Unhealthy diets are a leading cause of death and disability globally. The WHO recommends Member States implement front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labels to guide consumers towards healthier food choices, as part of comprehensive strategies to prevent diet-related non-communicable diseases. Interest in FOP nutrition labelling is increasing, but there is limited guidance for policymakers developing regulations necessary for effective implementation. A rapidly evolving evidence base, limited regulatory capacity and possibility of legal challenge by affected food industry stakeholders can create ‘regulatory chill’, whereby governments are dissuaded from progressive public health policymaking. We use a framework for analysing public health law and available best-practice guidance to evaluate key components of 31 FOP nutrition labelling regulations endorsed by governments up to June 2019. Analysis of regulatory form shows recent rapid uptake of label formats that are easier for consumers to understand and increasing use of mandatory legislation. However, policymakers must decide much more than whether to apply ‘stars’, ‘traffic lights’ or ‘stop signs’. The substance of effective regulation must contain strategic regulatory objectives, clear specifications for displaying the label on pack, a valid scoring mechanism and a justified scope for including foods. While there are limited data on current practice, good governance of FOP nutrition labelling regulation also requires transparency and accountability in processes of label development, implementation, evaluation and enforcement to promote continuous improvement and withstand undue commercial interference. Whether developing new FOP nutrition labels or reforming existing ones, our findings support policymakers to design and implement best-practice, evidence-informed regulation.

Poor diets are a leading cause of disease burden worldwide. In Australia, the Federal Government established the Food and Health Dialogue (the Dialogue) in 2009 to address this issue, primarily through food reformulation. We evaluated the Dialogue’s performance over its 6 years of operation and used these findings to develop recommendations for the success of the new Healthy Food Partnership. We used information from the Dialogue website, media releases, communiqués, e-newsletters, materials released under freedom-of-information, and Parliamentary Hansard to evaluate the Dialogue’s achievements from October 2013 to November 2015, using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework. We also engaged closely with two former Dialogue members. Our findings update a prior assessment done in October 2013. Little data is available to evaluate the Dialogue’s recent achievements, with no information about progress against milestones released since October 2013. In the last 2 years, only one additional set of sodium reduction targets (cheese) was agreed and Quick Service Restaurant foods were added as an area for action. Some activity was identified in 12 of a possible 137 (9 %) areas of action within the Dialogue’s mandate. Independent evaluation found targets were partially achieved in some food categories, with substantial variation in success between companies. No effects on the knowledge, behaviours or nutrient intake of the Australian population or evidence of impact on diet-related disease could be identified. The new Healthy Food Partnership has similar goals to the Dialogue. While highly laudable and recognised globally as cost-effective, the mechanism for delivery in Australia has been woefully inadequate. Strong government leadership, adequate funding, clear targets and timelines, management of conflict of interest, comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, and a plan for responsive regulation in the event of missed milestones will be required if the new Healthy Food Partnership is to achieve its urgent public health goals.

Interpretive nutrition labels provide simplified nutrient-specific text and/or symbols on the front of pre-packaged foods, to encourage and enable consumers to make healthier choices. This type of labelling has been proposed as part of a comprehensive policy response to the global epidemic of non-communicable diseases. However, regulation of nutrition labelling falls under the remit of not just the health sector but also trade. Specific Trade Concerns have been raised at the World Trade Organization’s Technical Barriers to Trade Committee regarding interpretive nutrition labelling initiatives in Thailand, Chile, Indonesia, Peru and Ecuador. This paper presents an analysis of the discussions of these concerns. Although nutrition labelling was identified as a legitimate policy objective, queries were raised regarding the justification of the specific labelling measures proposed, and the scientific evidence for effectiveness of such measures. Concerns were also raised regarding the consistency of the measures with international standards. Drawing on policy learning theory, we identified four lessons for public health policy makers, including: strategic framing of nutrition labelling policy objectives; pro-active policy engagement between trade and health to identify potential trade issues; identifying ways to minimize potential ‘practical’ trade concerns; and engagement with the Codex Alimentarius Commission to develop international guidance on interpretative labelling. This analysis indicates that while there is potential for trade sector concerns to stifle innovation in nutrition labelling policy, care in how interpretive nutrition labelling measures are crafted in light of trade commitments can minimize such a risk and help ensure that trade policy is coherent with nutrition action.

In June 2014, Australia and New Zealand adopted a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition label, the Health Star Rating (HSR) system. Our aim was to assess its uptake in Australia in the five years following adoption and examine the feasibility of proposed targets for future uptake. Numbers and proportions of products eligible to carry a HSR were recorded each year between 2014 and 2019 as part of an annual survey of four large Australian retail outlets. Uptake was projected to 2024. Mean HSR values were determined for products that were, and were not labelled with a HSR logo, and summary data presented overall, by HSR score, by major food category, by manufacturer and manufacturer group. Differences in mean HSR were assessed by independent samples t-test. HSR uptake continues to increase, appearing on 7118/17,477 (40.7%) of eligible products in 2019. Voluntary display of the HSR logo was increasing linearly at 6.8% annually. This would need to be maintained to reach 70% by 2024. Of those products displaying a HSR logo, more than three quarters (76.4%) had a HSR ≥ 3.0. Products displaying a HSR logo had a significantly higher mean HSR (3.4), compared to products not displaying a HSR logo (2.6) (p < 0.001). One hundred and thirty-nine manufacturers were using HSR, but retailers Coles, Woolworths and ALDI were together responsible for the majority of uptake (55.9%). Manufacturer members of the Australian Food and Grocery Council were responsible for 28.6% of uptake. Our findings illustrate the limits of commercial goodwill in applying HSR voluntarily. Ongoing implementation must pair clear targets and timelines for uptake with a firm pathway to make HSR mandatory if sufficient progress is not achieved.