Belgium: State And Federal Food-Labeling Reforms Impose Unappreciated Complexities And Compliance Challenges

Last Updated: 5 July 2018
Article by Martin J. Hahn and Sam Dietle

Food product labels are under intense scrutiny from consumers, regulators, class action lawyers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Demands for more information, as well as changes to or prohibitions on labels' use of certain terminology, are on the rise. But do label-reform advocates fully appreciate the legal and regulatory complexities and burdens food-labeling revisions impose on the industry, especially when those changes involve state-specific rules? This Legal Backgrounder focuses on these complexities and burdens and advocates for alternative, less burdensome solutions that harness technology to inform consumers.

Labeling Regulatory Compliance: A Costly, High Priority

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a food is misbranded if it fails to comply with the myriad requirements that have been established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 The FDCA prohibits the introduction into commerce or receipt of a misbranded product.2 The Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture administers similar requirements under other statutes.3 The rules facilitate the flow of consumer information and maintain a level playing field between competitors by preventing companies from gaining an unfair competitive advantage through unlawful practices.

Food-company regulatory-affairs experts spend hundreds of hours scouring finely-detailed labeling regulations and work directly with their marketing departments when developing labels for new products or making label revisions. Regulatory-affairs professionals not only need a comprehensive understanding of the existing rules, but they must stay abreast of emerging mandates as the law changes. Once regulatory affairs officials approve a label, the legal department traditionally conducts a final compliance review.

Legislators and regulators can easily overlook the significant amount of time needed for the regulatory -affairs professionals to read, learn, and understand new requirements so they can be incorporated into the label-review process efficiently and effectively. Consider, for instance, the recently finalized update to the nutrition facts panel (NFP), which prescribes new reference amounts and serving sizes for foods. The preambles to the two final regulations are hundreds of pages and the FDA guidance documents, many of which are still pending, will be similarly voluminous. Review of these documents can take hours, if not hundreds of hours, to fully understand the complexities of the new requirements.

The time regulatory-affairs specialists must invest to learn and keep abreast of new rules is merely one cost of label changes. A new label must be designed by the creative and marketing departments. In many instances months of design testing are needed to make certain the label graphics and claims will resonate well with consumers. Once the new design is finalized, the graphics are shared with the packaging company that will create new plates to make the labels. FDA has estimated there are close to 800,000 universal product codes (UPCs) for conventional food and beverage products that will require changes under the new nutrition labeling rules.4 The Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA) has estimated that the average cost for changing one label is approximately $3,000.5 Therefore, for FDA's estimated volume of products that will require label changes, the cost to industry is expected to be over $2 billion.

New Requirements Bring New Uncertainties

Gray areas in need of interpretation are inevitable with a new regulation. While FDA has done a laudable job of providing direction in the preamble and guidance documents for the updated NFP, the agency cannot address every possible labeling nuance and variation. Where ambiguity occurs, a company must make a judgment call on how to interpret the regulations. When FDA issued the mandatory nutrition labeling regulations in 1993, companies had to make many such judgments with regard to the proper interpretation of the regulations. When FDA disagreed with a company's interpretation of the labeling practices, the agency expressed its concerns in "483 inspectional observations," untitled letters, or Warning Letters.

Those agency actions initiate dialogue with companies on the proper interpretation of the requirements. FDA generally adopts a pragmatic approach, particularly when a company has reasonable arguments in its defense. FDA routinely provides the company a reasonable amount of time to transition to a new label. What FDA considers "reasonable" has traditionally depended on how compelling a business's argument is for their request. Such an approach worked well during implementation of the 1993 rules. The agency recognized that in most instances companies needed to exhaust existing inventories before transitioning to the new label. While companies incurred significant costs to develop new labels, they could do so with the knowledge that they would not have to waste thousands (if not tens of thousands) of dollars in non-compliant label inventory.

Today, the consequences of a Warning Letter are significantly different than in the 1990s or 2000s. In many instances, an FDA Warning Letter alerting companies to a labeling violation generates class action lawsuits under state consumer-protection laws. Unlike the FDA process, where there is an opportunity to engage in a dialogue in a cost effective manner, litigation is extremely time consuming, expensive, and confrontational. Plaintiffs' lawyers will not be satisfied with merely a commitment to revise the label. They generally will insist on some payment as part of any settlement, which can be from a few thousand dollars to millions depending on the nature of the allegations.

The potential litigation exposure of failing to "get the label right" will place tremendous pressure on companies to make certain they are fully compliant with the new NFP requirements. That, in turn, requires clear FDA guidance. And this guidance is needed well in advance of the compliance date so companies will have time to implement changes across essentially every packaged FDA-regulated product in the portfolio.

Additional State Requirements Impose Unnecessary Complexity

Over the past decade, state regulators have shown an increasing interest in imposing additional labeling mandates. Experience demonstrates a patchwork of varying state requirements for food labels is unworkable. Under the current food-industry distribution system, most food processors have little or no control over where their products are ultimately sold. State-specific labeling rules thus create a litany of logistical and legal headaches for such businesses.

The genetically engineered (GE) food-disclosure law Vermont enacted in May 2014 for food products sold in-state gave rise to such logistical and legal problems. The state finalized the law's implementing regulations in April 2015, and established an effective date of July 1, 2016. Initially, companies explored whether they could prevent the sale of their products in Vermont. They quickly discovered this was not a workable solution. Next, manufacturers explored whether retailers would help keep products off the shelves that did not bear the required disclosure statement. Retailers understandably did not wish to bear that responsibility. They would have been forced to hire additional workers for label review, and, in any event, retailers could only conduct such a task if the producers identified each SKU that required the disclosure. With approximately 800,000 UPCs available in the United States, the logistics of having the retailer implement the labeling disclosure proved to be insurmountable.

As the effective date for the Vermont GE-disclosure law approached, it became clear companies would have to label each product sold in the United States with the Vermont disclosure to be in full compliance. Further, with other state GE-disclosure laws on the horizon that could feature subtle differences in the definition of GE foods and the labeling language required, businesses that followed Vermont's law would not necessarily be in compliance with other state laws.

Ultimately, Congress intervened with a federal solution that would create national uniformity in the labeling of GE foods by preempting state disclosure laws. In July 2016, Congress enacted the National Bioengineered Disclosure Law to establish a single national standard for disclosing bioengineered foods.

California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (also known as Proposition 65) provides another example of a state disclosure law that deeply complicates food processors' national labeling practices. Proposition 65 requires warnings on products that contain substances, including foods, "known to the state of California" to cause cancer. While the warnings can be provided at point of sale by the retailers or as part of an active electronic disclosure, the product label has been found to be the only practicable location. Because of the logistical barriers to California-market-only production, businesses whose products contain Proposition 65 substances are forced to label all of their products with carcinogen warnings. One state, and its perception of what causes cancer, in essence dictates labeling standards for all 50 states.

In addition to state laws, food processors face the specter of judicially imposed labeling mandates from private class actions filed under state consumer-protection laws. Lawsuits by the hundreds have been filed in federal and state courts throughout the country alleging that such on-label terms as "natural," "no preservatives," and a myriad of other claims are false, misleading, illegal, or "unfair." Judges and juries issue decisions on a case-by-case basis and are unconcerned with whether those decisions create a uniform body of law. In addition, each state consumer-protection statute and court decisions interpreting that law are different. Therefore, a court in California could offer a different interpretation of "natural" than a court in New York. Companies could be forced to comply with the requirements established in these various jurisdictions or risk litigation from class action challenges. A patchwork of state court decisions would force companies to gravitate toward the most conservative interpretation to make sure their nationally marketed products' labels are fifty-state compliant.

A Practical Approach to Federal and State Labeling Compliance

The means now exist for food producers that market nationally to comply with both a single federal standard for what must appear on their labels and state laws that mandate the disclosure of additional information. The National Bioengineered Disclosure Law discussed above sets out the path for such dual compliance by allowing disclosure through digital methods. Congress recognized that in the age of smartphones, mobile tablets, and wireless technology, digital disclosures are an effective way of communicating information about foods.

The new federal law allows companies to disclose that a food is bioengineered through "a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link."6 Food manufacturers are afforded some flexibility with respect to the means of disclosing the GE content of the product and would be able to use a scannable technology on a label. AMS recently issued its proposed regulation promulgating this provision, which, if finalized, would also allow for the use of a text-message disclosure option. AMS's proposed rule demonstrates that regulators can embrace technology to find creative solutions that ensure that information is flowing to consumers in a way that does not overburden food companies with costly label changes.

This type of approach would be ideal, for instance, for conveying the information California demands under Proposition 65. If a California resident is truly interested in knowing whether a food contains a substance known by her home state to cause cancer, she could be prompted by a code or other directions on a label to find the warning Proposition 65 requires. Such an approach reflects the reality of how today's consumer is accessing information online. When the average consumer wishes to learn the ingredients or nutrition data for food products they have in their pantry, they are likely now more inclined to seek the information on their smartphone rather than reading the box.


Congress's passage of the National Bioengineered Disclosure Law, and the Agriculture Department's proposed implementing rules, indicate that some federal elected officials and regulators are beginning to appreciate the burdens and costs associated with alterations of food labels. A broader and deeper understanding is needed from those involved in the regulatory process not only at the federal level, but also at the state level, for an overdue revolution in food labeling to occur.

As consumers increasingly rely upon web-based technologies to access information, legislators and regulators should embrace those technologies when setting food-labeling rules. Companies should be allowed to place disclosures in digital forums or use digital codes such as QR codes. Legislators and regulators would, of course, need to use reasonable discretion when determining what disclosure is truly necessary for consumers so information overload, and the phenomenon of overwarning, could be avoided. Ultimately, a digitally-focused approach to labeling would simplify and speed up the process of updating information, lowering production costs and improving the quality of the disclosures.


1 FDCA § 403; 21 U.S.C. § 343.

2 FDCA § 301(a); 21 U.S.C. § 331(a).

3 See Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 610, and Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 458.

4 Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Rules on "Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels" and "Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments," at 9,

5 Grocery Manufacturers Association, Comments on Proposed Rule, Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels and Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments; Proposed Extension of Compliance Dates, Nov. 1, 2017,

6 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(D).

Originally published in Washington Legal Foundation

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions