Strolling down the aisles of any modern supermarket, shoppers from Bangkok to Buriram are awash in attractive food packaging touting claims like “heart healthy,” “high in protein,” or “low-carb.” But intriguing new research and regulatory discussions are challenging whether these tempting promises really hold up—and how consumers in Thailand and worldwide might be misled by what’s known as “nutriwashing” or “healthwashing” Yahoo.
What is nutriwashing? Marketers routinely use buzzwords like “natural,” “gluten-free,” and “immune-boosting” to confer a health halo on processed foods. Yet, as Lindsay Malone, a registered dietician and nutrition instructor at Case Western Reserve University, tells Yahoo Life, “These claims influence consumer decisions by creating the illusion of healthiness, leading shoppers to choose products they believe are better for them when, in reality, they may still be highly processed and nutritionally poor.” Her warning echoes international studies that found many foods labeled as “high in protein” or “whole grain” may contain surprisingly high levels of sugar, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives PubMed, 2024.
Food manufacturers have also been caught manipulating serving sizes to make numbers look healthier or using terms like “natural” (which, according to Malone, can be almost meaningless and unregulated, including foods with high fructose corn syrup and artificial additives). This kind of misleading packaging isn’t just an American problem. In Thailand, recent amendments to nutrition labeling guidelines are being considered as authorities respond to industry complaints and the challenge of ensuring clarity and honesty on food packaging FoodNavigator-Asia, 2025.
A glance at legal actions internationally reveals just how common this practice can be. Major food companies have faced class action lawsuits over misleading health claims. Recent high-profile examples include the well-known Kraft Heinz Foods’ Capri Sun, which claimed “All Natural Ingredients” on its packaging but faced legal scrutiny over its validity Yahoo. A growing number of lawsuits focus on “real fruit” claims, misleading assertions about natural flavors, and unproven health benefits of highly processed snacks FoodNavigator-USA, 2025.
For Thai consumers, the issue looms large: nutritional labels first appeared in the Kingdom in the late 1990s, and since 2011, the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label—detailing calories, sugar, fat, and sodium—has been mandatory on many snacks. Yet Thai regulators and consumer advocates agree with international researchers on a stubborn problem: labels are frequently crowded with confusing terminology, tiny fonts, and often require a magnifying glass to read. “The first issue that comes to mind is the fact that there is too much information on the labels regardless of the size of the packaging,” said Patchara Klaewkla of the Foundation for Consumers in an interview with the Bangkok Post. National surveys reveal that while 57% of Thai consumers know about nutrition labels, barely 60% of those understand what the numbers really mean Bangkok Post.
The difficulties do not end there. Inconsistent ingredient lists, allergy warnings buried in small print, and lack of information about preservatives or food colorings make it hard for consumers to make informed choices. For parents shopping for their children, for people with chronic conditions like diabetes, or anyone aiming to eat healthier, deciphering whether a “low-fat” or “no added sugar” label actually equates to a healthier product is a daily challenge. The rapidly expanding ultra-processed food segment is especially problematic: numerous international studies link diets rich in such foods to increased risk for heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer PubMed, 2024.
So, what are authorities in Thailand doing? The Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun seeking public input on further amendments to ensure labels are easy to read and truly reflective of a product’s nutritional value FoodNavigator-Asia, 2025. Concerns remain over color coding (which currently requires strict use of black, blue, and white), and the difficulty for manufacturers using packaging where a white background isn’t possible, such as corrugated cartons. Regulators hope that more flexible color rules and clearer definitions—such as allowing distinctions between “total sugar” and “added sugar”—will increase label transparency while avoiding unnecessary trade barriers.
Thailand’s approach is part of a global movement to fight misleading packaging. Mexico, for example, revised its front-of-pack labeling to include simplified warnings inspired by Chile’s system, as research showed most consumers either misunderstood or ignored previous, more complex nutritional data Wikipedia. India and Spain are also pushing for easier-to-understand, standardized, and mandatory labeling to address epidemics of diet-related illness PubMed, 2024.
Yet, studies show labels alone aren’t a magic bullet. Even nutrition students can be perplexed by front-of-pack information, and real-world sales data in countries with progressive labeling reforms indicate that while some companies reformulate to meet healthier standards, the impact on consumer behavior can be modest unless reinforced by broad education campaigns.
What’s the practical advice for Thai shoppers? Lindsay Malone and other nutrition experts recommend looking past the persuasive language and superficial claims on the front of the package. “Ignore front-of-package claims, [and] always check the ingredient list and nutrition label instead of trusting marketing buzzwords,” Malone told Yahoo Life. She and health writers echo Michael Pollan’s famous advice: ถ้าเป็นอาหารที่ยายทวดทานได้ กินได้เลย (“If your great-grandmother would recognize it as food, you can eat it”). The healthiest foods—guaeng (soup), khao niew (sticky rice), pla (grilled fish)—rarely need health claims printed on the front. Avoiding foods with artificial colors, artificial flavors, preservatives, or high levels of added sugar and salt is a reliable strategy.
In summary, while food packaging in Thailand increasingly displays attractive health-related claims, the story unfolding in legal cases and scientific analysis worldwide suggests most labels must be read with caution. Regulatory agencies are gradually improving rules, but ultimately, the best safeguard lies in a combination of consumer education, skepticism, and a preference for minimally processed foods—the same staples that have anchored Thai cuisine for generations. For now, shoppers should pay closer attention to the small print and, when in doubt, choose foods that don’t need a marketing campaign to prove they’re good for you.
For those interested in tracking upcoming regulatory changes, the Thai FDA is accepting public comments on updated labeling guidelines until April 30, 2025. Health-conscious readers can also learn more about how to interpret labels via resources provided by the Foundation for Consumers or the Ministry of Public Health.
Practical recommendation: Next time you visit the supermarket, challenge yourself to skip the most colorful, buzzword-laden packages and fill your basket with single-ingredient foods—fresh vegetables, fruits, eggs, and plain oats. If you must pick up packaged food, be mak (careful): check the back label for sugar, sodium, and ingredient complexity. If you’re uncertain, trust your senses and culinary heritage—อาหารไทยดั้งเดิม (authentic Thai food) almost always wins.
Key Sources:
- “Heart healthy.’ ‘High in protein.’ ‘Low-carb.’ Food packaging makes a lot of promises. Do they hold up?”
- Thailand to amend nutrition labelling guidelines for better visibility and industry compliance
- The labelling issue – Bangkok Post
- Are Foods with Protein Claims Healthy? (PubMed, 2024)
- Mexico’s Front-of-Package Labeling System (Wikipedia)