A new analysis of nearly 150,000 food and beverage products launched in the United States over the past decade, found that products bearing health-related claims are not only not consistently healthier, they are sometimes less nutritious. Reducing one unhealthy ingredient sometimes means they added more of a different one.
The analysis was led by Miguel Gomez, professor of food marketing at Cornell University, and Pei Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in his lab. The study drew on a decade of new-product data from the market research firm Mintel.
"One day I went to a supermarket, and I noticed there was original flavor and lower-fat cream cheese," she said. "They had reduced the fat, but they had more total sugars and more sodium. There are so many label claims on packages. Our main question was whether products with claims are healthier than those without health claims."
The Cornell team applied the Nutrient Profiling Model, a scoring system developed by the U.K. Food Standards Agency, which – unlike a single-nutrient claim – weighs a product's full nutritional makeup at once, penalizing excess sugar, sodium, saturated fat and calories while rewarding fiber, protein and fruit and vegetable content.
Applying that lens to the American marketplace, the researchers found that, of the newly launched products they analyzed, two-thirds qualified as less healthy overall even though half of the products had on-package health claims.
The trouble, the researchers found, often comes down to trade-offs hidden in the fine print of formulation. A "reduced sodium" soda, for instance, is disproportionately likely to make up for it with extra sugar. A "no trans-fat" packaged meal often leans harder on saturated fat and sodium instead. The claim is technically true. The overall nutritional picture, the study suggests, doesn't necessarily improve, and can sometimes get worse in another direction.
Beverages showed the starkest gaps, with claims like "low sodium," "sugar free" and "low saturated fat" the most likely to diverge from actual nutritional quality.
Perhaps the most striking finding involved a category of labeling that isn't regulated as a nutrition claim at all: "natural." Terms like organic, non-GMO and whole grain say nothing formally about a product's sugar, sodium or fat content. Yet prior consumer research cited by the authors, has repeatedly shown that shoppers read "natural" as shorthand for "healthy" anyway, a psychological shortcut researchers call the "halo effect."
The Food and Drug Administration finalized an updated definition of the "healthy" claim in recent years and has proposed a new front-of-package labeling scheme intended to summarize a product's nutrition profile at a glance – an approach closer to the systems already used in the U.K., and to mandatory warning labels adopted in Chile and Mexico.
We provide some direction for policymakers in our paper. The general idea is to transition from single claims to a broader nutrient profile style. In countries like Chile or Mexico, they use traffic stop signs to warn consumers about high salt, sugar and fat, and this limits the positioning of products in the supermarket."
Miguel Gomez, professor of food marketing, Cornell University
For now, Gomez and Zhou say, the practical advice for shoppers is unglamorous but familiar: A claim on the front of a box is a hint, not a verdict. The nutrition label on the back – added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, all of it together – still tells the fuller story.
Facts Only
* An analysis was conducted on nearly 150,000 food and beverage products launched in the United States over the past decade.
* The study was led by Miguel Gomez, professor of food marketing at Cornell University, and Pei Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in his lab.
* The data used was new-product information from Mintel spanning a decade.
* The Cornell team applied the Nutrient Profiling Model developed by the U.K. Food Standards Agency to assess nutritional makeup.
* Products bearing health-related claims were sometimes less nutritious.
* Examples of trade-offs included reduced fat leading to increased total sugars and sodium in cream cheese.
* Beverages exhibited the starkest gaps between claims (e.g., "low sodium," "sugar free") and actual nutritional quality.
* Labeling terms such as "natural," "organic," and "non-GMO" do not formally specify sugar, sodium, or fat content.
* The researchers proposed transitioning from single claims to a broader nutrient profile style for regulation.
Executive Summary
An analysis of nearly 150,000 food and beverage products launched in the U.S. over the last decade found that products with health-related claims are not necessarily healthier and can sometimes be less nutritious. A study led by Miguel Gomez and Pei Zhou examined this data using the Nutrient Profiling Model, which assesses a product's full nutritional makeup, penalizing excess sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and calories while rewarding fiber, protein, and fruit/vegetable content. The research indicated that two-thirds of the newly launched products qualified as less healthy overall, even among those with on-package health claims.
The study highlighted trade-offs in formulation; for example, a "reduced sodium" soda might contain more added sugar. Beverages showed the largest discrepancies between claims and actual nutritional quality. Furthermore, labeling terms like "natural," "organic," and "non-GMO" do not formally convey nutritional information but are often interpreted by consumers as indicators of health, creating a psychological shortcut known as the halo effect. The researchers suggest a shift from single health claims to a broader nutrient profile system for regulation, similar to warning labels used in other jurisdictions.
Full Take
The findings suggest a fundamental disconnect between marketing language and nutritional reality, driven by systemic trade-offs embedded in food formulation and regulatory gaps in labeling. The reliance on single health claims fosters an environment where superficial marketing—such as the "halo effect" associated with terms like "natural"—can obscure detrimental nutritional realities. This pattern demonstrates how semantic framing is used to elicit consumer decisions rather than inform them accurately. The push for a system based on total nutrient profiling reflects a move away from managing isolated claims toward managing the holistic outcome of a product’s composition.
The implication is that current labeling systems fail to capture the complex, multi-variable consequences of ingredient substitution. When regulators focus on single attributes (like sodium reduction) rather than overall profiles, they allow for formulations where perceived health benefits are achieved through hidden increases in other negative elements. This points toward a power dynamic where industry narratives, supported by consumer psychology, dictate the terms of nutritional transparency. The challenge for policymakers is to institutionalize this holistic view, ensuring that the cost-benefit analysis of labeling favors actual public health outcomes over marketing simplicity.
What further investigation is needed to determine if the shift in regulation will successfully counteract deeply ingrained consumer habits regarding "natural" labeling? How can policy effectively mandate the use of nutrient profiling without stifling innovation or legitimate marketing efforts? What are the long-term consequences for public health when cognitive shortcuts, rather than explicit data, govern purchasing behavior?