A new study reveals that front-of-pack health claims like ‘reduced fat’ or ‘sugar free’ often mask products that are not genuinely healthier, urging consumers to scrutinise nutrition labels more carefully.
Packaged foods with labels such as “reduced fat”, “low sodium” or “sugar free” often give shoppers the impression that they are making a healthier choice. But a new analysis in Nature Food suggests those front-of-pack claims can be misleading if they are read in isolation. Researchers found that many products carrying health or nutrition claims were not meaningfully healthier overall, and some traded one less desirable ingredient for another.
The study examined more than 145,000 packaged foods and drinks launched in the United States between 2015 and 2024. According to the Cornell University researchers behind the work, more than half of new products carried at least one claim related to sugar, fat, sodium, calories, protein, fibre, natural ingredients or possible health benefits. When the team scored the products using a nutrient profiling model that weighed calories, saturated fat, sugar and sodium against fibre, protein and fruit and vegetable content, about two-thirds of all items still landed in the “less healthy” category.
Some of the clearest examples involved products marketed as lower in one nutrient but higher in another. The study found that low or reduced sodium claims in some beverage categories were often accompanied by higher sugar content. In other cases, foods promoted as lower in trans fat, including certain dairy products, egg items and side dishes, tended to contain more saturated fat, sodium and calories while offering less protein. Miguel I. Gómez, one of the study authors and a professor of food marketing at Cornell, said the findings show the difference between a relative improvement and an actually healthier product.
Pei Zhou, the study’s lead author and a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell’s Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, said consumers should not use a single claim as a shortcut for judging a product’s overall nutritional quality. He said the claims can be useful for identifying one feature, but the Nutrition Facts panel gives a fuller picture because it lists several nutrients together. That distinction matters because a product can improve in one respect without moving into a genuinely healthy category.
Nutrition specialists say that trade-off is not surprising. Laurel Santiago, a nutrition expert in New Jersey, said fat, salt and sugar do more than add flavour: they also affect texture, moisture, structure and shelf life. When manufacturers cut one ingredient, they often have to replace it with starches, gums or extra sugar to keep the product appealing. That helps explain why labels that sound healthier at first glance do not always translate into a better overall choice.
The broader takeaway is that shoppers need to look past the marketing on the front of the package. Consumer Reports has warned that terms such as “natural” and “multigrain” can be especially slippery, while the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service notes that many claims on food packaging are voluntary and vary in how tightly they are regulated. The Cornell findings add to a longer line of research, including studies in Europe and at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, showing that health claims do not reliably guarantee a more nutritious product. For parents and caregivers trying to compare options quickly, the most practical approach is still to check the full nutrition label, not just the slogan.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
