As the FDA moves closer to finalizing a new front-of-package nutrition label for packaged foods and beverages, new research suggests that how well those labels work may depend heavily on who is reading them.
The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, tested six different front-of-package label designs to see how well they helped consumers identify healthier foods. While the FDA’s proposed “Nutrition Info Box” performed best among people with higher nutrition literacy, it was less effective for consumers with lower nutrition literacy, potentially widening gaps in understanding.
Researchers conducted an online randomized trial involving more than 5,000 adults across the United States who were their household’s primary grocery shoppers. Participants represented a wide range of education levels, incomes, racial and ethnic backgrounds and nutrition knowledge. Each participant was randomly assigned to view foods and beverages with one of six label designs, including versions similar to the FDA’s proposed label, color-coded “spectrum” labels and other interpretive formats used internationally.
Participants were shown pairs of products and asked to identify which option they believed was healthier. The results showed that all front-of-package labels improved understanding compared with the current status quo, but the size of the benefit varied widely. The largest gap between people with higher and lower nutrition literacy appeared with the Nutrition Info Box label, while spectrum-style labels produced the smallest differences between groups.
“For each of the labeling systems we measured the gap in understanding between people with higher and lower nutrition literacy,” said lead investigator Anna H. Grummon of Stanford University School of Medicine. “We were surprised to find that the Nutrition Info labels worked so much better for consumers with higher nutrition literacy compared to lower nutrition literacy.”
The findings raise important questions as the FDA considers which label design to mandate nationally. While detailed nutrient information may appeal to consumers who are already comfortable interpreting nutrition data, simpler visual cues may be more accessible to a broader range of shoppers.
The study also reinforces a key limitation of nutrition labeling more broadly: helping people identify healthier options does not necessarily lead to healthier purchases. In prior research, the authors found that some labels improved understanding without changing what people actually bought, while simpler spectrum labels were more likely to influence purchasing behavior.
Taken together, the results suggest that front-of-package labels are most effective when they communicate a clear, simple message and reduce the cognitive effort required to compare products. They also highlight the risk that well-intentioned nutrition policies could unintentionally widen disparities if label designs favor consumers with higher levels of nutrition knowledge.
The authors emphasize that front-of-package labels are only one tool for improving diet quality. Their impact is shaped by how information is presented, how much time consumers have to make decisions and how well labels fit into the realities of everyday grocery shopping.
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Additional support was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.