Skip to main content
×
Home

Banning front-of-package food labels: First Amendment constraints on public health policy

  • Timothy D Lytton (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

In recent months, the FDA has begun a crackdown on misleading nutrition and health claims on the front of food packages by issuing warning letters to manufacturers and promising to develop stricter regulatory standards. Leading nutrition policy experts Marion Nestle and David Ludwig have called for an even tougher approach: a ban on all nutrition and health claims on the front of food packages. Nestle and Ludwig argue that most of these claims are scientifically unsound and misleading to consumers and that eliminating them would ‘aid educational efforts to encourage the public to eat whole or minimally processed foods and to read the ingredients list on processed foods’. Nestle and Ludwig are right to raise concerns about consumer protection and public health when it comes to front-of-package food labels, but an outright ban on front-of-package nutrition and health claims would violate the First Amendment. As nutrition policy experts develop efforts to regulate front-of-package nutrition and health claims, they should be mindful of First Amendment constraints on government regulation of commercial speech.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Banning front-of-package food labels: First Amendment constraints on public health policy
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Banning front-of-package food labels: First Amendment constraints on public health policy
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Banning front-of-package food labels: First Amendment constraints on public health policy
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email tlytt@albanylaw.edu
References
Hide All
1. Nestle M & Ludwig DS (2010) Front-of-package food labels: public health or propaganda? JAMA 303, 771772.
2. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act § 403, 21 U.S.C. § 343(r) (West 2006).
3. 21 C.F.R. § 101.14 (2009).
4.US Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (2007) Guidance for industry and FDA: Dear Manufacturer, Letter Regarding Food Labeling (January 2007). http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm053425.htm (containing non-binding recommendations).
5. 21 C.F.R. § 101.70 (2009).
6.Food Labeling (1993) General Requirements for Health Claims for Food, 58 Fed. Reg. 2478, 2484 (Jan. 6, 1993).
7. 21 C.F.R. § 101.13 (2009).
8. Shapiro R (1995) A comprehensive review of the nutrition labeling and education act regulations. In Nutrition Labeling Handbook, pp. 126226 [R Shapiro, editor]. New York: Marcel Dekker.
9. 21 C.F.R. § 101.54 (2009).
10. 21 C.F.R. § 101.55 (2009).
11. 21 C.F.R. § 101.56 (2009).
12. 21 C.F.R. § 101.57 (2009).
13. 21 C.F.R. § 101.58 (2009).
14. 21 C.F.R. § 101.59 (2009).
15. 21 C.F.R. § 101.60 (2009).
16. 21 C.F.R. § 101.61 (2009).
17. 21 C.F.R. § 101.62 (2009).
18.US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (2008) Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. Guidance For Industry: A Food Labeling Guide. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/default.htmIntroduction
19. 21 C.F.R. § 101.69 (2009).
20. 21 C.F.R. § 101.12 (2009).
21. 63 Fed. Reg. 26978-02, 26979 (15 May 1998).
22.Final Rule (2009) 59 Fed. Reg. 24232 at 24235 (10 May 1994) (codified at 21 C.F.R. § 101).
23. 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d)(2) (2009).
24. Neuman W (2009) For your health, Froot Loops, New York Times, 5 September, B1.
25.Connecticut Attorney General’s Office (2009) Attorney General investigates “Smart Choices” food labels that endorse mayonnaise and sugary cereals. http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?A=3673&Q=448878
26. Taylor MR (2009) Letter to the Smart Choices Program. http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/ucm180146.htm
27. Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. 1999).
28. Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission of New York 447 US 557, 566 (1980).
29. Whitaker v. Thompson, 248 F. Suppl. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002).
30.US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (2006) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Guidance for Industry: FDA’s Implementation of “Qualified Health Claims”: Questions and Answers: Final Guidance. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/UCM053843.htm
31.Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (2003) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Guidance for industry: interim procedures for qualified health claims in the labeling of conventional human food and human dietary supplements. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm053832.htm
32. Lytton T (2010) Signs of change or clash of symbols?: FDA regulation of nutrient profile labeling. Health Matrix 20, 93144.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 29
Total number of PDF views: 148 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 236 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.