An analysis of nearly 150,000 US food and drink launches found that about two-thirds carrying a front-of-pack claim still ranked as less healthy overall.
Food packages are full of promises: lower fat, extra fibre, whole grain, non-GMO and other claims that are meant to steer shoppers towards better choices. But new research suggests those front-of-pack messages can be a poor substitute for a full look at nutrition.
A study published in Nature Food examined almost 150,000 packaged foods and drinks launched in the United States between 2015 and 2024. Cornell researchers Pei Zhou, Miguel Gómez and Harry Kaiser, working with Yuqing Zheng of the University of Kentucky, sorted package statements into four broad groups: minus claims, which highlight lower levels of ingredients such as sodium; plus claims, which emphasise added or increased nutrients; natural claims, which refer to production methods or ingredients; and functional claims, which point to supposed health benefits. The team then measured the products against the UK Nutrient Profiling Model, a scoring system used in Britain to assess the balance of nutrients across an entire product rather than a single selling point.
The result was striking. More than half of the products carried at least one claim, yet around two-thirds of those items still fell into the model’s less healthy category. Some claims were linked to modestly better scores, but the pattern was uneven and often came with trade-offs. Drinks advertised as lower in sodium or saturated fat, for example, tended to contain more sugar. In dairy and egg products, as well as meals and side dishes, claims about lower trans fat were associated with lower protein alongside higher saturated fat and sodium. In other words, one positive message on the package did not necessarily mean the whole product was a better choice.
Natural claims were the most common, but the researchers found they were not a reliable marker of nutrition quality. Claims such as “no artificial flavours” or “no preservatives” often appeared on products with weaker nutrient profiles, reinforcing the so-called halo effect, in which shoppers assume that one positive attribute means the entire food is healthier. The authors said that could reflect reformulation trade-offs, where manufacturers improve one part of a product while worsening another, or selective signalling, where a package highlights a virtue and leaves out the rest.
The study’s findings land at a time when U.S. regulators are trying to make nutrition information easier to understand. The Food and Drug Administration finalised an updated definition of “healthy” in December 2024, saying the term should better reflect current nutrition science and dietary guidance by requiring more beneficial food groups and tighter limits on saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. The rule took effect on 28 April 2025, and manufacturers have until 25 February 2028 to comply. Even so, the broader message from the new research is simple: a claim on the front of a packet can be useful, but it does not tell the whole story. Shoppers still need to check the back of the pack for added sugar, sodium and saturated fat, and compare versions before assuming that “less” of one ingredient means “better” overall.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
