Health claims on packs: what the new study teaches shoppers

In short: An analysis published in Nature Food on 24 September 2026 examined 145609 new packaged foods and drinks launched in the United States from 2015 to 2024. More than half carried at least one of the studied on-pack claims, while about two thirds were classified as less favourable by the UK nutrient model used in the paper. The study does not establish that individual products broke the law. It shows the limits of reading an isolated marketing statement as an overall verdict.

What the researchers compared

The team grouped statements into four types: Minus for reduced components such as sugar or sodium, Plus for highlighted beneficial components, Functional for promoted functions and Natural for origin or naturalness. It then compared products with and without those claims using the UK Nutrient Profiling Model 2004–2005. The model weighs energy, saturated fat, sugar and sodium against fibre, protein and fruit and vegetable content.

The central finding

Front-of-pack claims did not provide a reliable overall judgement. Across the market, products with claims often scored more favourably, but the pattern varied by product category and statement. Discrepancies appeared particularly often among drinks. Products with low-sodium or low-saturated-fat claims sometimes had more total sugar, while foods with trans-fat claims sometimes contained more saturated fat.

Why “natural” answers a different question

Words such as natural, organic, non-GMO or whole grain may describe production, origin or a particular ingredient. They do not automatically summarize sugar, sodium, fat, energy and portion size. The researchers discuss a halo effect, in which one positively perceived property colours the overall assessment. That does not make every such statement false. It means the claim should not be read as promising more than its defined content supports.

What the study does not prove

The sample covered newly launched US products in a commercial database, not the entire German market. The work was descriptive and did not observe actual purchases or long-term health outcomes. The UK model is a transparent benchmark, but it is not the US legal rule for every claim. The data therefore show neither that every promoted product is unfavourable nor that any individual product is deceptive.

Four steps at the shelf

• Translate the claim: Identify exactly what “low”, “free from” or “high in” refers to and which reference amount applies.
• Read nutrients together: Compare similar products per 100 grams or millilitres and consider sugar, sodium, saturated fat, fibre and protein as a group.
• Check ingredients: Their order roughly reflects quantity; allergens and added ingredients answer different questions from the front panel.
• Consider use: Portion, frequency and the rest of the meal matter more than one positive-sounding word.

A sober view of clean label

A short ingredient list can be easy to understand, but it is not a complete nutrition test. Conversely, added vitamins, minerals or technically necessary ingredients can lengthen a list without automatically making a product worse. For cooking with manageable ingredient sets, browse our recipes by ingredient and breakfast ideas. A packaged product still needs to be judged by its own declaration.

What also applies in the EU

Nutrition and health claims are regulated in the European Union and must not mislead. Authorised health claims have defined conditions of use. Mandatory labelling also supplies ingredients, allergens and a nutrition table. Even a lawful single claim does not replace that broader picture: it can be factually correct while describing only a small part of the food.

Conclusion: use the front as a clue and the back as a check

The new study clarifies the practical difference between a true partial statement and a complete evaluation. A claim can help with initial sorting, but it should not decide alone. Comparing products within the same category works better when the reference amount, nutrition table, ingredients, portion and personal use are considered together. “Natural” or “low” begins a question; it does not finish it.

Sources and update

• Zhou et al.: On-package claims are imperfect signals of overall nutritional quality, Nature Food, published 24 September 2026.
• Cornell Chronicle: What healthy labeling on packaged food conceals, accompanying report from 24 September 2026.
• European Commission: Nutrition and Health Claims, EU framework and register.
• European Commission: Labelling, overview of mandatory food information.

Author: Kochzauber editorial team. Information updated on 26 September 2026. This article explains a descriptive US market analysis and assesses no individual brand. The cover is an editorial symbolic image.