In the noisy and volatile world of nutrition, who’s keeping the signal steady?

While social feeds spin with conflicting nutrition claims, Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) latest review quietly reinforces something crucial: good policy is designed to protect us, not chase trends. The preliminary report from their recent Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) review demonstrates that, sometimes, doing less is more.

When no news IS the news

Every day, we’re bombarded with new health and nutrition headlines. And it’s not just from traditional news sources – nutrition information AND misinformation are saturating our social media feeds, where contradictory messages create confusion and fuel nutritional backlash among consumers. So, when Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) recently released their preliminary report of their recent review of the nutrition labelling system with a simple conclusion of “No changes necessary”, it was refreshing.

A detailed government review that results in nothing changing may feel somewhat anticlimactic and like a scene straight from a Utopia script. In the attention economy, where headlines reward novelty and controversy, we’ve come to expect constant updates as the norm. But although they sound similar, “No changes necessary” is a distinct concept from “Not doing anything”.

What was the review all about?

The mandatory food labelling system in Australia and New Zealand was formalised by FSANZ in 2002, harmonising the previous state- and territory-based systems. Its purpose was simple: to protect public health and safety, to provide sufficient information for consumers to make informed choices about their food, and to prevent misleading or deceptive conduct.

Australia and New Zealand looked very different in 2002 from what they do in 2025. If you found yourself taking a time machine back to 2002, you’d see no iPhones, hear no podcasts, and we’d all still be friends with Tom on Myspace. Society, culture and technology all shift over time, and our food system is no different. Most changes are incremental; however, some – like the rise of smartphones and social media – are instrumental. Periodic checks, such as the current NIP review, are built into our regulatory frameworks to ensure they continue to serve a changing world effectively.

The current review was conducted to determine whether NIP requirements continue to serve their primary purpose of protecting public health and consumer rights, while also considering the costs and impacts of potential industry changes. Balancing these ensures that any recommendations are both meaningful (i.e., likely to make a real, practical difference) and proportionate (i.e., appropriate in scale and intensity to the size of the issue).

Image: Nutrition Information Panels are highly trusted: 72% of Australians trust mandatory back-of-pack nutrition labelling vs 40% trust for voluntary, front-of-pack messages such as health claims (Credit: Photo by @monkeybusinessimage via Canva)

Key outcome: A system that’s working as intended

The review found that the current system remains effective and fit-for-purpose, with no evidence to support changes to the NIP layout, listed nutrients, or nutrient thresholds under current regulatory settings. This is good news for consumers, industry and health professionals: consumers keep a stable, familiar label format, and industry can continue investing in product development without the disruption or cost of relabelling.

Importantly, FSANZ has shown that it will act when needed.  The recent updates to country-of-origin labelling and allergen statements demonstrate that changes are made when consumer priorities or new evidence demand it. But the benefits of consistency and reliability should not be overstated. Consumers today have unprecedented access to information, but not necessarily the health literacy skills required to make sense of it. Amid trending TikTok nutrition hacks, influencers cosplaying as experts, and sensationalist clickbait headlines, FSANZ’s consistent, evidence-based standards provide a dependable foundation that considers the whole picture, not just the latest study or fad.

Indeed, it could be argued that this was an opportunity to modernise aspects of the NIP – but that was not the aim of the review. Good policy isn’t driven by idealism; it’s designed to reduce real-world harm using the best available evidence, in ways that are practical and grounded in the socioeconomic and cultural realities of people’s lives.

“No change” is also not synonymous with “no progress”. During the review process, a gap was identified, created by the rise of online food retail, in which access to the NIP is not always available before purchase. This is now being addressed through a separate review explicitly focused on digital environments. Treating “information for food sold online” as its own work enables regulators to clearly define the problem, understand how online behaviour differs from in-store shopping, consider direct and indirect impacts on consumers and the industry, and design solutions tailored to the digital world. Because what works in one environment won’t necessarily translate to another.

What’s next?

The public and stakeholder consultation period ended on November 30th, and final recommendations will then be made in early 2026.

In the broader policy landscape, this review is just one part of a much bigger picture. Alongside the NIP review, we’re also closely monitoring two significant pieces of work that will shape Australia’s nutrition environment for years to come: the concurrent evaluation of the Health Star Rating system and the ongoing update to the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Both sit at the intersection of public health, consumer behaviour and industry reform, and together they will influence everything from food reformulation and labelling to national nutrition messaging and public-facing guidance.

As clinicians and communicators, it’s our responsibility to understand the system, engage with it, and clearly translate it to the communities and industries we serve.

The FOODiQ Takeaway

Progress doesn’t always come from rewriting the rules: we also need to safeguard the ones that serve us well. FSANZ’s recommendation of ‘no change required’ is a reminder that credibility, clarity and consistency are powerful forms of protection in a noisy nutrition world. The government's slow pace is at times frustrating, and there are inefficiencies well worth addressing. But it’s worth remembering that here the pace is also a core part of how the system protects us: by moving carefully, resisting fads, and prioritising evidence over noise.