Changes made to the NOM-051 modification project
The changes made to the NOM-051 modification project are shown in Table 1. The demand with the highest participation was to maintain the proposed warning labels. In addition, most demands included endorsements, advertising, and nutrition content claims. All of them were maintained with minimal modifications in the final version.
Characterization of the type of key stakeholders that participated in CONAMER's public consultation
Table 2 describes the characteristics of the stakeholders. Business interest Non-Governmental Organizations (BINGO's) had a higher participation than those working for the public interest: PINGO's.
Table 2. Description of the stakeholders that participated in the public consultation of the NOM1-051 modification project
|
Actor types
|
Actors
|
Description
|
Academia (n = 98)
|
Institutions (n = 12)
|
Academic institutions
|
|
Researchers (n = 14)
|
Self-identified as researchers
|
|
Professors (n = 15)
|
Self-identified as university professors
|
|
Students (n = 57)
|
University students
|
Health professionals (n = 23)
|
|
Doctors, nutritionists, psychologists and self-identified as health professionals
|
NGOs2 (n = 69)
|
PINGO´s3 (n = 33)
|
Public Interest Non-Governmental Organizations
|
|
BINGO´s4 (n = 36)
|
Business Interest Non-Governmental Organizations
|
Industry (n = 113)
|
Food industry (n = 81)
|
Producers, buying and selling companies, marketers of juices, carbonated beverages, snacks, candies, chocolates, fruits, vegetables, natural and artificial sweeteners
|
|
Balers (n = 12)
|
Producers of bags, packaging, plastic and cardboard containers
|
|
Advertising agencies (n = 8)
|
Creating and advertising agencies
|
|
Retailers (n = 6)
|
Self-identified as retailers
|
|
Others (n = 6)
|
Law firms and carriers
|
Government (n = 9)
|
Organisms (n = 7)
|
Governmental entities and agencies
|
|
Government officials (n = 2)
|
Federal Deputies
|
Individuals (n = 348)
|
No professionals (n = 294)
|
Men and women
|
|
Other professionals (n = 31)
|
Economists, lawyers and engineers
|
1 NOM: Official Mexican Standard 2 NGO’s: Non-Governmental Organization 3 PINGO: Public Interest Non-Governmental Organizations 4 BINGO: Business Interest Non-Governmental Organizations
|
42% of the comments were issued by women; individuals, industry and academia had the highest participation. Overall, people from 15 countries participated (Table 3).
Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants of the public consultation of the NOM-0511 modification project
|
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
Sex
|
No.
|
%
|
Female
Male
Not specified
|
266
236
135
|
41.8
37.0
21.2
|
Tipo of stakeholder
|
|
|
Academia
Health professionals
NGO’s2
PINGO’s3
BINGO’s4
Industry
Government
Individuals
|
98
23
33
36
113
9
325
|
15.4
3.6
5.2
5.6
17.7
1.4
51
|
Place of origin
|
|
|
Austria
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
United States
France
London
Mexico
Nepal
Peru
Uruguay
Vietnam
Not specified
|
1
3
1
6
3
1
1
17
1
2
345
1
2
1
1
251
|
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.7
0.2
0.3
54.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
39.4
|
Total
|
637
|
100
|
1 NOM: Official Mexican Standard 2 NGO’s: Non-Governmental Organization 3 PINGO: Public Interest Non-Governmental Organizations 4 BINGO: Business Interest Non-Governmental Organizations
|
Perspective of the key stakeholders who participated in CONAMER's public consultation of the NOM-051 modification project
56% of the key stakeholders were against the NOM-051 modification project; the BINGO's and the industry expressed it to a greater extent, arguing that it violated intellectual and industrial property and consumer protection. They considered that their revenues and profits would be affected and demanded a review of the NOM-051 modification project. Academia, PINGO's and health professionals were in favor, stating that the front-of-pack warning labels provided clear and simple information to consumers and improved food choices. They expected that eating habits would improve and demanded the front-of-pack warning label suggested in the modification project be maintained (Table 4 and 5).
Perspectives from academia, health professionals and PINGO's
The main justifications given by academia, health professionals and PINGO's were that the NOM-051 modification project improved food choices, and provided more information to consumers, that it was in accordance with human rights (information, food, childhood, and health), and that it was supported by scientific evidence. Some examples of the arguments are presented below:
'...it is a fundamental measure to inform consumers, stop the consumption of these unhealthy food products and address these problems.' (Teacher, Judgment: In favor, Justification: Provides more information and improves food choices)
'[it]... not only seeks to guarantee consumers’ right to health, but also the right to food, to information, and a proper application of the principle of best interests for children.' (PINGO, Judgment: In favor, Justification: In accordance with human rights)
Their main expectations were that eating habits would improve and obesity and NCD rates would decrease.
'...it would change consumption patterns among Mexicans, discourage the consumption of UPPs and would promote the consumption of less processed or natural foods, which are part of the traditional diet.' (PINGO, Judgment: In favor, Justification: Eating habits would improve)
'Clearly, we would reduce the rates of diseases that affect our Mexico.' (Student, Judgment: In favor, Justification: Obesity and NCDs would decrease)
Their demands were to maintain the modifications that were made, including the warning labels, the prohibition of use of advertising on products with a warning label and the use of nutritional facts label that appears on the back of the product.
'I strongly support the use of an octagonal "warning seal" as the format chosen for front-of-food labeling in Mexico.' (Teacher, Judgment: In favor, Demand: Maintain warning labels)
'I consider that the proposal to group sugars, which is stipulated in section 4.2.2.1.8, seems to be the most appropriate, precisely to facilitate reading.'
(Health professional, Judgment: In favor, Demand: Maintain nutritional facts label)
BINGO's and Industry Perspectives
The BINGO's and industry’s main justifications were that the NOM-051 modification project violated legal principles (of intellectual and industrial property and consumer protection), that it had no scientific support, and that it violated human rights (legal certainty and freedom of expression).
'The system of nutritional front of pack labeling, as it is proposed, lacks scientific rationale of national or international reference.' (Food Industry, Judgment: Against, Justification: It has no scientific support)
'The profiles on which the nutritional front of pack labeling system is based on violates legal principles, such as legal certainty and equality, in addition to being technically incorrect.' (BINGO, Judgment: Against, Justification: Violates human rights)
Their main expectations were that their revenues and profits would decrease, product reformulation would decrease, and eating habits would worsen.
'This would ultimately lead to a decrease in investment, both domestic and foreign, as well as a collapse in the exchange of goods and services.' (BINGO, Judgment: Against, Expectation: Less revenues and profits)
'The warning label for natural and artificial sweeteners that is proposed in the project would create a significant disincentive to reformulate sugar products.' (BINGO, Judgment: Against, Expectation: Product reformulations would decrease)
Their main demands were related to the revision of the NOM-051 modification project, the elimination or modification of the cut points established for nutritional criteria and the elimination of the sections pertaining to nutrition content claims, endorsements, and warning captions for caffeine and artificial sweeteners. Some of the arguments were:
'Before falling into a legal dispute because of this series of contradictions and excesses, we recommend reviewing the NOM 051 modification project and making the necessary adjustments.' (BINGO, Judgment: Against, Demand: Revision of the NOM-051 modification project)
'It is of vital importance to consider the nutritional profiles endorsed by the Codex Alimentarius since it is the body in charge of labeling and not PAHO.' (Food Industry, Judgment: Against, Demand: Elimination of the cut-off points for nutritional criteria)
Government Sector Perspectives
The main justifications of the Government Sector for implementing the front-of-pack warning labels were the high prevalence of obesity and NCDs, human rights (to information, food, health and childhood), and support from scientific evidence. Some examples of the arguments used were:
'According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), children have the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, and this requires a well-balanced diet, being able to enjoy a protective environment and for their mothers, fathers and other caregivers to provide them with healthy nutrition to ensure their healthy development; therefore, we consider that front of pack warning labeling on food and beverages is urgent.' (Government Sector Organizations, Judgment: In favor, Justification: In accordance with human rights)
'Everything points towards, as the academic literature indicates (Monterrosa, E, et al. 2013) this being the way forward to respond to the public health emergency that we are experiencing nationally and globally.' (Government Sector Agencies, Judgment: In favor, Justification: With scientific evidence support)
On the other hand, the main expectations of the Government Sector were largely against the NOM-051 modification project. Among them, they stated that jobs, income and profits would decrease and that the population's eating habits would worsen.
'A measure such as the one proposed would represent a severe drop in the sales of meat, fruit and vegetable products, bakery products, dairy products, edible oils and other products made with inputs produced in Nuevo Leon, which would result in lower demand, lower income and even the loss of decent jobs for families in our region.' (Government Sector, Judgment: Against, Expectation: Less employment)
'The implementation of the modification project may cause doubts and/or confusion in the target population regarding the quality of food that the State is offering.' (Government Sector, Judgment: Against, Expectation: Eating habits would worsen)
Among their main demands, they stated that the warning labels should be eliminated and that some terms, definitions and numbering should be adjusted.
'It is suggested to eliminate the paragraph (referring to numeral 4.5.3.4.3). Warning labels [for small packages] that indicate a single number of seals that a product would bear are not informative; they give an alert, but the consumer has no decision elements beyond a numerical value. It does not indicate which are the ingredients that exceed the recommended dose or in what quantity.' (Government agencies, Judgment: Against, Demand: Elimination or modification of warning labels)
Individuals' perspectives
Within their main justifications, a portion of individuals mentioned that the NOM-051 modification project would complicate food choices and that its use is not scientifically supported.
'We believe that the implementation of Mexico's Black Label Regulation is unnecessary because there is no conclusive scientific evidence to establish that the consumption of non-caloric sweeteners can affect health.' (Anonymous, Judgment: Against, Justification: Without scientific evidence support)
Contrarily, within the main justifications, we also found comments in favor, where they mention that it improves food choices by providing more information.
'I fully support the proposal to change and improve the labeling to really know the nutritional contribution of the products.' (Professional, Judgment: In favor, Justification: Provides more information and improves food choices)
Their main expectations were against it, mentioning that it would worsen eating habits and decrease revenues and profits.
'Responsible consumption is discouraged rather than facilitated.' (Judgment: Against, Expectation: Eating habits would worsen)
'There would be great economic losses for a large part of the country's productive sector.' (Judgment: Against, Justification: Less revenue and profits)
The individuals in favor demanded that the proposed section regarding warning labels and advertising be maintained.
'Health authorities have the duty to protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, adolescents and children. For the aforementioned reasons a warning of the sweetener content in food is very pertinent.' (Non-professional individual, Judgment: In favor, Demand: Maintain warning labels)
To the contrary, individuals who were against demanded the removal of the proposed warning labels.
'I would propose to continue with the front sugar content batteries [GDA] and not include octagons, which leads to a misunderstanding of what the product actually contains.' (Non-professional individual, Judgment: Against, Demand: Elimination or modification of warning labels)
In general, the perspectives of academia, health professionals and PINGO's showed interest in protecting the population, considering the high prevalence of overweight, obesity and NCDs. Also, they were convinced that the modification of the FOPL would facilitate food choices and provide simple information, using expressions such as 'it is clear', 'it is more understandable', 'it is practical and simple'. The perspectives of the industry and the BINGO's were related to human rights, mentioning that it violated the right to information, food and health, but mainly, according to their arguments, that it violated the right to legal certainty and freedom of expression. Another issue they highlighted was that the proposal violated international treaties and legal principles, putting the interests of their brands above population interests. In addition, they were convinced that it provided unclear, misleading, confusing, inaccurate information, and that it was not informative.
The Government Sector and individuals did not adopt a strong position in favor or against. Those who were against were four governmental organizations that have among their objectives, mission or vision to protect some type of economic or market interest. Those in favor were public officials and organizations that look out for human rights, and social welfare. On the other hand, the group of individuals had the highest participation; among their main arguments, 67% of them coincided with the arguments used by the industry.
We observed that academia, health professionals, and PINGO's demanded that the NOM-051 modification project be maintained. On the contrary, BINGO's and the industry demanded that it not be implemented and, if it were to be implemented, to do it gradually in order to have the opportunity to reformulate their products. It is noteworthy that all stakeholder groups demanded social campaigns and nutritional education.
In general, the categories that obtained the highest number of comments in justification were directed against the modification and were that: 1) it violated industrial and intellectual property and 2) it provided less information and complicated food choices; with 12.9% and 11.5% respectively, considering the total number of comments issued in justification. The expectations that had the highest number of comments were directed against the modification and were that, if it went into effect, then: 1) revenues and profits would decrease; 2) eating habits would worsen and; 3) employment would decrease; with 19.8%, 16.2% and 13% respectively, considering the total comments issued as expectation. Within the demands, we found that two of the main categories were issued in favor of the modification: 1) to maintain the warning labels and; 2) to maintain the advertising section; and one of them was issued against: 3) revision of the NOM-051 modification project; with 11%, 8.6% and 10.1% respectively, considering the total comments issued as demands.