Evaluating “natural” and “healthy” food labels: implications for policy and consumer choices

Purpose This study evaluates whether products carrying “natural” claims are more nutritious than their counterparts, and examines whether regulated front-of-package nutrition labels (FOPNL) incentivize replacing sugar with nonsugar sweeteners (NSS). Design/methodology/approach We conduct regression analyses of newly introduced U.S. products in four categories, comparing products with and without natural claims against nutrition criteria of the FDA’s proposed “Healthy” label and Chile’s warning labels, and assessing the incentive to use NSS. Findings “Natural” products are not consistently more nutritious than their “non-natural” ones, although in most categories they are less likely to contain NSS. The FDA Healthy standard and Chile’s warning labels strongly incentivize replacing sugar with NSS. Products with NSS are up to 61% more likely to qualify as “Healthy” and require up to 0.98 fewer warning labels, possibly promoting reformulation with ingredients not yet proven safe. Practical implications Findings support policy recommendations, including consumer education, transparency in labeling, NSS disclosure, and developing policies that reduce added sugar without encouraging NSS use. Recommendations for manufacturers include focusing on verifiable nutrition-improving claims, disclosing NSS use and providing NSS-free versions. Originality/value We improve upon prior research by using stronger data and methods, and make a novel contribution to the limited literature on how FOPNL incentivize producers to replace added sugar with NSS. We show how “natural” claims interact with FDA Healthy and Chilean warnings to potentially complicate consumers’ inference about nutritional quality and healthfulness.