I’ve been feeling a bit grumpy (?), conflicted (?)… I don’t know exactly what I’m feeling, but I have thoughts about Canada’s new front-of-package nutrition warnings. Let’s discuss!!
To me, it’s reminiscent of the introduction of gruesome photos and warning labels on cigarettes. I support this move; while I suspect most long-term smokers don’t think twice about the images and warnings, I have to assume that at least some new smokers are put off the habit because of the visual warnings.
The difference, in my mind, is that cigarettes are something humans don’t need to consume. Food is unavoidable and our relationships with it can be challenging (to say the least).
If you’re not in Canada—or haven’t noticed these yet—we now have warning labels on packaged foods that are considered high in saturated fat, sugars, or sodium. The regulations have been in the works for a while, but at the start of this year (2026) manufacturers had to start using these new labels.
I understand the rationale. Nutrition panels aren’t exactly riveting, and having information displayed on the front of a package makes it easier to compare products quickly.
On the other hand, now that these symbols are showing up on SO MANY things in my cupboards, I’m not entirely sure how useful I find them.
If you buy a lovely box of chocolates as a gift, it’s going to have a warning label slapped on the front which seems… not very fun.
I also can’t help wondering whether, particularly in homes where food insecurity is an issue, warnings might add another layer of stress, guilt, or shame to something that’s already complicated??
Certain things are exempt (or conditionally exempt) like butter, eggs, cooking oils, maple syrup (and corn syrup!??), salt, some dairy products, nuts, and regular sugar. In some cases—like sugar, salt, butter, and oils—the government’s rationale is basically that the warning would be redundant. Again, I can see the logic. But if you sit home and eat a stick of butter for lunch or a cup of raw sugar, you’d probably have been better off consuming a handful of chocolate chips or a taco.
A few examples…
First up, chocolate chips. A staple in any baking cupboard. Yes, they’re high in saturated fat. THEY’RE ALSO CHOCOLATE CHIPS. I don’t think anyone is adding chocolate chips into their banana bread under the impression they’re a health food. They’re delicious, I use them in moderation, and the label makes me a bit… sad.
Juice IS very high in sugar and doesn’t have the beneficial fibre you’d get from eating whole fruit. I know this.
In general, we rarely have juice in the house, but it’s delicious as an occasional treat. I also love having shelf-stable juice on hand in case a child gets sick. Clear juice usually tastes a lot better to them when they’re not feeling well—and it gets calories and fluids into them! It also has vitamins.
This particular juice has no added sugar, so the sugar is coming from the fruit itself. Does that mean the sugar doesn’t count? Of course not. But I think context matters. (See above: corn syrup doesn’t require a HIGH IN SUGAR warning. Nor does dried, unsweetened fruit. Do you know how easy it is to eat an insane amount of dried mango? SO EASY.)
Next up: taco shells.
Salt is one of the ingredients… but there are FOUR ingredients total. Corn flour, oil, salt, and lime. You can’t get much simpler than that. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do with this information. Not eat tacos? Hunt for a lower-sodium shell? Eat the taco and feel vaguely guilty about it?
Then we have unsweetened coconut.
I buy this primarily for energy balls which, ironically, would qualify for both saturated fat AND sugar warnings.
But this is unsweetened coconut. The saturated fat isn’t coming from some mysterious additive, it’s naturally present. (And here’s an odd wrinkle: coconut oil sold in a bottle is fully exempt from the warning.)
The label isn’t wrong. Coconut IS high in saturated fat. I just wonder how much nuance gets lost when a bag of unsweetened coconut and a package of cookies can end up displaying the same basic warning.
Soy sauce is very high in sodium. No argument from me there.
But I’m also not taking a swig straight from the bottle.
We add a splash to sauces or dilute it with a bit with water and dip sushi into it. A single bottle lasts our family many months.
Could I buy a lower-sodium version? Sure. But once again, the way I consume the product feels like useful context that a big warning symbol can’t provide.
And finally, M&Ms.
Indy had a birthday party to go to last weekend and I wanted a little item to include with a card and some money. He opted to pick out a small bag of M&Ms.
(Somehow it doesn’t seem quite as festive to hand a birthday tween a bag of apples. I checked: no high-sugar warning labels on those!)
Do M&Ms contain lots of sugar and saturated fat? YES. Are they something I consider an everyday health food? NO.
But it’s also a small bag of candy being given to a kid on his birthday. And I think this example gets at my discomfort with the labels.
I understand—and appreciate—the goal. If I’m standing in the grocery store comparing two similar products, having an obvious warning that one contains substantially more sodium could be genuinely helpful.
But food doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
There’s a difference between eating something occasionally and eating it every day. There’s a difference between using two teaspoons of soy sauce in a recipe and drinking half a cup. There’s a difference between the saturated fat naturally present in coconut and eating a steady diet of highly processed foods. Sometimes… you just want to give someone a bag of M&Ms for their birthday!!!!
Also—and perhaps this is my own history with disordered eating talking—I don’t love the moral weight these labels can give food. I spent enough years thinking of foods as “good” and “bad,” and I can imagine that for some people, a large warning symbol on the front of a package could reinforce that sort of thinking. I don’t want to feel guilty because I bought chocolate chips. They’re chocolate chips! I eat them! I enjoy them!
Now, let’s discuss…
Your turn.
- Tell me your thoughts!
- If you live outside Canada, does your country have anything similar?
Discover more from The Optimistic Musings of a Pessimist
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can see both sides of this! Having clear warnings when comparing similar products makes sense, but context matters enormously. If I buy a jar of honey, I know I’m buying a lot of sugar, but it will take us months to get through it!
In Switzerland, we have Nutri-Score, a colour-coded A-to-E rating, but it’s voluntary and seems to be becoming less common here. Of course, if you want to know what’s in a product, you can always check the nutrition information on the packaging.
I also relate to what you say about the moral weight we attach to food. Food choices are personal, and we all make our own decisions based on what works for us. There should always be room for enjoyment, too!