Food labelling and advertising law (Chile)

[1] Andrew Jacobs, writing for The New York Times, has characterized this measure as "the world’s most ambitious attempt to remake a country’s food culture" and suggests it "could be a model for how to turn the tide on a global obesity epidemic that researchers say contributes to four million premature deaths a year.

[3] Prior to the law's enactment, poor diet and high body mass index were the leading causes of premature death and disability in Chile.

[3] In addition, during North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, the governments of Mexico and Canada have advocated for nutritional warnings on foods, inspired by the Chilean experience, but from 2017 to 2020, the United States government supported efforts of the commercial food and beverage industry to prevent the adoption of laws similar to Chile's by demanding NAFTA clauses forbidding the enactment of such consumer safety laws in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Lora Verheecke, a researcher at the Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit group tracking corporate lobbying, has declared that once such pro-industry and anti-consumer rules are enshrined into international trade agreements, it becomes extremely difficult to overturn them in the laws of trade-pact member states: "It kind of kills a law before it can be written, and once you put it into one trade agreement, it can become the precedent for all future deals with future countries.

[5] However, a review of the literature from the British Food Journal notes that after the implementation of the first stage, there was no correlation found between the law's enactment and a change in obesity rates.

[6] The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity conducted an analysis of the Chilean law's impact, specifically focusing on mothers with school-aged children.

[4] In a focus group including mothers with school-aged children, they self-reported that schools have become advocates for healthy eating, replacing unhealthy food with fresh fruits and vegetables.

[10] Previous school events centred around eating an unhealthy treat, such as cookies or cakes, have been replaced with healthy alternatives.

[4] Some mothers claimed they felt the policy infringed upon their "freedom," as they were no longer allowed to give their children junk food to school, as it would likely be taken away from them.