“Natural” and “healthy” labels may confuse shoppers more than help

By Dr. Liji Thomas, MDReviewed by Lauren HardakerApr 15 2026

New research reveals why front-of-pack labels alone may not be enough to guide healthier choices, as consumer beliefs about naturalness and processing continue to shape what ends up in the shopping basket.

Study: State of the Art of Food Front-of-Package Labeling Systems Considering Consumer Trends and Perceptions about Natural Health, and Food Processing and Sustainability. Image credit: Stock-Asso/Shutterstock.com

Front-of-package (FOP) labels are meant to help consumers quickly identify healthy food choices. However, their effectiveness depends heavily on how shoppers interpret terms like “healthy,” “natural,” “processed,” and “sustainable,” according to a recent review in ACS Nutrition Science.

Defining healthy diets beyond nutrients and food groups

A healthy diet involves a balanced intake of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, while limiting the consumption of sugar, sodium, trans fats, and saturated fats. The classic example is the Mediterranean diet, but it also contains foods like ham and pastries that are high in salt and fat.

Thus, healthy food is a complex concept rather than a purely nutritional one, and no single food can be classified as entirely “good” or “bad” in isolation; health outcomes depend more on overall dietary patterns than on individual foods. The Mediterranean diet is considered healthy largely because of the associated active and socially responsive lifestyle and nutritional variety.

The perception of food healthiness may vary by food category (fruits versus sweets), “nutrients of concern” (such as sodium, sugar, and saturated fats), nutritional label, organic origin, physical or sensory characteristics, and degree of processing.

Food philosophies and health issues also influence what is considered healthy. Dairy products are unhealthy for someone with lactose intolerance, and gluten for someone with celiac disease. Dark chocolate is moderately high in calories but rich in bioactive compounds, making it a healthy option in moderation.

Processed versus natural foods

This complexity extends to how consumers interpret food processing.

It is important to note that processing food does not automatically make it unhealthy, and there is no direct, linear relationship between the level of processing and health. Some processed foods are high in sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. However, other food processes are required to fortify foods with essential micronutrients, increase the nutritional value of foods with high antinutrient content, and enhance vitamin retention.

Natural products may not always be the best for health, according to the authors, who observe that some non-natural foods (processed cassava, for instance) have lower toxicity than their natural counterparts (natural cassava may contain compounds that are converted to cyanide). Consumers tend to confuse naturalness with health because of lower processing, which is not an evidence-based belief, and reflects a broader gap between consumer perception and scientific evidence.

FOP labeling systems

Multiple food labeling strategies have been rolled out across countries, typically linked to local needs and health policy. FOP labeling is designed to “inform consumers at a glance about the relative healthiness of a product (interpretative system), the nutrients of concern (noninterpretative system), or both,” and is intended as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for broader dietary guidelines.

Types of FOP labeling systems

The authors review several FOP food classification systems. Some are color-coded, like the interpretive NutriScore; others, like the Healthy Star Rating or FOP symbols, visually represent nutrients of concern. Others are noninterpretive nutrition, such as NutrInform or FOP warning labels, which provide numerical information about nutrients of concern.

Hybrid systems, such as the Traffic Label System, provide color-coded warnings alongside numerical information. In addition, there are sustainability labels, such as Enviroscore, that assess environmental impact, and Naturalness labels, such as the Food Naturalness Index. However, each system uses different criteria, thresholds, and methodologies, and none are free from scientific criticism or limitations, reflecting ongoing scientific debate about how best to classify and communicate food healthiness.

FOP labels that use numbers and percentages to describe nutrient content are more difficult to understand. In contrast, colors, symbols, and simple terms like “low”, “medium,” and “high” are easier to understand and possibly act upon.

Benefits of FOP labeling

FOP labeling makes nutritional information more visible and understandable. It may help consumers make more informed choices and speed up decision-making, especially among those with little education. It may encourage manufacturers to make healthier food formulations. The Codex Alimentarius considers it to provide complementary, easily understandable nutrition information alongside the nutrition label.

Limitations of FOP labeling

The actual impact of labeling on long-term consumer behavior, dietary choices, and obesity prevalence remains unclear. Consumer choices are shaped not just by labels but by price, often a more important factor; by branding and marketing; by personal preferences; by sociocultural expectations; and by nutritional knowledge.

Food scientists and others in the field of nutrition sometimes complain that such labeling systems oversimplify the nutritional composition of foods. Moreover, some consumers express skepticism or limited trust toward labeling systems developed by industry or government institutions.

Future directions

FOP labeling, while essential for transparency, should align with consumer perceptions to be more effective. More accurate and standardized food classification systems are needed to reflect the multiple aspects of food, including nutritional, sustainability, and processing-related information, particularly as environmental and sustainability considerations become increasingly central to food systems.

The solution lies in reducing the complexity of the communication form used and not the information behind it.

Stronger regulatory guidelines are required to ensure the consistent use of such systems. Label design should focus on simpler formats that are easily understood, rather than purely numerical information. Consumer education remains critical to bridge the gap between food science and food choices, helping individuals to evaluate labels correctly rather than making decisions based on terms like “natural” or “healthy.”

Download your PDF copy by clicking here.