Table 3 Common arguments used to oppose the proposed regulation and advocate counterarguments through the policy process of the Promotion of Healthy Eating Law in Argentina [122,123,124]

The proposed regulation…

Economic

…will cause job losses and low wages in the food sector.

In Chile, minimal negative impacts have been observed regarding industry employment with the adoption of FOP labelling.

…will generate additional costs for the sector of the food industry.

The food industry has the resources to adopt the measures without suffering significant economic impacts.

…will negatively affect the Argentine sugar sector.

Sugar is mostly produced for biofuels, which would not be impacted by the law.

…will reduce sales.

Food companies generally have a portfolio of different products, some with and some without labels. Companies can also reformulate.

…will harm companies by prohibiting them from advertising their products.

The regulation does not prohibit all advertising. In addition, it is an opportunity for companies to advertise the absence of seals for a competitive advantage.

…will disproportionately punish small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The law contemplates deadlines for major adaptations with the possibility of extension for SMEs.

Legal

…is not legal because it would not be standardized across MERCOSUR countries.

The economic bloc of MERCOSUR recognizes the States Parties the right to legislate for the protection of the public health of its citizens. Other countries in the bloc have introduced FOP labels at the national level.

…is not legal because it would not align with WTO standards.

WTO recognizes the right of States to legislate and take measures that they deem necessary to protect public health. See the precedent of tobacco.

…is not legal because it contradicts provisions of the Codex Alimentarius.

Codex Alimentarius guidelines constitute a minimum floor on which to advance in terms of public policies, but not a limit.

…will introduce barriers to free trade due to differing packaging requirements.

The regulation applies only to Argentina and would not affect products exported to other countries.

…will harm the export of Argentine food by creating barriers to international trade

Provisions under the WTO TBT agreement would ensure that the labelling regulation would not introduce undue barriers to trade.

…contravenes the Argentine Food Code because it will present false information about the real nutrient content of food.

The use of the PAHO NPM and warning labels has been shown to be the most effective at communicating the nutrient content of food and would enhance transparency rather than hinder it.

…will violate intellectual property

This has been refuted through the precedent of tobacco and UPF regulation in Chile, where such lawsuits have been dismissed.

Technical/

scientific

…has not been shown to decrease overweight or obesity rates.

A period of ample time is needed to observe public health impacts; The motivation for the law should remain consistent with its objective, which is to offer people timely, clear, accurate and true information that enable healthier consumption choices.

…does not address the root problem of poor diets, which are based on individual choices.

There is ample evidence to support the role of UPF consumption as the root cause of obesity epidemic.

…has no empirical evidence to show that it will change consumer choices.

Empirical evidence was collected in Argentina demonstrating that the warning label had the highest impact on consumer intention to purchase.

…uses a NPM with no empirical evidence behind it and is against the dietary guidelines in Argentina.

A comparison of eight nutrient profile systems found that the PAHO nutrient profile demonstrated the highest accordance with the dietary guidelines in Argentina.

…uses a NPM that does not promote reformulation.

The aim of the labels is not to encourage reformulation, but to inform consumers. However, evidence from Mexico demonstrates the potential for reformulation.

…will result in over 90% of products being labelled, completely overwhelming consumers.

The law applies only to UPFs, which do not encompass such a high percentage of foods sold in retail settings.

Ethical/social

…misrepresents the nutritional value of certain products.

The label’s use depends on the chemical composition of each product.

…demonizes packaged food.

The law seeks to protect consumers’ right to information, not to demonize.

…is a law for rich people/the first world in a context of economic decline and rising food insecurity.

Consumption of UPFs carries disproportionately negative health and economic ramifications for the most vulnerable sectors of the population, and thus is a high priority in this context.

…will prevent the free delivery of products containing at least one label, preventing donation of food to vulnerable populations in the context of rising food insecurity.

The law will not prohibit the donation of products without warning labels, which would be better for the health of the most vulnerable sectors of the population.

…confuses consumers and therefore harms individual freedom of choice.

This law upholds the consumer right to transparent information, thereby better enabling freedom of choice, particularly in the context of misleading marketing practices.

…is not the appropriate approach to shift diets. Education is needed for better choices.

Education and campaigns are important components and should be part of a comprehensive policy to improve food environments. Campaigns are not substitutes to labels, but complements.