Can Canada’s new food labelling rules impact heart health?

We began seeing Health Canada’s now-familiar magnifying glass symbol on food packages in late 2024. The regulation gave companies three years—until Jan. 1, 2026—to comply. Manufacturers had a choice: reformulate, discontinue the product, or sell it with the symbol displayed prominently on the front of the package.

Whether the policy will meaningfully improve the health of Canadians remains an open question. But research is beginning to shed light on how this labelling regime could influence Canada’s food landscape.

READ: What you need to know about Canada's new food labels

A recent study from Université Laval, published this month in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Lise Leblanc, Jacob Lessard-Lord, Neha Khandpur, Jean-Sébastien Paquette, and Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier, offers some intriguing findings. The researchers suggest if Canadians reduce their intake of “magnifying-glass foods” by just 10%, cardiovascular risk could decline by as much as 20%.

That certainly sounds compelling.

The study analyzed dietary data from approximately 2,000 adults between 2010 and 2019. It then simulated what might have happened had the front-of-package magnifying glass symbol been in place during that period. In other words, this was a longitudinal simulation—not a real-world behavioural trial.

And that distinction matters.

The researchers did not observe people actually changing their diets in response to labels. Instead, they modelled potential outcomes based on assumptions about how consumers might react. Anyone who has studied consumer behaviour knows that information alone does not automatically translate into better choices. Shoppers are influenced by price, habit, brand loyalty, taste preferences, time constraints and income—not just warning symbols.

 READ: Retailers reflect on front-of-package label rollout

The study also relies on self-reported dietary intake, which is notoriously imperfect. And while cardiovascular risk modelling is well established, it cannot fully isolate the influence of diet from other determinants of heart health, including exercise, genetics, stress and broader lifestyle patterns.

In short, the study points to potential benefits—but the projected risk reductions should not be interpreted as guaranteed real-world outcomes.

From an industry perspective, there is still uncertainty about what this symbol ultimately means. Reformulation is feasible in some categories, but not in others. If you manufacture a dessert, sugar is not an incidental ingredient—it is foundational. Humans indulge. They always have, and they always will.

At the same time, we cannot ignore a basic reality: many processed foods contain elevated levels of fat, sugar and sodium. The new regulation creates a level playing field. All companies must operate under the same rules. That matters.

There is also historical precedent. Years ago, Campbell’s Soup in Canada reduced sodium levels in an effort to improve its nutritional profile. Consumers responded by shifting toward competitors offering saltier alternatives, forcing Campbell’s to revert to its original formulations. The lesson was clear: unilateral reformulation carries commercial risk.

 REPORT: Product reformulations on the rise

Today’s environment is different. Front-of-package labels standardize the signal. As consumers grow accustomed to the symbol, companies may face greater reputational risk in carrying it. International evidence suggests that over time, clear front-of-package labels can nudge both reformulation and purchasing patterns. Canada is hardly alone; dozens of countries have adopted some form of interpretive front-of-pack labelling.

Will Canadians feel “shamed” by the symbol? Possibly. Few consumers want their shopping cart to signal poor dietary choices. And few companies want their brand visibly associated with excess sodium, sugar or fat. That tension is part of the policy’s design.

Unlike some recent federal interventions, this initiative is not short-sighted. It is structured, phased in, and grounded in global precedent.

The main friction point lies south of the border. U.S. manufacturers must now either adapt packaging and formulations for the Canadian market or forgo it. That adjustment will likely contribute to upward pressure on certain dry goods this year as supply chains recalibrate. Some product rationalization is inevitable.

 But markets adapt.

In a few years, the disruption will likely feel routine. The magnifying glass may simply become another element of the packaging landscape—less controversial, more normalized.

The real test will not be whether the symbol exists, but whether it meaningfully shifts behaviour. Policy can signal intent. Ultimately, however, health outcomes depend on what ends up in our carts—and why.