In 2017, France introduced Nutri-Score, a Front-of-Pack labeling ranking items from A (green, high nutritional value) to E (red, low nutritional value) to make healthy choices easy. While some countries adopted it, it has not become a mandatory, unified FoPL system at the EU level. Now, eight years later, the U.S. is moving forward with a similar plan – despite its failure in Europe.

Can a simple food label curb America’s health crisis? With obesity, diabetes, and heart disease on the rise, the FDA is betting on a failed solution: mandatory Front-of-Pack nutrition labels on store-bought foods. Announced on Jan. 14, 2025, this initiative aims to make it easier for consumers to make informed, healthy choices. However, the administration has been vague about key details, only stating that the labels will apply to “most packaged foods,” leaving uncertainty about which products will be affected.

According to the FDA, to make nutrition information more accessible, labels will highlight three key nutrients – saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars – displaying their percentages alongside a “low,” “medium,” or “high” rating. A “low” rating signals minimal amounts, while “high” warns of significant levels. The goal? A simpler, at-a-glance system to help consumers make smarter, healthier choices.

But is this really progress? More than 40 countries – including France, Germany, Mexico, and Belgium – adopted Front-of-Pack labeling years ago, relying on broad generalizations to fight obesity. Now, as some nations reconsider its effectiveness, the U.S. risks following in their footsteps with an outdated solution rather than a meaningful change.

In Switzerland, for example, Nutri-Score faced backlash over a flawed algorithm that mistakenly categorized processed foods as healthier than natural ones. Furthermore, Danone, a French multinational once in strong support of Nutri-Score, has now removed the label from some of its products after a change in the algorithm reclassified its dairy beverages alongside soft drinks – dropping them from A (green) to C (yellow). This shift makes little sense, as these products have a similar nutritional profile to their solid counterparts that retain their higher rating. Instead of helping consumers, the system has led to even more confusion, raising concerns about its real-world impact.

THE FIGHT OVER LABELS

Though still in its early stages, the FDA’s Front-of-Pack labeling proposal has already sparked debate across the United States. Supporters, like the American Heart Association, call it “an important step,” while advocacy groups such as the National Consumers League – known for pressuring the FDA on regulations – have applauded the move. But as support grows, so does skepticism, with critics questioning whether this simplistic approach actually helps consumers.

Individuals who advocate for generalized nutrition fail to recognize its immense shortcomings. Did you know it has been proven that there is not one dietary plan that fits all? Lifestyle and genetic factors play a major role in determining what and how much an individual can eat. People should try to adhere to a personalized nutrition program and refrain from taking food label recommendations as their main reference.

A groundbreaking 2024 study challenges the effectiveness of blanket nutrition guidelines, undermining the FDA’s proposed Front-of-Pack label. In a randomized experiment, American researchers tracked 347 participants for 18 weeks, comparing personalized nutrition plans to the USDA’s guidelines. The results? Personalized plans led to real health gains, while the standard approach fell flat.

Those following tailored diets saw triglyceride levels drop by 10–15%, while the general diet group saw no meaningful change. They also reported having more energy (43% vs. 11%), better sleep (35% vs. 9%), improved mood (33% vs. 15%), and less hunger. Physically, the participants lost an average of 5.4 pounds and trimmed nearly an inch off their waists – results largely absent in the general diet group.

Most tellingly, adherence was significantly higher among those on personalized plans, with 30% more participants sticking to their diets long-term. These findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of broad dietary rules, suggesting that personalized nutrition – not oversimplified food labels – may be the real key to better health.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now leading the Department of Health and Human Services, the future of FoP labeling remains uncertain. While the push for mandated labels continues, policymakers should reconsider whether broad, one-size-fits-all regulations are the right approach. In contrast, Europe seems to be moving past this debate.

In the European Commission’s latest 5-year Vision for Food and Agriculture, there was no mention of Nutri-Score or any other form of FoPL, indicating that many countries have moved on due to the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. This raises an important question: if Europe is abandoning them, why is the U.S. considering one?

Rather than relying on oversimplified warnings, the real focus should be on precision – leveraging technology and personalized nutrition to guide healthier choices. As the debate unfolds, the question isn’t just what the government will do next but whether it will embrace innovation over outdated solutions.