— June 11, 2026 · Chile’s Food Warning Labels and Child Excess Weight

Table of Contents

1. At a Glance
2. Chile’s 2016 Law in Brief
3. What Was Done
4. What Was Found, Number by Number
5. How the Law Could Change Children’s Weight
6. How It Fits With Earlier Research
7. Warning Labels Elsewhere and the US Proposal
8. What It Cannot Show, and What Remains Unknown
9. What the Researchers Said
10. Sources and Primary Documents
11. Key Research Papers
12. Connections
13. Featured Videos

At a Glance

• Paper — “The impact of Chile’s multipronged food labelling and advertising law on early childhood excess weight: a cohort difference-in-differences study,” The Lancet 2026;407(10548):2630–2640, published online June 11, 2026 (print issue June 27).
• Who — Guillermo Paraje, Nieves Valdés and Alberto Vega Macaya (Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago), Camila Corvalán (Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile) and Barry Popkin (Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina).
• Design — cohort difference-in-differences analysis of national administrative data; a natural experiment, not a randomised trial.
• Size — 321,597 children aged 4 to 6 in public and publicly subsidised schools across Chile, measured from 2012 to 2017.
• What was tested — phase 1 of the law, the first and least strict phase, which began in June 2016.
• Main result — after about 18 months of exposure (kindergarten and first grade), the probability of excess weight was about 2.85 percentage points lower in girls and 2.40 points lower in boys; after about 6 months (first grade only), 1.91 points lower in girls and 2.24 points lower in boys. All four results were statistically significant.
• Funding — a philanthropic grant; the authors declare no competing interests.
• Accompanying Comment — “Integrated food policy and child obesity,” by two researchers from The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, in the same issue.

Back to Table of Contents

Chile’s 2016 Law in Brief

Chile approved its law of food labelling and advertising (Law 20.606) in 2012, published the implementation rules in 2015 and put the law into force in June 2016, according to a 2019 review by researchers at the University of Chile’s Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology. The law has three parts that act together:

• Front-of-package warnings. Packaged foods and drinks that contain added sugars, sodium or saturated fat and exceed set limits must carry a black octagonal stop-sign label reading “HIGH IN” followed by the nutrient: sugars, saturated fats, sodium or calories.
• Marketing limits. Products that carry a warning may not be promoted to children under 14.
• School restrictions. Those products may not be sold or given away at school kiosks, cafeterias or school feeding programmes, or in nurseries.

The review explains that the limits were built from a nutrient profile that “considered natural foods as gold standard.” For drinks, the amounts of energy, sugars, saturated fat and sodium in 100 mL of plain cow’s milk served as the cut-offs; for solid foods, the cut-offs were set within the 90th to 99th percentile of values found in a list of natural foods. Because the warnings apply only to products with added sugars, sodium or saturated fat, unprocessed whole foods such as fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs, plain milk, fish and meat carry no octagon.

The limits were phased in: they became stricter in steps over three years, from 2016 to 2019, and a 2024 evaluation notes that later phases also “introduced a daytime ban on advertising of high-in foods for all audiences.” The Lancet study covers only the first phase, when the limits were at their most lenient.

Back to Table of Contents

What Was Done

Chile’s National Board of School Aid and Scholarships (JUNAEB) weighs and measures children in public and publicly subsidised schools every year and publishes the results as the Nutritional Map (Mapa Nutricional), available from 2012. The researchers used these records, together with a national Vulnerability Survey (Encuesta de Vulnerabilidad), available from 2019, which the abstract describes as a complement to the main data.

They grouped children into cohorts by the year they entered prekindergarten:

• Unexposed (control) cohorts — children who entered prekindergarten in 2012 or 2013 and passed through prekindergarten, kindergarten and first grade before the law took effect.
• Exposed (treatment) cohorts — children who entered prekindergarten in 2014 or 2015 and were still in those early grades when phase 1 began in June 2016.

Depending on their cohort, exposed children met the law for about 18 months (kindergarten and first grade) or about 6 months (first grade only). The outcome was a simple yes-or-no measure: whether a child had excess weight, meaning overweight or obesity, judged from body mass index. The analysis used logistic regression and reported the results as marginal effects, that is, as the change in the probability of having excess weight.

The difference-in-differences logic works like this. Children’s weight changes from one year to the next for many reasons. By following how excess weight changed across grades in the cohorts that never met the law, the researchers estimate what would have happened to the later cohorts without it; the gap between that expected path and what the later cohorts actually showed is attributed to the law. The team also looked at subgroups by school type, rural or urban area, the mother’s education and her age at the child’s birth, the child’s birthweight, and sex.

Back to Table of Contents

What Was Found, Number by Number

The final sample was 321,597 children from the 2012 to 2015 cohorts, observed between 2012 and 2017 in prekindergarten, kindergarten and first grade. The abstract states that exposure to phase 1 “led to significant reductions in the probability of a child having excess weight,” with the largest effects in children exposed for both kindergarten and first grade.

• Girls, about 18 months of exposure: 2.85 percentage points lower probability of excess weight (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.07 points lower).
• Boys, about 18 months of exposure: 2.40 percentage points lower (1.22 to 3.58 points lower).
• Girls, about 6 months of exposure: 1.91 percentage points lower (0.68 to 3.15 points lower).
• Boys, about 6 months of exposure: 2.24 percentage points lower (1.04 to 3.45 points lower).

A note on the units. The abstract writes these results as, for example, a “2·85% lower probability.” Its confidence limits, however, are printed on the probability scale (−0·0407 to −0·0163 for girls at 18 months), which shows the figures are absolute differences in probability: about 2.85 fewer children with excess weight per 100, not a 2.85% relative cut in the rate. Much of the news coverage repeated the percentage wording, and some rounded the girls’ figure to 2.9%.

Subgroups, as reported in coverage. The abstract lists the subgroups examined but gives no subgroup numbers. News reports from the University of Chile (June 13, 2026) and from the University of North Carolina’s Global Food Research Program (June 12, 2026), where co-author Barry Popkin works, say the effects were more pronounced among children in publicly subsidised schools, children in urban areas, children whose mothers had more education and children born with low birthweight. The North Carolina report gives figures of 3.2% and 4.5% for girls in subsidised schools exposed in both grades, without explaining the two numbers. A summary in the French medical journal La Revue du Praticien reports 3.59 and 3.33 points for girls and boys whose mothers had higher education, and no significant effect in rural areas or among children whose mothers had not finished high school. These subgroup figures could not be checked against the full paper for this report.

Back to Table of Contents

How the Law Could Change Children’s Weight

The Lancet study measured weight, not diet, so it does not show which part of the law did the work. Earlier peer-reviewed evaluations of the same first phase describe several routes by which a package of this kind could change what young children eat:

• Shoppers buy fewer labelled products. In a panel of about 2,400 urban households, purchases of drinks carrying a warning fell by 22.8 mL per person per day (23.7%) compared with the trend before the law, and calories from those drinks fell 27.5% (2020). Across all foods and drinks, purchased sugar fell 10.2% and total purchased calories 3.5% (2021).
• Products are changed to stay under the limits. The share of packaged products with any “high in” feature fell from 51% before the law to 44% in early 2017; in some product groups the share high in sodium fell from 74% to 27%. The authors note that most changes happened close to the cut-off values. This reformulation was an industry-wide pattern, not the work of a single firm.
• Children see fewer advertisements. On the television channels most watched by Chilean children, the share of food ads for products high in energy, saturated fat, sugars or sodium fell from 41.9% to 14.8%; in children’s programmes, from 49.7% to 12.7% (2020). A survey-linked study in lower-income Santiago neighbourhoods estimated that preschoolers’ exposure to such ads fell by an average of 44% (2020).
• School food changes. In a cohort of Chilean children, total sugars eaten at school fell by 4.5 percentage points of energy in 2018 and 11.8 points in 2019, compared with 2016 (2023).

Each of these is a plausible path to fewer calories from labelled products; in the 2020 purchase study, most drinks that carried a warning carried it for their sugar content. The weight study cannot say how much each path contributed; its authors describe the law as a “multipronged” package and evaluated it as one.

Back to Table of Contents

How It Fits With Earlier Research

Since 2016, the same group of Chilean and US researchers, joined by others, has published a series of evaluations of the law, each measuring one step in the chain from policy to health:

• Purchases, phase 1. Household purchase data from 2015 to 2017 showed declines in calories, sugar, saturated fat and sodium bought, driven by products carrying warnings, partly offset by more purchases of products without them (Taillie and colleagues, PLoS Medicine 2020 and Lancet Planetary Health 2021). The 2020 paper states that its observational design cannot establish causality, and that it cannot separate reformulation from changes in shoppers’ behaviour or separate the effects of the labelling, marketing and school policies.
• Purchases, phase 2. With 2,844 households followed from 2013 to 2019, the sugar bought in products carrying warnings fell 36.8%, and the energy, sodium and saturated fat in them fell 23.0%, 21.9% and 15.7%, compared with the pre-law trend, with changes in phase 2 tending to be larger than in phase 1 and similar across lower- and higher-income households (PLoS Medicine 2024). Some results were sensitive to shorter pre-policy time frames.
• Reformulation. Sugar and sodium content fell in several groups of packaged foods after phase 1 (PLoS Medicine 2020).
• Advertising. Television advertising for high-in products and child-directed content fell sharply after June 2016 (American Journal of Public Health 2020; Public Health Nutrition 2020).
• Children’s intake. Intake of sugars, saturated fat and sodium at school fell, but the 2023 study also found “evidence of compensatory behavior in out-of-school settings,” meaning more of these nutrients eaten elsewhere.
• Sweeteners. As sugar was reformulated out of products, the share of preschoolers eating at least one non-sugar sweetener rose from 77.9% to 92.0% between 2016 and 2017; none exceeded the acceptable daily intake (Pediatric Obesity 2022). See artificial sweeteners.

Outside Chile, a 2021 systematic review and network meta-analysis of 156 studies found that nutrient warning labels were associated with higher odds of choosing more healthful products (odds ratio 3.61) and with 12.9% less energy in purchases. The reviewers noted that 95% of the studies were laboratory studies and that long-term effects had not been assessed, which is the gap a national, real-world weight study begins to address.

Why weight at ages 4 to 6 matters: a 2016 meta-analysis of 15 cohort studies (200,777 participants) found that children and adolescents with obesity were around five times more likely than their peers to have obesity as adults, and that around 55% of children with obesity still had it in adolescence. The same review notes that 70% of adults with obesity had not had obesity in childhood or adolescence. Chile’s rates are high: a 2024 global analysis in The Lancet listed Chile, for boys, among the countries with the highest combined rates of thinness and obesity in school-aged children in 2022, and found that in almost every country the rise in that combined burden was driven by obesity. See obesity.

Back to Table of Contents

Warning Labels Elsewhere and the US Proposal

Chile’s black octagons became a template. In the North Carolina group’s June 12 report, Barry Popkin is quoted as saying: “Nine countries have adopted front-of-package warning labels after Chile, and at least four more in Africa are currently considering similar laws, but no other country has combined the labeling with marketing restrictions and school bans in quite the same way.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a different route. On January 16, 2025 it published a proposed rule, “Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information” (90 FR 5426, Docket No. FDA-2024-N-2910), that would require most packaged foods to carry a black-and-white “Nutrition Info” box rating a serving’s saturated fat, sodium and added sugars as “Low,” “Med” or “High.” That is an interpretive rating of three nutrients that uses no warning symbols, and as a labelling rule it does not touch marketing or school sales. The FDA extended the comment period to July 15, 2025 (90 FR 19664). On June 11, 2026 the rule was still a proposal. The site’s explainer covers it in detail: FDA Proposal for Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels (2025).

Some US state bills described in this site’s April 12, 2026 news report go further and include front-of-package warning labels modelled on Chile’s. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released on January 7, 2026, are described in this site’s February 3, 2026 report as taking direct aim at ultra-processed food.

Since then. A search of the Federal Register on October 12, 2026 found no final rule on front-of-package nutrition information; the January 2025 proposal remained the latest FDA action on it.

Back to Table of Contents

What It Cannot Show, and What Remains Unknown

• Not a randomised trial. Difference-in-differences rests on an assumption: that without the law, the exposed cohorts would have followed the same path as the earlier cohorts. Anything else that changed for children in Chile in 2016 and 2017 and affected the later cohorts more than the earlier ones would be counted as an effect of the law. The authors’ own wording, “plausibly caused,” reflects this.
• The parts cannot be separated. Labels, marketing limits and school restrictions began together, so the study measures the package. Earlier work makes the same point about its purchase findings.
• Only phase 1, only young children, only the short term. The study covers the first and most lenient phase, children aged 4 to 6, and at most about 18 months of exposure. Whether the difference persists, grows under the stricter later phases or fades as children grow is not known from this paper.
• Not every child. The data cover public and publicly subsidised schools; children in fully private schools are not in the sample.
• Measurement. According to the summary in La Revue du Praticien, the authors note that weights and heights were taken by school staff, which may be less precise than measurement in a clinic.
• Weight is not the whole story. The study did not measure diet quality, blood sugar, blood pressure or later disease. Earlier work found more eating of regulated nutrients outside school and a rise in non-sugar sweeteners after reformulation; how these offsets affect health is not answered here.
• The full paper was not available to this report. The authors’ detailed limitations section, the checks they ran on the comparison groups and the baseline rate of excess weight in the sample could not be read, and the subgroup figures above rest on news coverage.
• Transfer to other countries. Food supply, schools and enforcement differ between countries. Whether the same package would have the same effect elsewhere, or whether a single measure such as a label alone would have any measurable effect on weight, is not tested by this study.

Back to Table of Contents

What the Researchers Said

The paper’s interpretation reads: “Phase 1 of Chile’s comprehensive FLAL plausibly caused a measurable decrease in the prevalence of excess weight among young school children.” It adds that the results “provide crucial, evidence-based support for policy makers worldwide who are considering food environment policies as a scalable, impactful strategy to combat the childhood obesity epidemic.” The background section states that, before this paper, “no study has causally linked the FLAL implementation to health outcomes.”

In the University of North Carolina report, lead author Guillermo Paraje, a professor of economics at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, is quoted: “Our study looked at the first and most lenient phase of the law, and we expect that as regulations became stricter under Phases 2 and 3, the benefits for children’s weight could be even greater.” That expectation is the authors’; the later phases were not tested in this study.

HealthDay’s June 12 report, drawing on the journal’s news release, quotes Paraje: “Although individual national measures like sugar taxes on soft drinks have been associated with improved health outcomes, this is the first study to plausibly demonstrate that a package of policies can reduce early childhood overweight/obesity risk at the national level.” It quotes co-author Nieves Valdés, an associate professor of economics at the same university: “even a small weight reduction for children who have overweight or obesity is likely to bring meaningful long-term health benefits, given the strong links between childhood obesity and later risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.” Those long-term benefits are a projection from other research; this study followed children only to first grade.

The Lancet ran an accompanying Comment, “Integrated food policy and child obesity” (pages 2582–2584), by Simone Pettigrew and Daisy Coyle of The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales. As quoted by HealthDay, they wrote: “The research results strengthen the case for governments to move beyond incremental, single-policy approaches and to instead implement comprehensive, integrated strategies to improve food environments.” The full Comment was not available for this report.

Back to Table of Contents

Sources and Primary Documents

The study figures come from the paper’s abstract as indexed in PubMed; the citation was checked against PubMed and Crossref. Details marked as coverage come from the news items listed below. The FDA dates and citations come from the Federal Register.

1. Paraje G, Valdés N, Macaya AV, Corvalán C, Popkin B (2026). The impact of Chile’s multipronged food labelling and advertising law on early childhood excess weight: a cohort difference-in-differences study. The Lancet 407(10548):2630-2640. — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00651-3 · PubMed PMID: 42276088
2. Pettigrew S, Coyle D (2026). Integrated food policy and child obesity. The Lancet 407(10548):2582-2584. — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00915-3 · PubMed PMID: 42276087
3. Food and Drug Administration, HHS (January 16, 2025). Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information; proposed rule, 90 FR 5426, Docket No. FDA-2024-N-2910. — Federal Register document 2025-00778
4. Food and Drug Administration, HHS (May 9, 2025). Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information; Extension of Comment Period, 90 FR 19664. — Federal Register document 2025-08204

News coverage: Global Food Research Program, University of North Carolina, June 12, 2026, “Chile curbing children’s weight gain with food labels and marketing limits, study finds” (on the programme’s own website); HealthDay, June 12, 2026 (Food labels and restrictions can lower childhood obesity rates); University of Chile, June 13, 2026 (in Spanish); La Revue du Praticien (in French).

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

Background papers on Chile’s law, front-of-package labelling and childhood obesity. Each entry was checked against PubMed and Crossref before it was written down.

1. Corvalán C, Reyes M, Garmendia ML, Uauy R (2019). Structural responses to the obesity and non-communicable diseases epidemic: Update on the Chilean law of food labelling and advertising. Obesity Reviews 20(3):367-374. — PubMed PMID: 30549191
2. Taillie LS, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Popkin B, Corvalán C (2020). An evaluation of Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: A before-and-after study. PLoS Medicine 17(2):e1003015. — PubMed PMID: 32045424
3. Reyes M, Smith Taillie L, Popkin B, Kanter R, Vandevijvere S, Corvalán C (2020). Changes in the amount of nutrient of packaged foods and beverages after the initial implementation of the Chilean Law of Food Labelling and Advertising: A nonexperimental prospective study. PLoS Medicine 17(7):e1003220. — PubMed PMID: 32722710
4. Correa T, Reyes M, Taillie LS, Corvalán C, Dillman Carpentier FR (2020). Food Advertising on Television Before and After a National Unhealthy Food Marketing Regulation in Chile, 2016-2017. American Journal of Public Health 110(7):1054-1059. — PubMed PMID: 32437274
5. Dillman Carpentier FR, Correa T, Reyes M, Taillie LS (2020). Evaluating the impact of Chile’s marketing regulation of unhealthy foods and beverages: pre-school and adolescent children’s changes in exposure to food advertising on television. Public Health Nutrition 23(4):747-755. — PubMed PMID: 31822317
6. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, Reyes M, Colchero MA, Corvalán C (2021). Changes in food purchases after the Chilean policies on food labelling, marketing, and sales in schools: a before and after study. The Lancet Planetary Health 5(8):e526-e533. — PubMed PMID: 34390670
7. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, Rebolledo N, Reyes M, Corvalán C (2024). Decreases in purchases of energy, sodium, sugar, and saturated fat 3 years after implementation of the Chilean food labeling and marketing law: An interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Medicine 21(9):e1004463. — PubMed PMID: 39331649
8. Fretes G, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Taillie LS, Economos CD, Wilson NLW, Cash SB (2023). Changes in children’s and adolescents’ dietary intake after the implementation of Chile’s law of food labeling, advertising and sales in schools: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 20(1):40. — PubMed PMID: 37016430
9. Rebolledo N, Reyes M, Popkin BM, Adair L, Avery CL, Corvalán C, Ng SW, Taillie LS (2022). Changes in nonnutritive sweetener intake in a cohort of preschoolers after the implementation of Chile’s Law of Food Labelling and Advertising. Pediatric Obesity 17(7):e12895. — PubMed PMID: 35088571
10. Song J, Brown MK, Tan M, MacGregor GA, Webster J, Campbell NRC, Trieu K, Ni Mhurchu C, Cobb LK, He FJ (2021). Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine 18(10):e1003765. — PubMed PMID: 34610024
11. Simmonds M, Llewellyn A, Owen CG, Woolacott N (2016). Predicting adult obesity from childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews 17(2):95-107. — PubMed PMID: 26696565
12. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) (2024). Worldwide trends in underweight and obesity from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 3663 population-representative studies with 222 million children, adolescents, and adults. The Lancet 403(10431):1027-1050. — PubMed PMID: 38432237

PubMed Topic Searches

1. PubMed: Chile’s food labelling and advertising law
2. PubMed: Front-of-package warning labels
3. PubMed: Food marketing restrictions and children
4. PubMed: School food policy and childhood obesity
5. PubMed: Childhood obesity tracking into adulthood

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

• News Archive
• FDA Front-of-Package Label Proposal (2025) — the proposed US “Nutrition Info” box
• Obesity — causes, risks and research
• Ultra-Processed Foods — the NOVA classification and the evidence on health
• Ultra-Processed Foods and Weight Gain — how highly processed food relates to weight
• Added Sugar, Sugary Drinks, and Weight — the products most often carrying a sugar warning
• Artificial Sweeteners — the substitutes that rose as sugar was reformulated out
• Sodium — one of the four nutrients the octagons flag
• Type 2 Diabetes — one of the later risks linked to childhood obesity
• FDA and USDA: Defining Ultra-Processed Foods (2025) — the US request for information
• FDA “Healthy” Claim Final Rule (2024) — the FDA’s updated definition of the “healthy” label claim
• New Dietary Guidelines and Ultra-Processed Food — February 3, 2026 news report
• American Food and Health Policy Reset — April 12, 2026 news report, including state warning-label bills
• FDA and Regulation — the site’s section on regulatory actions

Back to Table of Contents

Featured Videos