Beverage firms call ‘high sugar’ label discriminatory

Soda and beverage companies have opposed a government move for front-of-pack label on high-sugar content products, calling this move discriminatory and put the product in a bad light.

This was raised yesterday by the Federation of Philippine Industries (FPI), which groups the world’s largest softdrink producers.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) said that manufacturers of highsugar content food products will have six months from the implementation of the order to include the information on the sugar content per pack and per serving as part of the frontof-pack label of any packaged beverage (liquid/powdered mix) product.

FPI Chairman Jesus Arranza said that rather than putting in the special label, the label should put the factual nutritional content of the product, including sugar and the allowable sugar intake per person.

“We cannot help but observe that the government is singling out sugar yet again with this planned move. Sugar is an important ingredient in food and beverages, with many in the manufacturing (food and beverage) sectors relying on it, and it does not deserve to be put in a bad light by measures such as this,” he said stressing that unlike cigarette, which nicotine content has been proven to cause cancer and other diseases, sugar per se is not bad.

“FPI and member-companies have always been committed to transparency, and this extends to providing clear nutrition information in the packaging of our products for our consumers,” said Arranza. Rest assured that we comply with all of the government’s existing regulatory requirements on nutrition and content labeling,” Arranza said.

FPI member companies, he said, follow a thorough and rigorous approval process, which involves governmental oversight. All labels are submitted for approval to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which also reviews substantiation for claims, nutrition information, ingredients, and so on under Article 74 of the Consumer Act of the Phil. Compulsory labeling and fair packaging.

But Arranza stressed that the number one deterrent to the use of sugar and to control too much consumption, which could be harmful to one’s health, is to revisit the first package of the government’s comprehensive tax reform program under the TRAIN Law, which slaps higher taxes on sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) based on volume, but not on sugar content.

“We renew our suggestion to the government to instead adopt a content-based taxation scheme versus a volumetric approach, which is the current nature of the SSB tax, instead of making new measures about labeling,” said Arranza.

Arranza stressed that the volumetric tax is essentially a tax on water, rather than sugar.

“If we really want to address health concerns, a content-based taxation scheme is what the government should consider instead of new regulatory measures. Content-based taxation levies a higher tax rates on beverages that have higher sugar content versus those that have lower sugar content. It will encourage companies to produce and/or reformulate drinks with less sugar thus fulfilling the law’s supposed mandate as a health measure,” he stressed.

If it is in fulfillment of the Product Labeling Law, FPI said the standard labeling should be observed.

A sample label provided by DTI goes this way: For liquid beverage, the label front-of-pack label should read, “This product contains 52 grams of sugar.” For powdered juice, the product label should read, “This pack contains 20 grams of sugar and will make 1 liter of drink or 4 grams sugar per 200 ml.”

Under this label should be written: “The World Health Organization strongly recommends to limit total sugar intake to 50 grams, based on a 2,000 – calorie diet per day.”