"Healthy" food labels increased consumer selections of healthier snacks and consumers were willing to pay a premium for such labeled products, according to new research.
In 2024, the FDA updated the definition of the term "healthy" as it relates to how manufacturers can use the word on food packages. The new definition replaced one from 1992 and is consistent with current nutrition science and federal dietary guidance.
Also for the first time, the agency proposed an "FDA healthy" label icon for food packages, which is still undergoing approval.
The new study, led by researchers at Oregon State University and Tufts University, examined consumer purchasing preferences for snack products with and without healthy labels, focusing on the new FDA definition and healthy symbol to understand how endorsement from a regulator, such as the FDA, shapes consumer choices.
"Our main finding is that trust in government was an important part for people and that they were willing to pay more for that label," said lead author Katherine Fuller, an assistant professor at Oregon State University who studies consumer behavior, particularly in the context of food and sustainability.
Fuller noted that the finding mirrors past research related to the USDA "organic" label, which has also been associated with a premium price.
For the new study, published in Food Quality and Preference, the researchers conducted an experiment in 2023 with 267 shoppers in person at six grocery stores in the Boston area. In the stores, participants were given tablets and shown pictures of 15 real-world products, nine of which were considered healthy and six that were not.
Participants first viewed products without any special healthy label and then viewed the same products, with those products meeting the new FDA "healthy" standards bearing either a generic healthy label or the FDA-healthy label. Participants received $5 in cash and a $10 gift card from the store. They were informed that the $5 could be applied toward the purchase of a product they selected in one of the scenarios they were presented. This procedure ensured the participants' decisions had real economic consequences.
"Giving study participants purchasing power in a setting that mirrored a real shopping experience let us better observe how the labels might influence behavior," said senior author Sean Cash, chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and an economist studying food policy and consumer behavior.
Each participant also completed a survey providing information about their demographics, knowledge of healthy food options and levels of generalized trust and trust in government.
Research findings from the study included:
- Consumers were more likely to choose the healthy snacks over unhealthy options.
- Consumers' preference for healthy snacks increased when products were labeled with healthy icons. While the FDA and generic labels were associated with higher selection of healthy snacks, only the FDA label had a statistically significant effect.
- Prior findings that consumers are willing to pay more for labeled healthy foods were confirmed, and, additionally, the new results showed that adding a healthy label increases this premium further. For example, consumers were willing to pay 59 cents more on average for a healthy product with an FDA-endorsed label compared to a product with no label.
- The stronger effect of the FDA label reflects the role of perceived institutional credibility. These results are consistent with previous studies that demonstrate institutionally credible labels more effectively shape consumer decisions.
- The effectiveness of the FDA's healthy label varied with the degree to which consumers indicated they trusted the government.
"Our findings demonstrate that labels act as signals for consumers, and policy can shape how well those signals work," said Cash. "When labels are viewed as credible, such as when they have the endorsement of a government agency, they are more likely to influence eating patterns and purchasing habits."
"Right now, there is a lot of misinformation about what is healthy and what isn't healthy," Fuller added. "Having a clear label, supported by scientific research, saying this is healthy because we checked, is important."
Co-authors of the paper are Julia Reedy Sharib, Bingbing Fan and Dariush Mozaffarian, of the Friedman School at Tufts University, and Jennifer L. Pomeranz, of New York University.
Citation and Disclaimer: Research reported in this article was supported by the National Institutes of Health's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under award number R01HL115189. Complete information on authors, funders, limitations, methodology and conflicts of interest is available in the published paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders.
