You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 24, 2015

Front-of-Package Labeling in Thailand

Informed Counsel

Expanding waistlines and increasing health awareness have given rise to a consumer culture infatuated with well-being, not only in Thailand but all over the world. For producers, this means intense pressure to create healthy or healthier versions of their products. For the government—specifically the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—this means an obligation to implement and enforce stricter regulations on food and nutrition.

The Thai Perspective

As we move into an age where life is increasingly fast-paced, there is no reason why the food industry should be left behind. While nutritional labels are often displayed on the back of packaging, Front-of-Package (FOP) labeling has become popular among policy makers because it simplifies the most important information and places it where it is visible at first sight to the hurried consumer. In Thailand, the original 1998 Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) implemented non-FOP nutritional labeling requirements which were mandatory for certain foods and voluntary for others. A survey conducted in 2009, however, concluded that the nutritional information was difficult to understand, which caused the FDA to make a number of changes.

In a series of subsequent ministerial notifications, the FDA implemented the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system of labeling, an FOP system that made GDA labels mandatory for snack products and certain ready-to-eat foods. The current GDA label breaks down nutritional information into four categories: calories, sugars, fats, and sodium. This requires producers to clearly state the nutrient content and percentage of recommended daily intake per package.

FOP Labeling Around the World

Countries around the world have also introduced policies which mirror the objectives of the GDA system of labeling to help consumers make the “smart” choice quickly. For example, the European Union takes the same approach as Thailand, basing its guidelines on the latest published scientific data on dietary requirements and recommendations. Similarly, the United States uses a voluntary Facts Up Front labeling system, which calls for a summary of calories, saturated fat, sodium, and sugar per serving on the front of various food and beverage products.

Singapore, on the other hand, uses the Healthier Choice Symbol, an interpretive nutrition logo which distinguishes products that are lower in saturated fat and trans fat, sodium, and sugar, but higher in whole grains, fiber, and other healthy nutrients. Nutrition guidelines are set according to each product category. There are 12 main product categories and more than 70 subcategories. In addition, there are variants including the Healthier Snack Symbol and the Healthier Ingredient Symbol.

Australia and New Zealand use the Daily Intake Guide and the Health Star Rating. The Daily Intake Guide is a voluntary scheme which uses a set of reference values for acceptable levels of intake for energy and a variety of nutrients, sugars, protein, fat, fiber, and sodium, to name a few. The Health Star Rating system was developed to make it easier for consumers to compare similarly packaged food and therefore make healthier decisions. It ranks products on a scale from half a star to five stars based on their nutritional profile which includes, for example, energy, saturated fat, and sodium. This system of labeling is a hybrid of the GDA system used by Thailand, the European Union, and the United States, as well as the Healthier Choice Symbol used by Singapore.

The Future of FOP Labeling

The food and beverage community has pushed to revamp the current FOP labeling scheme in Thailand. Currently, the National Food Committee, a subcommittee of the Thai FDA, is working to add to the present FOP GDA labeling scheme, but the additions have yet to be announced. It is known, however, that use of the new FOP label will be voluntary and presently it is only being considered for certain foods. Some organizations are looking for inspiration in the “traffic light” nutritional labeling system, a system that uses the colors red, amber, and green to indicate high, acceptable, and low levels of fat, saturated fats, sugar, and salt in various products. Foods with “green” indicators are healthier than foods with “red” indicators, while foods with “amber” indicators fall in between.

The Federation of Thai Industries Food Group has supported the use of GDA nutrition labels and is determined to become involved in educating consumers about the GDA system of labeling. It prefers the GDA system of labeling to a color-coded system or an interpretive nutritional logo because these are sometimes misleading and vague and often do not comprehensively take into account different nutritional needs.

The good news is that the industry has been invited to participate in the development of a new scheme which producers can both contribute to and benefit from. With the correct industry input, FOP labeling should offer consumers informative nutritional information that is apt for a fast-paced world.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to