Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

I've done a lot of posting in the past about food and beverage labels. The upshot of my messages has generally been that nobody seems to agree on how best to do it. And there is no better proof of that than the reaction to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent front-of-pack labelling proposal. The mandate would detail the percent daily value of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar per serving paired with "interpretive" language qualifying each amount as Low, Medium, or High on the front of the label. FDA believes this will help consumers "quickly and easily identify how foods can be part of a healthy diet." The agency's approach is based upon a literature review, two focus group tests, and a peer-reviewed experimental study that evaluated consumer reactions and responses to a variety of possible schemes.But nobody besides FDA seems to like the approach. Industry, stakeholders, and public health advocates all argue that failing to include calories among the call outs is a fatal flaw in FDA's scheme. Other nutrition information that is emphasized in other labelling approaches is also missing, making it overly simplistic. Indeed, by focusing on added sugars, FDA's label may actually encourage the use of artificial sweeteners and chemicals that certain stakeholders argue are far worse than sugar – whether natural or added. If finalized, FDA would expect companies with more than $10 million in annual food sales comply with the rule within three years. Comments are currently being accepted through May 16. Impacted food and beverage companies should let FDA know what they think.<input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102juh3'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link">FDA says calling out nutrients of concern on front-of-pack will help consumers make healthier choices, but industry argues the proposed rule is overly simplistic and opaque, while public health advocates wanted stronger warnings<cite><a href="https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2025/01/15/fda-proposed-front-of-pack-nutrition-labeling/?cid=DM1185686&#038;bid=595579719" aria-label="www.foodnavigator-usa.com/..." title="https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2025/01/15/fda-proposed-front-of-pack-nutrition-labeling/?cid=DM1185686&amp;bid=595579719" target="_blank">www.foodnavigator-usa.com/...</a></cite></blockquote>

Nobody seems to be happy with FDA’s front-of-pack labelling proposal. Why?

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

OSHA Site Targeting 2026: Are You a Target?

Trademark Watch Services in Practice: Turning Alerts into Informed Decisions

Legal Bites: Q4 2025 Edition