Back to Prevention

Prevention: Food labelling

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling

Last updated 31-07-2025

Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling schemes are designed to provide standardised summary information about the nutritional content of packaged food and beverages. Schemes led and supported by governments have been introduced in more than 43 countries and take different forms.

Key Evidence

01

Interpretive FOP systems provide consumers with some interpretation of the nutritional quality of food products to assist use and understanding

02

The Health Star Rating (HSR) is a front-of-pack nutrition labelling system in Australia and New Zealand, endorsed by the government for voluntary implementation by the food industry

03

Many countries around the world have implemented mandatory front-of-pack labelling systems, typically in the form of nutritional warning labels

04

Well-designed front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes can contribute to healthier diets, with evidence indicating that interpretive FOP schemes typically perform better than non-interpretive systems

Recognising that many consumers may find back-of-Pack nutrition information complex to understand, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling as a tool to promote healthier diets, and lists FOP labelling as a ‘best buy’ policy to address non-communicable disease.12

FOP labelling systems aim to provide standard, clear information on the nutritional content of packaged food items so consumers can readily identify healthier and less healthy options.3 Effective FOP labels typically employ logos, symbols, colours or ratings to simplify nutrition information and encourage healthier choices at a glance.

The policy objective is typically two-fold:

  • to help consumers make healthier food choices, and
  • to encourage industry to reformulate products to create healthier options.4

Implementation of Front of Pack labelling

Front of pack (FOP) nutrition labelling systems have now been implemented in 43 countries (where governments have led and supported their development), and systems are under consideration or development in many other countries.5 FOP systems vary by country, often tailored to local health priorities and consumer preferences, and can be mandatory or voluntary in nature.

Eleven countries have mandatory FOP labelling, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Canada (to be implemented from January 2026), Mexico and Sri Lanka. Voluntary initiatives have been implemented in 28 countries, including Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, France and Malaysia. . The FOP labelling policies of Colombia, Singapore, Thailand and Israel include mandatory and voluntary elements.5 Some countries that have voluntary initiatives, for example Australia, are now considering mandatory approaches given the relatively low levels of adoption of voluntary measures.6 Some countries, for example Mexico, have also amended or replaced the systems they use in response to evaluation data to ensure effectiveness.7

The World Health Organization has published a guiding framework manual on FOP nutrition labelling, to encourage government action and support policy-makers in developing, implementing and monitoring national regulation.8 The manual sets out five principles for FOPNL, including alignment with national public health and nutrition policies and food regulations, as well as WHO guidance and Codex guidelines. It also lists best practices for the development and implementation of FOP labelling systems, as well as monitoring and evaluation.

The WHO guiding framework manual outlines that FOP nutrition labelling initiatives can be implemented as voluntary or mandatory, and does not make an explicit recommendation on which approach is more effective. Other groups, including UNICEF and the World Cancer Research Fund, recommend that governments consider mandatory implementation to overcome problems with limited uptake of voluntary systems.910 There is some evidence to suggest mandatory FOP nutrition labelling policies, where all packaged foods must display a label, are likely to be more effective than voluntary initiatives.11 For example, two studies indicate the Health Star Rating supported healthier food choices when it was present on all foods shown to participants, compared to when displayed on only some products.1213 Studies also suggest mandatory implementation is likely to be required to overcome selective display of the Health Star Rating (where manufacturers label high-scoring products only, and omit to label low-scoring products)14, and encourage healthier reformulation of unhealthy products.15161718

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex, the international food standards agency) has also developed Guidelines on Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling that set out a list of principles for the establishment of FOP nutrition labelling systems.19 These principles include that they should align with dietary guidance, be government-led with stakeholder consultation, be easy to understand and use, and be in a format supported by consumer research to help consumers make appropriate comparisons between foods. The Codex Guidelines do not endorse a particular FOPNL system and allow for both voluntary and mandatory systems. For more information about Codex and the interaction between nutrition labelling and trade law, please see this page.

Types of front of pack nutrition labelling systems

Front of Pack nutrition labelling systems can be broadly categorised as interpretive and non-interpretive.

Interpretive systems provide consumers with some interpretation of the nutritional quality of food products, relative to a standard. Interpretive systems can be further categorised into four subcategories11:

  • Summary indicator systems provide an overall evaluation of a food’s relative nutritional quality. Examples include Australia and New Zealand’s Health Star Rating (ranging from half a star to five stars)20 and Europe’s Nutri-Score (color-coded scale from A to E).21 These systems are usually based on an algorithm that considers a variety of positive and negative food components and nutrients to assess a product’s overall nutrition quality.
  • Nutrient-specific interpretive systems provide information on the content of individual nutrients, based on nutrient thresholds that meet a nutrition standard. For example, the UK’s traffic light system which colours each nutrient as green, amber, or red.22
  • Negative nutrient-specific systems signal when the levels of risk nutrients (such as sodium, sugars or saturated fats) in the product exceed a standard. For example, Chile’s warning labels for food and drinks that have high levels of sugar, salt, saturated fat and calories.23 For more information, see the nutritional warning labels page.
  • Endorsement logos provide a positive judgement on foods that meet a certain healthiness criterion. For example, the Nordic Keyhole (green keyhole symbol).24

France's Nutri-Score, an example of a summary indicator
Source: Delhaize

Non-interpretive or reductive systems show numerical information on nutrient content, without any additional guidelines on the nutritional quality of a food to facilitate consumer understanding. These include designs that incorporate nutrient amounts and their percentage contribution to daily recommended intakes. Examples include Guideline Daily Amounts in the United States or the Australian Food and Grocery Council’s Daily Intake Guide.4

There is now clear evidence that interpretive labels are more effective than non-interpretive labels in improving consumer understanding of the nutritional quality/content of foods and the healthfulness of food choices and purchases.251126 As such, the WHO recommends countries develop and implement FOP labels with interpretive designs, rather than non-interpretive labels.8

Interpretive system
Source: Centro de Investigación en Nutrición y Salud, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico
Reductive system

Nutritional warning labels

An emerging area of interest is the use of nutritional warning labels on packaged food and drinks. The aim of nutritional warning labels is to highlight specific unhealthy components of food products.

Ten countries have implemented (or are in the process of introducing) mandatory nutritional warning labels. Chile has been a leader in this area, after they introduced (in 2016) mandatory black warning labels shaped like stop signs for packaged food and drinks that exceed limits for sugar, salt, saturated fat or energy.27 The implementation of warning labels in Chile is part of a comprehensive package of policies designed to improve the healthiness of population diets, including restrictions on marketing to children and foods for sale in schools.

There is increasing evidence to show that mandatory nutritional warning labels are contributing to healthier diets by supporting people to reduce purchases of less healthy foods282930 and prompting food manufacturers to reformulate products to reduce risk nutrients.3132

For more information, please see the page Nutritional warning labels.


Graphic health warnings

There is some emerging evidence that graphic health warnings, inspired by those on tobacco products, could lead to healthier dietary choices. For instance, an Australian study found that negatively framed graphic warnings prompted greater dietary self-control than text-based or positively framed labels.33

Another Australian study showed that FOP labelling had the potential to reduce purchases of sugary drinks, with graphic health warnings performing better than text warnings, sugar content information, or Health Star Ratings.34 In the US, a study showed that graphic health warnings led to a decrease in sugary drink purchases and an increase in water selection, further underscoring their potential positive impact on consumer behaviour.35

Graphic health warnings

Effectiveness of Front of Pack nutrition labels

Research has consistently found that FOP labels support consumers in identifying and choosing healthier foods, and that interpretive labels perform better than non-interpretive systems.11363738394041 Evidence on which types of interpretive FOP systems are more effective is generally inconsistent.11 For example, compared to other systems, summary indicator systems have been found to better improve consumer understanding and the healthiness of food choices and sales in some studies. However, in other studies, labels with traffic light colour coding or nutrition warnings performed better than other interpretive systems. This variation in findings shows that it is essential to consider the country context when designing FOP systems, and to ensure that proposed systems are appropriate for the local population.8 Evidence shows, however, that other interpretive FOP labels (e.g., summary indicators, warning labels) tend to be superior to endorsement logos, as endorsement logos may lead consumers to incorrectly perceive labelled foods as healthier than unlabelled foods.11

Content for this page was updated by Jasmine Chan and Gary Sacks at GLOBE, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University and reviewed by Damian Maganja at The George Institute for Global Health. For more information about the approach to content on the site please see About | Obesity Evidence Hub.

References

1. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases 2013-2020, 2013. Available from: https://www.who.int/publicatio...
2. World Health Organization. Tackling NCDs: best buys and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, 2nd ed. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/publicatio...
3. Kelly B and Jewell J. What is the evidence on the policy specifications, development processes and effectiveness of existing front-of-pack food labelling policies in the WHO European Region? , Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
4. Kanter R, Vanderlee L, and Vandevijvere S. Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: global progress and future directions. Public Health Nutrition, 2018; 21(8):1399-1408.
5. World Health Organization. The Global database on the Implementation of Food and Nutrition Action (GIFNA). Available from: https://gifna.who.int/summary/...
6. Australian Government Food Regulation. Food Ministers’ Meeting communique – 25 July 2024. Available from: https://www.foodregulation.gov...
7. White M & Barquera S. (2020). Mexico Adopts Food Warning Labels, Why Now? Health Systems & Reform, 6(1), e1752063.
8. World Health Organization. Guiding principles and framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diets. 2019.
9. UNICEF. Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling of Foods and Beverages. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/media/1...
10. World Cancer Research Fund International. Building Momentum: lessons on implementing robust restrictions of food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing to children. 2020. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/policy/our-publications/building-momentum-series/.
11. Kelly B, Ng SH, Carrad A, Pettigrew S. The Potential Effectiveness of Nutrient Declarations and Nutrition and Health Claims for Improving Population Diets. Annu Rev Nutr. 2024;44(1):441-470. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-011224-054913
12. Anderson CL, O’Connor EL. 2019. The effect of the Health Star Rating on consumer decision-making. Food Q. Prefer. 73:215–25
13. Hagmann D, Siegrist M. 2020. Nutri-Score, multiple traffic light and incomplete nutrition labelling on food packages: effects on consumers’ accuracy in identifying healthier snack options. Food Q. Prefer.
14. Shahid M, Neal B, Jones A. Uptake of Australia’s Health Star Rating System 2014-2019. Nutrients. 2020. Jun 16;12(6):1791.
15. Kennedy L, Doonan R, Hawthorne P, Gibbs M. 2018. Health Star Rating: monitoring implementation for the five year review. Rep., Minist. Prim. Ind., Wellington, NZ
16. Morrison H, Meloncelli N, Pelly FE. Nutritional quality and reformulation of a selection of children's packaged foods available in Australian supermarkets: Has the Health Star Rating had an impact?. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(3):296-304. doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12486
17. C Ni Mhurchu, E Volkova, Y Jiang, H Eyles, J Michie, B Neal, et al. Effects of interpretive nutrition labels on consumer food purchases: The Starlight randomized controlled trial Am J Clin Nutr., 105 (3) (2017), pp. 695-704
18. Bablani, L., C. Ni Mhurchu, B. Neal, C. L. Skeels, K. E. Staub, and T. Blakely. 2022. 'Effect of voluntary Health Star Rating labels on healthier food purchasing in New Zealand: longitudinal evidence using representative household purchase data', BMJ Nutr Prev Health, 5: 227-34.
19. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling CAC/GL 2- 1985. Available from: http://www.fao.org/
20. Australian Government 2024. Health Star Rating. Retrieved from: https://www.healthstarrating.g...
21. Nutri-Score 2025: https://www.santepubliquefranc...
22. NHS 2022 Food labels: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/e...
23. Jacobs A. In Sweeping War on Obesity, Chile Slays Tony the Tiger. The New York Times, 2018. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/...
24. Swedish National Food Agency 2018, The Nordic Keyhole scheme: https://food.ec.europa.eu/syst...
25. Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Kelly B, Ball K, Dixon H, et al. Consumers' responses to front-of-pack labels that vary by interpretive content. Appetite, 2016; 101:205-213.
26. Roberto CA and Khandpur N. Improving the design of nutrition labels to promote healthier food choices and reasonable portion sizes. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 2014; 38(Suppl 1):S25-S33.
27. Reyes M, Garmendia ML, Olivares S, Aqueveque C, Zacarías I, Corvalán C. Development of the Chilean front-of-package food warning label. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):906.
28. Song J, Brown MK, Tan M, MacGregor GA, Webster J, Campbell NRC, Trieu K, Ni Mhurchu C, Cobb LK, He FJ. Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021 Oct 5;18(10):e1003765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003765. PMID: 34610024; PMCID: PMC8491916.
29. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Corvalán C. Changes in food purchases after the Chilean policies on food labelling, marketing, and sales in schools: a before and after study. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2021;5(8):e526-e33.
30. Taillie LS, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Popkin B, Corvalán C. An evaluation of Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: A before-and-after study. PLOS Medicine. 2020;17(2):e1003015.
31. Reyes M, Smith Taillie L, Popkin B, Kanter R, Vandevijvere S, Corvalán C. Changes in the amount of nutrient of packaged foods and beverages after the initial implementation of the Chilean Law of Food Labelling and Advertising: A nonexperimental prospective study. PLOS Medicine. 2020;17(7):e1003220.
32. Quintiliano Scarpelli D, Pinheiro Fernandes AC, Rodriguez Osiac L, Pizarro Quevedo T. Changes in Nutrient Declaration after the Food Labeling and Advertising Law in Chile: A Longitudinal Approach. Nutrients. 2020; 12(8).
33. Rosenblatt DH, Bode S, Dixon H, Murawski C, Summerell P, et al. Health warnings promote healthier dietary decision making: Effects of positive versus negative message framing and graphic versus text-based warnings. Appetite, 2018; 127:280-288.
34. Billich N, Blake MR, Backholer K, Cobcroft M, Li V, et al. The effect of sugar-sweetened beverage front-of-pack labels on drink selection, health knowledge and awareness: An online randomised controlled trial. Appetite, 2018; 128:233-241.
35. Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, and John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychological Science, 2018; 29(8):1321-1333.
36. Carter KA, González-Vallejo C. 2018. Nutrient-specific system versus full fact panel: testing the benefits of nutrient-specific front-of-package labels in a student sample. Appetite 125:512–26
37. Cecchini M, Warin L. 2016. Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Obes. Rev. 17:201–10
38. Ikonen I, Sotgiu F, Aydinli A, Verlegh PWJ. 2020. Consumer effects of front-of-package nutrition labeling: an interdisciplinary meta-analysis. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 48:360–83
39. Roberto CA, Ng SW, Ganderats-Fuentes M, Hammond D, Barquera S, et al. 2021. The influence of front-of-package nutrition labeling on consumer behavior and product reformulation. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 41:529–50
40. Shangguan S, Afshin A, Shulkin M, Ma W, Marsden D, et al. 2019. A meta-analysis of food labeling effects on consumer diet behaviors and industry practices. Am. J. Prev. Med. 56:300–14
41. Taillie LS, Hall MG, Popkin BM, Ng SW & Murukutla N. (2020). Experimental Studies of Front-of-Package Nutrient Warning Labels on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Ultra-Processed Foods: A Scoping Review. Nutrients, 12(2), 569.