Todo Rico’s “Little Trick” to Avoid Warning Labels

Available on the shelves of the country’s largest supermarkets today is an ultra-processed fried food that is different from the others. What differentiates it from others like it is its lack of front warning labels, a public health measure adopted in Colombia to provide consumers with better information when purchasing food.  

The product, Todo Rico Original, contains pork rinds and potato and sweet plantain chips. And this snack combination has not become a healthy product overnight. Far from it. Behind the product’s new packaging lies a move to reformulate components to evade the obligation to affix warning seals. The goal was accomplished by increasing calories, adding monosodium glutamate instead of salt, and using poorer quality oils. So argued Juan Camilo Mesa, a nutrition expert who teaches about food-related topics on social media. 

“The law was made, the trap was set, the industry was never interested in our health. And once the current implementation deadline expires, the labeling law will need rethinking, based on actual experience,” said Mesa after analyzing the Todo Rico case.

Resolution 810 of 2021, issued by the Colombian Ministry of Health, established regulations for front labeling of ultra-processed foods. In December 2022, another measure of the same scope (2492) made modifications to the previous one and called for octagonal labeling with clearer messages. Basically, products in Colombia went from having a circular label that said, for example, “high in sodium,” to an octagonal one warning of “excess sodium.” Multiple studies have determined that the latter is more effective because it causes real concern in consumers. 

Additional reading: An x-ray of Pony Malta and Los Pinguinos snack cakes: ultra-processed foods that harm your health

The measure determined that all ultra-processed products that crossed the thresholds for sodium, saturated fats, sugars, and trans fats should bear the octagonal labels by June 15, 2024, or be withdrawn from the market.

The industry has employed several moves to make these labels less noticeable. Mylena Gualdrón, director of FIAN Colombia, an organization that oversees government compliance with legislation implementation, has, for example, seen products displayed backwards on shelves, thus preventing the buyer from seeing the octagons. 

In addition, the resolution has been unable to establish regulations that cover nutritional fact labeling. The side of a box containing a cereal product from the Kellogg’s company bearing a front warning label, for example, reads: “mix of fruit-flavored corn, wheat, and oat cereals with vitamins and minerals.”

A 2019 study published by Mexico’s Public Health agency explains the confusion consumers may experience when a single product bears warnings of an excess of  certain critical nutrients while simultaneously advertising possible nutritional or health benefits, which in many cases are misleading. This can lead buyers to make the wrong choices.

Mesa, who in addition to being a nutritionist is an expert in front labeling, never saw the need for excess calorie labeling. Why not? Because proper nutrition, to him, simply need not be thought of from this variable. However, the absence of this label in Colombian legislation (the same is not true of Mexico or Chile, for example) is the key to understanding the Todo Rico case. 

The story goes like this: the Todo Rico product from the Super Ricas / Comestibles Ricos S.A. brand appeared on shelves without warning seals one day. “What they did was play with the calories, increasing the calorie count in a way that would not affect them, (…) thus producing a product that doesn’t require warnings. For example, increasing the protein (in this case pork skin) increases calories and the law does not sanction that.” 

Mesa published a thread about a similar barbecue-flavored product, from the same company, whose sodium was reformulated using monosodium glutamate, a substance that, according to Mesa, has been widely studied and proven to modify people’s sense of taste. “Monosodium glutamate is a substance that, in quotes, “replaces sodium”. It has been widely studied and today we know that this ingredient modifies or changes the way we perceive food, makes us less sensitive to flavors,” said the nutritionist in conversation with VORÁGINE.

Mesa says there are three ways to increase calories: by adding protein, fat, or carbohydrates. Excess protein is not regulated by the law, but carbohydrates can be, depending on whether or not they are added sugars. And fats are regulated, but only if they are saturated. Companies, therefore, seem to be playing freely with proteins, no matter what kind. “Even with yeast extracts; otherwise, why would this product contain yeast? Why would a formulation of this type contain yeast if it isn’t a baked product? They add yeast to increase the protein and achieve these types of effects,” he says.

In summary, as observed by Mesa, the new Todo Rico formulation has 31 more calories. The saturated fats will have been almost entirely replaced by unsaturated fats. And the protein would come from pork skin and yeast extract. And the reason why this version of Todo Rico continues to taste similar to the previous one is because of the inclusion of monosodium glutamate, a flavor enhancer that was not in the previous formulation.

Also read: Manipulation, addiction and interference: the strategies for advertising ultra-processed  foods aimed at boys and girls

The industry plays with the type of fats. Take, for example, the saturated and unsaturated fats, as Mesa pointed out. It’s not a question of eliminating saturated fats from people’s diets. The point is to reduce excessive consumption of them, given the cardiometabolic implications.

According to Mesa, the company Super Ricas decided to reduce the saturated fats in its star product, and this is likely to do with the nutritional composition of the oil with which they are frying the pork rinds and potato and sweet plantain chips. In conclusion, the new version of Todo Rico is not healthier simply because it bears no seals, simple as that.

The Attempt to Take Down the Tax

On October 18, 2023, Colombia’s House of Representatives debated over the nation’s budget. In the midst of the discussions, proposals were made seeking to delay implementation of certain articles contained in a tax reform that had gone into effect that year. One of the articles in question imposes taxes on sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods.

The voting ultimately failed to achieve its goal; however, attempts to delay this taxation left a precedent. The José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR, for its Spanish acronym) filed a suit to remove three congresspersons from office, based on their alleged conflicts of interest when voting on one of the propositions during the national budget debate.

The congresspersons named in the lawsuit, which was admitted by Colombia’s Consejo de Estado (State Council), are all members of the Cambio Radical party. Their names are Senator Carlos Abraham Jiménez; and Congresspersons Adriana Carolina Arbeláez and Jairo Humberto Cristo. 

This is one of the many precedents that show how the sugary drinks and ultra-processed food industry apparently pulls strings within the Colombian Congress to favor their interests. Arbeláez and Cristo voted on a proposition in favor of postponing the implementation of the tax; Jiménez was involved in the signing of the proposal that sought to delay the measure’s start date. Little or nothing was said in the media about who financed their campaigns. And that’s the crux of the matter.

The national budget debate took place not only in the House, but also in the Senate.  Carlos Abraham Jiménez took part in, signed, and also voted on a proposal to delay the start of the “healthy tax” law. Jiménez, a politician from Valle del Cauca, received financing from the Postobón and Bavaria companies: 45 million pesos from the former, and 81 million from the latter. This information, published in the Cuentas Claras (Clear Accounts) report from the National Electoral Council (CNE), was declared by the congressman himself.

Representative Arbeláez reported in Cuentas Claras that she received 45 million pesos from Bavaria and 70 million pesos from Postobón. And Congressperson Cristo stated that he received 36 million pesos from Bavaria and 90 from Postobón.

Arbeláez published a statement in response to the lawsuit calling for his divestiture. The congressperson claims that she declared herself ineligible to take part in the debate over the creation of the tax on sugary drinks in the context of the tax reform debate, but that her declaration was rejected. It was rejected for the debate on the reform, but not for the discussions regarding the national budget.

Also read: A practical guide to understanding Colombia’s “healthy taxes”

This isn’t the only episode to demonstrate that Colombia’s Congress wants to trip up implementation of the “healthy tax”. Enrique Cabrales, a senator from the Centro Democrático party, presented a bill that sought to eliminate the tax altogether. According to the congressperson, the government needed to formulate an alternative tax that would effectively counteract avoidance and evasion. 

According to data from Cuentas Claras processed by the Silla Vacía website, the Ardila Lülle Organization (of which Gaseosas Lux is a part) was the economic group that made the most contributions to political campaigns in 2023, with 7.37 billion Colombian pesos; Bavaria follows with $5.66 billion; and in fourth place is Coca-Cola Femsa with 2.04 billion. The Centro Democrático, Senator Cabrales’ party, received 880 million pesos from Gaseosas Lux and 600 million from Bavaria.

Cabrales is the brother of Sofía Cabrales, wife of Tomás Uribe, one of the sons of former president Álvaro Uribe. He was a House Representative between 2018 and 2022, and made the jump to the Senate in the current legislature. He was a contractor for the Administrative Unit of the Official Fire Department of Bogotá and for the District Secretariat for Social Integration of the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá during Mayor Enrique Peñalosa’s administration.

The bill presented by Cabrales was shot down on the day of the debate, as House Representative Katherine Miranda recalls. The congressperson says that she didn’t see a single representative from the Centro Democrático on the premises that day to defend its own initiative. The Ministry of Finance, in turn, gave its negative opinion of the bill given that, “as … a tax initiative, under Article 154 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, it must begin its process in the House of Representatives and requires the Government’s endorsement, since it aims to change the Nation’s income (Numeral 11 of Article 150 of the Political Constitution of Colombia to which Constitutional Article 154 refers), under penalty of unconstitutionality”.

The project was clearly unconstitutional since it sought to modify part of the country’s taxes without going through the government.

Also of interest: Pony Malta: more than 70 years selling a sugar-filled drink as healthy

One of the arguments in Cabrales’ project referred to the supposed effect that the “healthy tax” would have on inflation, which in turn would affect the economy of the poorest. This thesis was shared even by congresspersons such as Jennifer Pedraza, who also defended a proposition within the framework of the debate to approve the national budget. 

Pedraza said: “we ask that the taxes, which this plenary session unfortunately approved in the Tax Reform aimed at ultra-processed foods, not take effect in 2024, as defined, but rather that they be conditioned upon a more favorable context in the face of inflation.”

She also added: “in the national budgetary projections, inflation is 9.6%, which means that it differentially affects low-income families much more, as they surely consume more of these foods.” Pedraza claimed that the taxes on ultra-processed foods had to be conditional on 2-4% inflation, the range established by Colombia’s Central Bank for lower-income population groups. “Otherwise, hunger in Colombia will worsen,” she affirmed.

Redpapaz, an organization that promotes healthy eating, says that inflation is one of the arguments frequently used to justify the supposed damage done by “healthy taxes” to the economy and the diet of the poorest population. Redpapaz argues to the contrary, using the example that accumulated inflation from August 2022 to August 2023 was 11.43%. Only 0.2 percent of this corresponds to ultra-processed foods and beverages.

Mauricio Salazar, economist and professor at the Universidad Javeriana, explains that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is calculated based on essential foodstuffs and that, indeed, inflation can raise prices. “This tax, however, increases the value of products precisely so that people change their basic consumption habits and eventually do not get sick. Even if the tax were to have an extreme inflationary effect on ultra-processed foods —which is to be expected—, people would notice the price relationship and replace ultra-processed foods with others. This inflationary effect is basically diluted to the extent that consumption is displaced to other goods,” he says.

Misinformation Aimed at Neighborhood Shopkeepers

And it isn’t only in Congress that the tax on sugary drinks is periodically threatened. In early June of 2024, the National Federation of Merchants and Entrepreneurs (FENALCO, for its Spanish acronym) issued a statement claiming that neighborhood stores had lost almost 15% of their sales due to the “healthy tax”. FENALCO president Jaime Alberto Cabal stated that the taxes affected almost 70% of the products sold in neighborhood stores and would force many shopkeepers out of business.

These predictions generated alarm and, in turn, a response from the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR) based on arguments that FENALCO had failed to present. 

“Ruling C-435-2023 from the Constitutional Court of Colombia supports this position, classifying ultra-processed sugary drinks as products that are harmful to health. CAJAR highlights the importance of the “healthy taxes” as a crucial tool for protecting public health in Colombia. Data from the Ministry of Health indicate that 1,599,368 cases of diabetes were recorded in Colombia in 2022,” affirmed the lawyer’s collective.

CAJAR explained that these types of tax measures are backed by scientific evidence, by international health and human rights organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), given that they contribute to the protection of rights such as food, health, and a decent life.

Also read: The shadow of Big Cola in the lawsuit against “healthy taxes” in Colombia

“Taking into account that excess consumption of taxed products increases the chances of suffering from a non-communicable disease, the “healthy tax” is a crucial tool for the protection of public health in Colombia.” In addition, they stated: “CAJAR calls on FENALCO to contribute to the public debate on healthy taxes in an informed and transparent manner, with arguments and evidence free of conflicts of interest, to guarantee the right to health and adequate nutrition, especially for Colombian children.”

In mid-March 2024, articles appeared in the media citing a survey conducted by Dichter & Neira, a marketing firm with a presence in several different countries. The study is the company’s own investigation into something they call the Shopkeeper Confidence Index, a measure created by them to assess the outlook for this segment of the economy every three months.

The headlines that cited Dichter & Neira read: “Nine out of 10 Shopkeepers Lose  Money” and “Shopkeepers Seriously Affected by Healthy Tax”. However, the study itself made no mention of “losing money.” Nor did it consider the direct effects on them as micro-entrepreneurs. The question was directed at which food categories had been affected by the tax. In fact, the study itself indicates that 51% of shopkeepers believe that their businesses will improve within 12 months.

Salazar believes the study “is a reflection of market behavior; these are small business owners and we’re in an economic cycle of slow growth. A drop in sales due to the tax was to be expected; it makes me suspicious, having no knowledge of the methodology employed, the manner in which the questions were presented.” In surveys of this type, people usually choose the option that is highest up on the questionnaire.

And a look at the Ditcher & Neira website reveals that companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Bimbo are among the firm’s clients.

Opinions Regarding Labeling

The pollster Cifras & Conceptos, in alliance with Redpapaz, published the findings of a survey regarding the perception that Colombians have of front warning labels. 54% of respondents find the octagonal black seals useful. This is just a little more than half. People 18-35 years of age tend to be more in favor of these warning measures. 

However, when people were asked whether they tended to reduce their purchases of ultra-processed foods because of the seals, the answers were closely divided: 36% stated that their purchases of ultra-processed foods had decreased; 32% remained neutral when asked the question; and 31% stated that they had not stopped buying and consuming ultra-processed products because of the labels.

Finally, two pieces of information included in the survey elicited noticeable majority percentages: 84% of people believe that it would be useful for families to have more information about how to eat healthier, and 76% would like the DIAN to provide more information about the “healthy taxes”.

A study published by the Universidad de Antioquia’s School of Nutrition and Dietetics concludes that the octagonal labels warning of excesses in some foods are the best system for the country. This research analyzed other studies on front labeling (several types of labeling exist; France, for example, uses the Nutri-Score) and concludes that “exposure to octagonal front warning labeling encouraged participants to select healthier food products”. Thanks to this study, Resolution 2492 was issued, setting June 15, 2024 as the date by which the packaging of all ultra-processed products had to include octagonal warning seals.

Some of the voices that have promoted the implementation of the measures argue that information about tax collection is not clear, except for the fact that the tax is actually aimed a behavioral changes. They also have doubts about the regulatory process employed by Colombia’s National Institute of Food and Drug Regulations (INVIMA). Adriana Torres, a researcher at Dejusticia, says that “we have seen that monitoring and evaluating INVIMA’s policy during implementation has been difficult, since the entity lacks the operational capacity to respond to follow-ups of the resolution.” The researcher adds that instructional support for implementation of the labeling has been provided in only 11 of Colombia’s 1,103 municipalities. “As part of civil society, we’ve also pointed to the lack of coordination between INVIMA and the Ministry of Health, which should take up the banner here and we haven’t seen them leading the way,” concludes Torres.

At present, the government doesn’t seem to be very interested in disseminating pedagogy on healthy eating. Meanwhile, inside Congress, moves are being made in favor of the industry and the industry itself is reformulating products in order to sell ultra-processed products without labels. This is thanks to the loopholes in the legislation that leave out excess calories.

* This investigation was funded, in part, by Vital Strategies. The content is editorially independent and is intended to shine a light on illegal or unethical practices in the food and beverage industry and on the fact that it is the most vulnerable populations who disproportionately bear the brunt of the health crisis caused by the consumption of unhealthy food and beverages. Unless otherwise noted, all statements published in this story, including those regarding specific legislation, reflect the views of the particular organizations, and not of Vital Strategies.