Food labels are meant to inform. New research suggests they may also shape decisions in ways that go beyond simple information.
In a study published in Food Quality and Preference, researchers found that shoppers were more likely to choose snacks labeled as “healthy” and were willing to pay more for them, especially when the label was associated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“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.
The findings come as the FDA updates its definition of the term “healthy” for food packaging and considers introducing a standardized label icon.
Researchers conducted an in-store experiment with 267 shoppers in the Boston area. Participants were shown a series of real snack products, first without any special labeling and then with labels indicating whether the products met the FDA’s updated “healthy” criteria. Some products carried a generic healthy label, while others included an FDA-associated label.
Participants were given money and the opportunity to make a real purchase, a design intended to reflect actual shopping decisions rather than hypothetical choices.
Across the experiment, shoppers were more likely to select snacks that met the healthy criteria. That preference increased when labels were added. While both generic and FDA-associated labels were linked to higher selection of healthier options, only the FDA label produced a statistically significant effect.
The label also influenced how much people were willing to pay. On average, participants were willing to spend about 59 cents more for a product labeled as healthy with FDA backing compared to the same product without a label.
“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, an economist at Tufts University.
The effect of the label was not uniform. Participants who reported higher levels of trust in government were more likely to respond to the FDA label, suggesting that credibility plays a key role in how food labels are interpreted.
“Our findings demonstrate that labels act as signals for consumers, and policy can shape how well those signals work,” Cash said.
The study focused on consumer behavior rather than health outcomes, meaning it does not show whether labeled products improve diet quality or long-term health. It also involved a relatively small group of shoppers in one region, which may limit how broadly the findings apply.
Still, the results highlight how quickly purchasing decisions can shift based on labeling, and how much those decisions may depend on trust as much as information.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.