Foods marketed as “natural” are not consistently more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, and some front-of-package nutrition labels may unintentionally encourage manufacturers to swap sugar for non-sugar sweeteners, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the British Food Journal, analyzed newly introduced U.S. packaged foods and found that while “natural” claims can influence consumer perceptions, they are unreliable indicators of overall nutritional quality.

Christoph Bauner and Nathalie Lavoie, associate professors in the Department of Resource Economics at UMass Amherst, examined products introduced between 2020 and 2023 across four categories—yogurt, ice cream, bread and nut spreads—comparing items with and without “natural” claims, such as “all natural,” “free-from” and “non-GMO.”

Bauner and Lavoie found no consistent nutritional advantage for products carrying natural claims. Some items with these labels contained less of certain unhealthy ingredients, such as added sugar or sodium, but others contained more saturated fat or less fiber and protein.

“Consumers should not assume that products labeled ‘natural’ are more nutritious,” Lavoie cautions. “The ‘natural’ label is not regulated. It’s a marketing tool for companies … and it’s very confusing for consumers because now we have packages that are full of different logos and claims.”

The study also evaluated how the four categories of products would perform under two nutrition labeling systems: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s proposed “healthy” label and Chile’s front-of-package warning label law. The latter was selected as a comparison because of its success in encouraging better food choices and its differences from the FDA’s proposal.

Products containing non-sugar sweeteners were significantly more likely to meet the FDA’s proposed “healthy” criteria and required fewer warning labels under Chile’s system. Most notably, ice creams with these sweeteners were up to 61 percentage points more likely to qualify as “healthy.”

“We found that pretty striking,” Bauner notes. 

This dynamic may create incentives for manufacturers to reformulate products by replacing added sugar with alternative sweeteners. The long-term health effects of these alternatives remain under scientific review.

At the same time, products with natural claims were generally less likely to contain non-sugar sweeteners, aligning more closely with consumer expectations about “natural” ingredients.

Image

Bauner and Lavoie caution that the coexistence of unregulated natural claims and regulated nutrition labels may add to marketplace confusion, especially as shoppers increasingly rely on front-of-package cues to guide purchasing decisions.

“It’s an effect known as the health halo,” Bauner says. “People can look at the ‘natural’ label on a product and attribute to it healthy properties that it may not necessarily have.”

The authors recommend clearer labeling standards, disclosure of non-sugar sweeteners and consumer education to help shoppers better interpret food claims. In the meantime, they emphasize that the responsibility remains mainly with consumers to carefully evaluate product information. 

“Make sure to consult the nutrition facts panel, read the ingredients list, and familiarize yourself with non-sugar sweeteners,” such as aspartame, Lavoie advises.

For manufacturers, the study suggests highlighting verifiable nutrition improvements, such as reduced sodium, sugar or saturated fat, rather than relying primarily on natural claims. 

The analysis is based on data from the Mintel Global New Products Database for products introduced in the U.S. between January 2020 and July 2023. The four product categories were selected because they were relatively easy to compare while also featuring a significant degree of nutritional variation.