities that go far beyond a symbol printed on a package.
The future of prevention should empower people, not simply label products.
