Health-related claims on packaged foods and drinks do not consistently signal better overall nutrition, according to a Cornell-led analysis of nearly 150,000 products introduced in the United States over a decade. Some products making a claim about one ingredient scored worse on other measures, the researchers found.
The Cornell Chronicle's account of the study says the team examined new-product data from market research firm Mintel. Miguel Gómez, a Cornell food-marketing professor, and postdoctoral researcher Pei Zhou led the work to test whether packages with health claims were healthier overall than those without such claims.
The researchers used the Nutrient Profiling Model developed by the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency. Rather than assess a single claim, the model weighs calories, sugar, sodium and saturated fat against fiber, protein and fruit and vegetable content. British regulators use it when determining which products can be advertised to children, Cornell said.
Using that measure, about two-thirds of the newly launched products in the sample were classified as less healthy overall, even though about half displayed a health-related claim. The result does not mean every claimed benefit was false: A product can accurately advertise one nutritional attribute while still having a less favorable overall profile.
Trade-offs differ for foods and drinks
Zhou said she began asking the question after noticing that a lower-fat cream cheese had more sugar and sodium than the original version. The study examined that kind of trade-off across a much larger set of products.
Beverages showed the clearest mismatch, according to Cornell. Claims such as low sodium, sugar free and low saturated fat were less reliable signs of overall nutritional quality. Food products performed better on most claims, but reduced trans-fat claims were associated with higher saturated fat.
The researchers described examples in which reducing sodium could coincide with more sugar, or removing trans fat could accompany more saturated fat and sodium. Those comparisons concern the products studied; they do not show that every product bearing a particular claim has the same trade-off.
Claims describe an attribute, not the whole product
Cornell also highlighted what researchers called a health halo around terms such as natural, organic, non-GMO and whole grain. Those labels can influence how shoppers judge a product, even though they do not themselves summarize its sugar, sodium or fat content. The article cites earlier consumer research on that perception.
Gómez and Zhou did not accuse manufacturers of breaking labeling rules. They said claims are generally regulated for accuracy about the specific attribute named on a package, not as a judgment of the product's entire nutritional profile.
The researchers favor a broader front-of-package approach that would convey nutritional quality across several measures rather than rely on isolated claims. Cornell said the Food and Drug Administration has updated its definition for use of the word healthy and proposed a front-labeling system; the study does not establish that the proposal has been adopted.
For shoppers, the researchers' practical point is to compare the full nutrition label, including added sugars, sodium and saturated fat, instead of treating a front-of-package claim as a final verdict. Gómez said a more comprehensive system could help consumers but would be politically difficult to implement.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.