select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
A modelling study published in the Lancet Regional Health – Europe looks at the impact of nutrition labelling policies on obesity and obesity-related death.
Prof Sarah Berry, Professor of Nutritional Sciences, King’s College London, said:
“This research needs to be interpreted with some caution due to being reliant on modelling. However, it does add to a growing pool of evidence from previous studies and real-world data from countries like Chile, that warning labels on foods may help improve public health by nudging customer choices in the right direction.
“The research focuses on a nutrient labelling system, but we now know that nutrients only tell us part of the story. In a world where many people consume 60% of their calories from processed foods, we must consider the multiple features of a food which determines how it impacts our health, of which front of pack nutrient labelling is only one feature. The many non-nutritive chemicals, food texture and food structure also play a big role in determining the healthfulness of a food. For example, you could have 2 foods with identical nutrient warning labels, but which have very different health effects due to the non-nutritive chemicals and destruction of the original food structure.”
Prof Hayden McRobbie, Professor of Population Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, said:
“Eating too much unhealthy food and drink is linked to obesity, diabetes, and other serious diseases like cancer. While many people are aware of this, making healthy choices isn’t always easy.
“Simple food labels, like traffic lights, can help. Green means go, red means caution. Nutrient warning labels can also highlight foods high in sugar, salt, or calories. Making these labels mandatory not only supports healthier choices but also encourages manufacturers to improve their products.
“This study used computer modelling to explore how mandatory front-of-pack labels might affect obesity in England. The model created a virtual population with different ages, lifestyles, and health risks, and simulated what would happen over 20 years if traffic light or nutrient warning labels were made mandatory. Evidence from Chile, which introduced mandatory nutrient labels in 2016, helped refine the model.
“The results showed that both types of labels reduced obesity and related illnesses, but nutrient warning labels had a greater impact. Of course, modelling studies are not perfect as they rely on the quality of the data and assumptions used. However, they are a valuable tool for exploring potential outcomes and informing policy decisions.
“While food isn’t the only factor in obesity, overconsumption of unhealthy food plays a major role. Making labels easier to understand can help people make healthier choices. And although this study focused on overall energy intake, it’s likely that nutrient labels could also reduce consumption of things like salt, leading to even more health benefits.”
Dr Sally Moore, Registered Dietitian, Registered Nutritionist (Public Health), and Lecturer in Nutritional Science, University of Leeds, said:
“It is great to see this new evidence supporting the impact of mandatory implementation of Front of Pack Nutrition labelling on energy (calorie) intakes and consequent health outcomes, particularly given that traffic light labelling has been voluntary for over a decade in the UK, is widely presented on pre-packed products, and intended to support both customers and industry identification of healthier products.
“The model simulation used by the researchers takes into account social and consumer characteristics which are known to influence the understanding, use and impact of such labels across some groups. Their findings concerning reducing existing inequalities in these areas are promising. Also pleasing to see are the assumptions on how mandating such labels would influence industry reformulation of products to reduce energy.
“I’d be interested to understand if the model took into account pre-packaged products only or also encompassed out of home eating settings such as takeaways and cafes which are now growing in their contributions to population energy intakes. Furthermore, this work might also help researchers to understand the impact of legally required front of pack nutrition labelling in real life, alongside other current Regulatory initiatives such as those restricting the promotions of High Fat Sugar Salt (HFSS) products – the nature of which is similar but different to traffic lights for example and not highlighted on pack for consumers.”
Paul Buckley, a chartered member of the British Psychological Society; retired but previously lecturer of consumer and marketing psychology at UWE, Bath, Cardiff Met, Bath Spa and Bristol universities, said:
“The study attempts to draw a direct relationship between nutritional labelling and obesity-related deaths; there are many intervening psychological variables which affect food choice – understanding, beliefs, attitudes, upbringing etc., as well as other factors such as price, packaging and brand, which will have a much greater influence.
“The study appears to show that front-of-pack nutrition labelling has little impact overall, a 2.34- 4.44% drop in obesity-related deaths prevented or postponed over a 20-year period, assuming that the assumptions of the model are correct, suggesting that other factors are much more important.
“Nutrition labelling in general is not terribly useful to consumers as it is the overall diet which matters – types of foods, how they are combined and how much is consumed. It is almost impossible for someone to work out the amount of various nutrients they’ve consumed in a meal based on nutritional labelling.
“Also, when manufacturers reduce salt or sugar, consumers tend to compensate by adding their own, so that nutrition labels don’t adequately reflect the consumed product. There is also evidence that some consumers eat more when they think the product is low fat and overall consume more calories.
“It is not surprising that the traffic light system appears to be less effective, there is too much information; the Chilean system on the other hand is much more easily assimilated as it’s much more direct.
“The study is based on extrapolation and therefore cannot take account of possible changes in consumer behaviour in the future.
“The impact of nutrition warning labels on a reduction in obesity in Mexico is probably overestimated as Mexico had a big problem with obesity and diabetes, and has implemented other health initiatives besides nutrition warnings. Also, food packaging in Mexico is much less sophisticated than in the UK.
“I would expect that if a traffic light system became mandatory, there would be a lot of re-formulation of products so that high fat and sugar products in particular are re-formulated to be just below the red and amber categories. This is what cigarette manufacturers did when tar and nicotine bands were introduced.
“Diet and the consumption of packaged foods vary greatly between countries; the UK has greater availability and one of the biggest ranges of processed packaged foods in the world, it is therefore difficult to compare the effects of packaging nutrition information on obesity between countries.
“While the authors acknowledge a number of possible weaknesses in the study, overall, I think it overemphasises the impact of nutrition labelling on consumer behaviour.”
Prof Amanda Daley, Professor of Behavioural Medicine, Loughborough University, said:
“This study is based on simulated data that included many assumptions, rather than real life data, therefore caution should be used when interpreting the findings which may have been over estimated. Nevertheless, the study does provide us with an indication of the health benefits that food labelling approaches may have for the population.
“We need effective public health interventions to reduce the number of deaths related to people living with obesity and mandatory warning labels on food may be one way to achieve this. Importantly, we need the food industry to play their part in helping people to make informed decisions about the food they purchase and consume. The requirement for food manufacturers in the United Kingdom to include warning labels may encourage the sector to consider more carefully the contents and portion size of food items that they sell. Let’s not forget, the public have the right to be fully informed about the impact of the food they consume on their health.”
Dr Jordan Beaumont, Senior Lecturer in Food and Nutrition and Registered Nutritionist (RNutr) (Public Health), Sheffield Hallam University, said:
“The approach to this modelling utilises the best available evidence to inform the authors’ assumptions, which creates a robust model to evaluate the likely impacts of making nutrition information mandatory, considering a range of factors that influence food choice – from basic demographic characteristics such as our age and sex, through to socioeconomic position.
“A strength of this work is the focus on mandatory approaches – voluntary action, particularly where it requires the food industry to adopt and implement, often only has limited impact. This study provides explicit evidence of the impacts that mandatory nutrition labelling has on both food choice and health, which will likely lead to calls for product reformulation.
“As with all modelling studies, this work needs real-world context – while modelling studies are useful for predicting outcomes such as changes in food choice, what happens in the real world is often very complex and nuanced. It would be great to see the implementation of mandatory nutrition information to verify the findings of this work.
“The shift from voluntary nutritional information to mandatory and consistent information is very much needed, and it is great to see this work highlighting the positive impact such mandatory approaches will likely have on food choice and wider health.
“This work demonstrates the importance of clear nutrition information on packaging. Traffic light labelling is a useful tool for consumers but can be tricky to interpret in context of our wider food choices and dietary intake. Given we often have very little time to actually inspect labelling and make truly informed decisions when shopping for food, nutrition warning labels provide simpler and more explicit information that is quick and easy to interpret which explains the larger impact of such information in this modelling.
“The explicit nutrition warning labels will likely lead many consumers to avoiding certain foods. However, it is important that we do not place all the burden on individuals to make healthier choices and additionally call for the reformulation of food products to make them healthier and more sustainable. We’ve already seen the benefit of such reformulation around sugar-sweetened beverages, with reduced intake of sugar, and this work demonstrates the additional benefit of both influencing consumer choice and the reformulation of food products.”
‘The estimated impact of mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling policies on adult obesity prevalence and obesity-related mortality in England: a modelling study’ by Rebecca Evans et al. was published in Lancet Regional Health – Europe at 23:30 UK time on Tuesday 4 November 2025.
DOI: 10. 1016/j.lanepe.2025. 101506
Declared interests
Dr Sally Moore: I have no conflicts of interest. Declaration: I am a Registered Dietitian (Health and Care Professions Council), and current Committee Member former Chair British Dietetic Association Public Health Nutrition Specialist Group. I have previously conducted research in collaboration with consumers and industry with public research funding provided by UKRI Diet and Health Open Innovation Research Club
Prof Sarah Berry: “I am employed by ZOE Ltd and currently receive funding from the Almond Board of California and Alliance for Potato Research in addition to charities and research councils.”
Prof Hayden McRobbie: “I do not have any interests to declare.”
Paul Buckley: “No declaration of interests.”
Prof Amanda Daley: “I conduct research in a similar field to the research and have no conflicts of interest to declare.”
Dr Jordan Beaumont: “Dr Beaumont has no competing interests; he has not received industry funding nor does he work with or have links with the industry.”
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.