News

New front-of-pack labelling requirements are being introduced in the US.  This will introduce a motivation for fraud which already exists in many other countries with similar compulsory traffic light systems: deliberately omitting or under-declaring a “bad” ingredient or additive in order to make the front-of-pack summary look “healthier”.

The US “Transparency, Readability, Understandability, Truth, and Helpfulness” (TRUTH) in Labelling Act was introduced last month and would require FDA’s proposed rule regarding front of package nutrition labelling (90 FR 5426 (Jan. 16, 2025)) to be finalized within 180 days of the bill’s enactment.

A principal display panel must identify foods with high amounts of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat.  High amounts will be based on Daily Reference Values (DRVs). The phrase “High in” and a conspicuous exclamation point icon would be required.

The front of pack panel must also declare the presence of non-nutritive sweeteners and a “factual” statement that such sweeteners are not recommended for children. The wording of this statement has still to be defined, is contentious, and may be dropped from the final version.

Source: Keller and Heckman blog on the Lexology platform.

Photo by Tsvetoslav Hristov on Unsplash

The UK government has issued guidance on the new Failure to Prevent Fraud corporate offence, which is due to come into force 1 September 2025.  This offence has the same “due diligence” defence principle as UK food safety law: if a company cannot show that they have a reasonable fraud defence/mitigation process in place then they become liable if an associate (which could be an employee or a contractor) commits a fraud offence to the company’s benefit.  Their mitigation procedure must be based on the principles typically espoused in food fraud mitigation best practice: they must show evidence of top level commitment, risk assessment, proportionate preventative measures, communication, training, monitoring and review.

The guidance clarifies a number of points, including the territorial scope (for example, a non-UK company can be prosecuted if a UK employee commits the fraud), and that the company can still be liable even if the associate is not prosecuted for the offence (provided that the offence can be proven to the standard required by a court of law).