United States Department of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 108

February 2013

Introduction of New Food 

Products With Voluntary 

Health- and Nutrition-Related 

Claims, 1989-2010

Steve W. Martinez
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an 

individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Recommended citation format for this publication: 

Martinez, Steve W. Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary 

Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010, EIB-108, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2013.

Photo: Shutterstock.

www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

http://www.ers.usda.gov/

topics/food-choiceshealth/diet-quality-nutrition.aspx

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute 

endorsement by USDA.
United States Department of Agriculture

Abstract

This study tracks food products introduced from 1989 to 2010 to better understand the 

adoption of voluntary health- and nutrition-related claims by companies. New food products introduced with health- and nutrition-related claims accounted for 43.1 percent of 

all new U.S. food product introductions in 2010, up from 25.2 percent in 2001 and 34.6 

percent in 1989. The reduction in health- and nutrition-related claims from 1989 to 2001 

followed enactment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA). The 

NLEA required most food products to carry the Nutrition Facts label and established 

labeling rules for the use of voluntary nutrient content and health claims. Overall growth 

in health- and nutrition-related claims after 2001 reflect increases in low/no calorie, whole 

grain, high fiber, and low/no sugar claims, along with relatively new claims related to no 

gluten, no trans fats, antioxidants, and omega-3. This period was characterized by nutrition information and education campaigns targeting obesity. Recent increases in healthand nutrition-related claim use also reflect evolving consumer needs and preferences for 

foods that promote a healthy lifestyle and disease-fighting capabilities, and new labeling 

regulations directed at trans fats.

Keywords: nutrient content claims, health claims, new products, food labeling regulations, nutrition information, dietary recommendations, functional foods

Acknowledgments

Thanks to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful insight and to Jessica Todd of 

the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS) for 

manuscript review. The author also thanks Priscilla Smith for editorial and production 

services and Wynnice Pointer-Napper for designing the report. 

Introduction of New Food 

Products With Voluntary 

Health- and Nutrition-Related 

Claims, 1989-2010

Economic

Research

Service

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 108

February 2013

Steve W. Martinez, martinez@ers.usda.gov
ii

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Incentives To Market New Food Products Using Voluntary Health- and 

Nutrition-Related Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Food Labeling Legislation Strictly Regulates Health- and Nutrition-

 Related Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Do Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims Affect 

 the Purchase Decision? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Datamonitor Tracks New Food and Beverage Product 

Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Use of Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims 

on New Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

New Food Labeling Regulations and Use of Healthand Nutrition-Related Claims From 1989 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Health and Nutrition-Related Claims by Food Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Types of Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Top Five Food Categories for Leading Health- and Nutrition-

 Related Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Growth in Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims From 

2001 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

New Diet and Nutrition Information and Claims Targeting 

 Weight-Conscious Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Claims Target Evolving Consumer Needs and Preferences 

 for a Healthy Lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

New Labeling Regulations for Trans Fats and Growth of 

 “No Trans Fats” Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Sales and Nutritional Content of New Products with Healthand Nutrition-Related Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

New Product Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Nutritional Content of New Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix 1 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendix 2 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
iii

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

Voluntary health- and nutrition-related claims by food companies were 

present on 43.1 percent of new products introduced in 2010. Health- and 

nutrition-related claims such as “low fat,” “low cholesterol,” or “high fiber” 

potentially influence consumer purchases and can lead companies to reformulate their less healthy products to qualify for the claims; hence, it is important 

to understand food companies’ adoption of these claims.

This study tracks health- and nutrition-related claims on new U.S. food and 

beverage products from 1989 to 2010 and delineates the claims by product category and type of claim. Over the 2009 to 2010 period, we also evaluate sales and 

average nutrient content of all new food and beverage products carrying at least 1 

of the top 10 health- and nutrition-related claims from 2010.

What Did the Study Find?

The percentage of food products making health- and nutrition-related 

claims fell between 1989 and 2001, while the number of claims per 

product increased. The overall percentage decrease in claims followed the 

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990, which was implemented in 1993/1994. The act made the Nutrition Facts label mandatory 

and established rules for the use of voluntary health- and nutrition-related 

claims on food and beverage products, such as those related to low/no 

fat, low/no cholesterol, and high fiber. This suggests that the NLEA may 

have led to reductions in overall claim usage by preventing non-qualifying 

products from using specific claims. In addition, the number of claims per 

product increased from 2.0 in 1989 to 2.2 in 2001. This suggests that the 

NLEA did not undermine the competitive process, but may have contributed to its expansion by establishing a credible means of disclosing health 

and nutritional characteristics. 

From 2001 to 2010, health- and nutrition-related claims became an 

increasingly important feature of new product introductions. Healthand nutrition-related claims per product continued to increase, from 2.2 in 

2001 to 2.6 in 2010, which suggests that competition between companies 

continued to result in a more complete representation of the health and nutritional attributes of their products. A proliferation of new products with claims 

appealing to weight-conscious consumers over 2001 to 2010 reflects growing 

awareness of obesity-related problems and educational campaigns targeting 

obesity. Claims related to gluten, antioxidants, and omega-3 ranked among 

the leading health- and nutrition-related claims by 2010. Growing consumer 

demand for food products that contribute to overall health beyond basic nutrition may have provided manufacturers with incentives to supply and promote 

these products. The largest increase in health- and nutrition-related claims 

over 2001 to 2010 was for “no gluten,” followed by “no trans fats.” The 

growth in “no trans fats” claims came as companies responded to new food 

labeling regulations that required disclosure of the trans fats content, and 

public communications that gave prominence to limiting trans fatty acids. For 

new food products introduced in 2009 and 2010, sales and nutritional quality 
iv

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

of those products carrying health- and nutrition-related claims exceeded that 

of all new food products.

How Was the Study Conducted?

This report relies primarily on data from the Product Launch Analytics database, developed by the Datamonitor Group. We used the database to track 

new products carrying health- and nutrition-related claims from 1989 to 2010. 

Datamonitor’s field research team collected information across 20 elements 

for each new product in the database, including brand, product category 

(e.g., snacks, cereal, and dairy), package size, ingredients, and most common 

marketing messages or claims made on packages. The team also provided a 

qualitative product description. We used Mintel’s Global New Product Database 

(Mintel GNPD) to compare the nutritional profile of new products with 

health- and nutrition-related claims to all new products over 2009 to 2010. We 

used data provided through a partnership between Mintel and Symphony IRI 

(formerly Information Resources, Inc., or IRI) to compare sales of new products in Mintel GNPD over the same period.
1

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

One way that food companies can influence consumer purchases is through 

the use of voluntary health- and nutrition-related (HNR) claims (e.g., “low 

fat,” “high fiber”). They provide a means for companies to differentiate 

their products by identifying foods that are high or low in specific nutrients, which may assist consumers in improving the nutritional quality of 

their diet. Sales of products with fat-, sodium-, and calorie-related claims 

accounted for $73 billion in 2009 (Nielsenwire, 2010) or 12 percent of 

food sales for at-home consumption.1 Past studies of HNR claims have 

mostly focused on impacts on product evaluations and purchase decisions 

of consumers, as opposed to understanding the adoption of HNR claims by 

companies (Roe, Levy, and Derby, 1999; Van Camp et al., 2010). Studies 

of companies’ adoption of HNR claims over periods of changing claims 

regulation, new health and nutrition information, and changing consumer 

preferences complement studies of claim effects on consumers’ product 

evaluations and purchase intentions. 

This study tracks food product introductions carrying HNR claims from 

1989 to 2010. New product introductions were delineated along several 

dimensions including types of HNR claims used, their frequency, and types 

of products making claims. By tracing new product introductions over 

an extended period of time, we can document changes in product claims 

by companies as: food labeling regulations are changed, new health and 

nutrition information is identified, and consumer needs and preferences 

change. Unlike previous studies of HNR claims on new products, this study 

also tracks sales of all products introduced in 2009 and 2010 to compare 

purchase patterns of products with health- and nutrient-related claims to 

all new products. New products with HNR claims will have little impact 

on diet and health unless they are purchased by consumers. Over the same 

period, we also compare the average nutritional profile of products with 

HNR claims to all new products to assess whether the claims could assist 

consumers in choosing more nutritious products. 

This study also addresses recommendations from the White House Task 

Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President (2010), which include 

encouraging industries to shift product portfolios to promote new and 

reformulated foods and beverages that are healthier. Previous progress in 

this area is analyzed by tracking the introduction of products that assist 

consumers in identifying “healthier” formulations, such as low fat, low or 

no sodium, and less or no sugar. Sales of these products are also evaluated 

to determine whether they may account for an increasing share of consumer 

purchases of new products.

Unless otherwise noted, we define “new” to include seven types of product 

introductions, following the nomenclature used by the Datamonitor Group, a 

business information and market analysis company:

1. New flavor(s) of an existing product line.

2. New package size.

1These claims accounted for 15.8 

percent of all HNR claims tracked by 

Datamonitor, a market research agency, 

in 2010.
2

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

3. New packaging formats (for example, a brand of mayonnaise 

formerly available only in glass jars is introduced in plastic squeeze 

bottles.)

4. Newly available within the country.

5. Significantly reformulated (for example, a drink mix is reformulated 

to contain 47 percent less sugar.)

6. Renamed.

7. An entirely new product or product line. 
3

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Incentives To Market New Food Products 

Using Voluntary Health- and NutritionRelated Claims

The introduction of a product represents the first stage of the product life 

cycle, which includes the product’s introduction, its growth in market share, 

maturity, and potential decline in market share (Tanner and Raymond, 

2010). All products do not pass through all stages, and the length of a stage 

may vary. For example, some products may never experience growth and 

are withdrawn from the market. Estimates of market success rates of new 

food products vary depending on how “success” is defined. Based on a 1997 

analysis by Prime Consulting Group Inc., 33 percent of new products were 

deemed successful (i.e., those with sales that remained above second quarter 

sales over a 2-year tracking period), 42 percent were still in distribution 

but declining in sales, and 25 percent failed by year 2 (Progressive Grocer, 

1997). Using a different definition of success, IRI analyzed over 600 products 

introduced between 1996 and 1998 and found that the success rate of new 

products was 48 percent (Sachdev, 2001). A product was deemed successful 

if it was distributed in at least 50 percent of national outlets in its first year 

and didn’t lose more than 30 percent of distribution in year 2. 

Companies that introduce new products may choose to promote the nutrient 

and health benefits of their products. New products may be developed and 

introduced for many reasons, some of which include (IOM, 2010):

•	Satisfying changing consumer preferences for healthier products by

improving nutritional characteristics, for example, by removing undesirable ingredients;

•	Responding to new technologies that make it feasible to create new and

reformulated products, such as the development of healthier substitute 

ingredients (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008);

•	Responding to changes in Government regulations and policies that

provide incentives to reformulate products or develop new ones (for 

example, mandatory disclosure of nutrient content that influences 

consumer choice of food products (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008) and 

lifting of regulatory bans on advertising the health benefits of food products (Ippolito and Mathios, 1990)); and

•	Responding to new or improved products introduced by competitors, for

example, to compete on nutritional quality as a means of differentiating 

their products.

Food companies may also introduce reformulated products to avoid public 

litigation or improve their image. For example, in 2003, a suit against Kraft 

Foods was filed by a public interest group directed at the health impact 

of trans fats in its snack foods (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008). Kraft 

settled out of court by agreeing to reduce the trans fats content in its popular 

brands. In addition, companies may attempt to gain a competitive advantage 

by voluntarily reporting on activities that address responsible social and 

environmental practices. In 2011, 83 percent of the 100 top U.S. companies 

reported on corporate responsibility activities through dedicated corporate 
4

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

responsibility or sustainability reports, company websites, or annual financial 

reports, up from 74 percent in 2008 (KPMG International Cooperative, 2011). 

Several leading food companies use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 

index, which provides standardized guidelines for reporting progress on 

corporate economic, environmental, labor, human rights, social (altruistic), 

and product responsibility practices. For example, Pepsico, Kellogg Company, 

and ConAgra Foods describe progress made in lowering fats, added sugars, 

sodium, and trans fats in the product responsibility component of the index. 

Enhanced reputation from corporate responsibility reporting to consumers 

and investors may create incentives for positive corporate behavior (Yach et 

al., 2010; KPMG International Cooperative, 2011).

Food Labeling Legislation Strictly Regulates 

Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims

Over the period covered in this study, the most significant piece of food 

labeling legislation in recent history was passed (Ghani and Childs, 1999). 

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) established 

labeling regulations that require most products to carry the Nutrition Facts 

label. The regulations also include labeling rules for voluntary claims that 

identify which HNR claims are allowed and under what circumstances they 

can be used. The proposed regulations were published in 1991, and final rules 

were released in January 1993 (Ippolito and Mathios, 1993). The regulations, 

which took effect in May 1994 for nutrient content claims and in May 1993 

for health claims, are interpreted and implemented by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) (Ippolito and Pappalardo, 2002) (see box, “Provisions 

of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990”).2

The objectives of the NLEA were to reduce consumer confusion about 

food labels and aid consumers in making healthy food choices. The act was 

intended to increase the reliability of HNR claims on labels by making it 

more difficult for food companies to make unsubstantiated claims. By giving 

manufacturers an opportunity to make positive claims about their products, 

the NLEA aimed to provide an incentive to increase the availability of more 

healthful food choices (Brecher et al., 2000). 

FDA categorizes HNR claims into nutrient content claims, health claims, 

qualified health claims, and structure/function claims (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2009):

•	Nutrient content claims characterize the level of a nutrient found in food, 

such as “low fat” and “contains 100 calories.” Implied nutrient content 

claims suggest a nutrient is available in a certain amount (e.g., “high in 

oat bran”). 

•	Health claims characterize the presence or absence of a nutrient that is 

linked to a disease or health-related condition (e.g., “diets low in sodium 

may reduce the risk of high blood pressure, a disease associated with 

many factors”). Implied health claims suggest that a relationship exists 

between the presence or level of a substance in the food and a disease 

or health-related condition (e.g., vignettes used with specific nutrient 

information). 

2FDA does not pre-approve all 

claims and, therefore, claims may be 

used that are not sanctioned by the 

regulations until they are challenged by 

the agency.
5

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

•	Qualified health claims differ from health claims in that they must be 

accompanied by a disclaimer (e.g., “scientific evidence suggests but does 

not prove that eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts [such as name of 

specific nut] as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol may 

reduce the risk of heart disease”). 

•	Structure/function claims describe how a product affects the structure 

or function of the body, but do not imply a relationship to a disease (e.g., 

“calcium builds strong bones”). 

Previous studies suggest that most HNR claims are nutrient content claims, 

followed by structure/function claims and health claims. For example, based 

on FDA’s 2000-2001 Food Label and Package Survey (FLAPS), 49.7 percent 

The NLEA set up a premarket approval requirement 

for nutrient content and health claims and required the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define certain 

commonly used terms such as “lite” and “healthy” 

(Silverglade and Heller, 2010). For example, FDA made 

provisions for how much sodium a product could contain 

so that claims such as “sodium free,” “low sodium,” and 

“reduced sodium” could be used. Prior to the regulations, 

nutrition and health claims were used by manufacturers 

without any standardized definition. If a company is 

interested in establishing a new nutrient content or health 

claim, it can petition FDA.

Claims are limited to an approved list of nutrients. Most 

nutrient content claim regulations apply only to nutrients 

that have an established daily value. For nutrients without an 

established daily value, a manufacturer may make a claim 

that specifies the amount of the nutrient per serving (e.g., 

“X grams of omega-3 fatty acids”), but cannot implicitly 

characterize the level of the nutrient (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2009). 

The new regulations allowed for the use of 11 core terms 

on food labels: low, free, lean, extra lean, high, more, good 

source, reduced, less, light, and fewer. Claims that did not 

conform to the new requirements had to be dropped. For 

example, the “X percent fat free” claim could no longer be 

used unless the product qualified as low fat. In addition, 

important cross-compliance requirements were established 

for use of nutrient content claims. If companies make 

nutrient content claims on their labels, they are required to 

disclose undesirable characteristics. For example, a product 

with a “high fiber” claim must have the disclaimer “not a 

low-fat product” if it does not qualify as low fat.

The NLEA rules also allowed for a limited number of health 

claims and restricted which foods could make such claims 

(Ippolito and Mathios, 1993). Foods with excessive levels, 

as established by FDA, of total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, 

or sodium could not carry any health claim on their label. 

In addition, food must contain at least 10 percent of the 

recommended daily intake (RDI) or daily reference value 

(DRV) for vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein, or 

fiber to qualify for a health claim. There are also regulations 

specific to a particular health claim that, for example, require 

the food to meet the definition of “low” or “high” for the 

nutrient associated with the claim. For example, to qualify 

for the health claim “diets low in sodium are associated with 

a low prevalence of hypertension or high blood pressure,” a 

product must meet the criteria for the “low sodium” nutrient 

content claim.

The NLEA does not cover foods regulated by USDA, which 

are primarily meat and poultry products (IOM, 2010). USDA 

voluntarily put in place nutrition labeling regulations consistent 

with those adopted by FDA. In 1993, USDA made the nutrition 

labeling of meat and poultry products mandatory, except for 

single-ingredient, raw products (IOM, 2010). In addition, it 

made similar provisions to that of FDA regarding nutritional 

claims. Beginning on March 1, 2012, nutrition-information 

labeling requirements became mandatory for single-ingredient, 

raw products and ground or chopped meat and poultry. 

The NLEA also does not apply to advertisements, such 

as those in magazines and on websites, which are under 

the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 

May 1994, the FTC issued a policy statement harmonizing 

advertising policy with the new food labeling rules 

(Ippolito and Pappalardo, 2002). All advertising claims are 

subject to general advertising enforcement under the FTC’s 

authority to pursue deceptive business practices. While 

advertisers are not directly bound by the FDA rules, FTC 

policy guidance states that claims not in compliance with 

the FDA rules will receive careful scrutiny from the FTC.

Provisions of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA
6

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

of packaged foods sold at supermarkets were estimated to have a nutrient 

content claim, compared to 6.2 percent with a structure/function claim and 

4.4 percent with a health claim (LeGault et al., 2004).3

Three possible responses by manufacturers to the new regulations were identified by Caswell et al. (2003). First, companies that did not previously use 

claims on products that met the standards for claims could have begun using 

them under the new regulations. Second, companies making claims may have 

dropped them because the claims did not meet the newly detailed requirements. Third, because access to information on nutrition quality is improved, 

manufacturers may reformulate their less nutritious products to qualify for 

HNR claims to differentiate their products from the competition. Overall, 

the number of HNR claims following the new regulations could have risen or 

fallen, depending on these possible manufacturing responses. 

Studies have noted other possible reasons for reductions in the use of HNR 

claims following the NLEA. Claim usage may fall if disclosure requirements 

made them more costly to implement or reduced their effectiveness, since 

companies that make nutrient claims must also highlight undesirable attributes (Ippolito and Pappalardo, 2002; Ippolito and Mathios, 1993). Padberg 

(1992) raised the possibility that manufacturers would not use standardized claims because products would appear alike, and therefore they would 

compete based on non-nutritional criteria, such as taste and packaging.

Do Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims 

Affect the Purchase Decision? 

Some researchers have argued that using HNR claims to advertise new products serves a different and effective function in communicating nutritional 

information to a broader range of consumers than the Nutrition Facts label 

alone (Caswell et al., 2003). Kozup et al. (2003), for instance, concluded that 

presenting consumers with favorable nutrition information or health claims 

leads to positive effects on attitudes toward the product and purchase intentions, and reduces the perceived disease risk. In addition, information from 

the Nutrition Facts label does not moderate the effects of a health claim. Ford 

et al. (1996) concluded that health claims and nutrition information have 

independent effects on perceptions of product healthfulness when both types 

of information are presented. Kim et al. (2001) compared the impact of the 

Nutrition Facts label, serving sizes, nutrient content claims, list of ingredients, 

and health claims on diet quality. They found that, while all lead to healthier 

diets, consumers’ use of health claims has the greatest impact. Levy et al. 

(1999) concluded that nutrient and health claims influence consumer perceptions of the healthfulness of products and positively affect purchase behavior 

for specific product categories and claims. Harris et al. (2011) found that 

nutrition-related claims on children’s cereals made parents more likely to buy 

the cereals. Reported declines in the use of the Nutrition Facts label could 

be due to information costs associated with comparing products using the 

Nutrition Facts label and consumers’ preference for abbreviated health and 

front label claims (Kiesel and Villas-Boas, 2010; Carlson, 2010).

Ippolito and Mathios (1991) concluded that producer advertising of the health 

benefits of their products may have positive impacts on the consumption of 

healthier products beyond that of government and other sources of health 

3An earlier FLAPS survey found 

that 38.7 percent of all products sold 

carried a nutrient content claim in 

1997, and 4.2 percent had a health 

claim (Brecher et al., 2000). Based on 

analysis of food ads from three popular 

consumer magazines between 1998 and 

1999, 65.9 percent of HNR claims were 

nutrient content claims (Parker, 2003). 

Structure/function and health claims 

accounted for 13.1 percent and 4.5 percent of all HNR claims, respectively. 

Caswell et al. (2003) found that more 

than 40 percent of sampled products at 

a superstore from 1992 to 1999 carried 

nutrient content claims, but less than 7 

percent had health-related claims.
7

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

information. This is because producers bring additional resources to advertise health benefits, and they are more likely to use advertising media and 

methods that reach a broader population.

Several studies have examined the effects of HNR claims in experimental 

settings. In the presence of a Nutrition Facts label, health and nutrition claims 

on the front of a package were found not to have a positive effect on consumers’ 

evaluation of product healthfulness (Garretson and Burton, 2000; Teratanavat 

et al., 2004; Keller et al., 1997; Mitra et al., 1999) or purchase intentions 

(Garretson and Burton, 2000; Keller et al., 1997). In addition, inconsistencies 

between a claim and information from the Nutrition Facts label can reduce 

trust in the manufacturer and the claim (Garretson and Burton, 2000; Keller 

et al., 1997). On the other hand, Wansink and Chandon (2006) concluded that 

“low fat” nutrition claims lead overweight consumers to overeat snack foods by 

increasing serving sizes and reducing consumption guilt. 

Others have found more complex relationships between how consumers use 

Nutrition Facts labels and voluntary health- and nutrition-related claims. 

For example, Drewnowski et al. (2010) found that consumer perception 

of product healthfulness was most strongly driven by proclaimed presence of protein, fiber, vitamin C, and calcium, and absence of saturated fat 

and sodium, but less influenced by sugar, total fat, and vitamin A content 

claims. In addition, nutrient content claims had a much greater influence on 

women compared to men. Kemp et al. (2007) found that consumers who are 

more motivated to process nutrition information are also more likely to use 

information from the Nutrition Facts label, less likely to purchase a product 

based only on nutrient claims, and better able to link certain nutrition information to disease risk perceptions. The effect of HNR claims on purchases 

is further complicated by the importance of taste compared to nutritional 

quality when making purchase decisions (Drichoutis et al., 2006; Chandon 

and Wansink, 2011; Stewart, Blisard, and Jolliffe, 2006; Moorman et al., 

2012; Glanz et al., 1998; French et al., 1999).

Consumers’ use of HNR claims may also be affected by information linking 

diet and health, which may increase consumer demand for healthier product 

formulations. Public nutrition education efforts, such as those that implement the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans, may influence public 

awareness and understanding of diet and health linkages (Dharmasena 

et al., 2011). Szykman et al. (1997) concluded that programs designed 

to educate consumers about the effectiveness of diet in combating and 

preventing disease may lead to greater use of package claims and nutrition 

labels. Changes in consumer interest in the nutrition attributes of products 

is expected to affect food companies’ voluntary use of marketing claims of 

superiority with respect to one or more nutrients (Caswell et al., 2003).
8

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Datamonitor Tracks New Food and Beverage 

Product Introductions

This report relies extensively on Datamonitor’s Product Launch Analytics 

(PLA) database, which provides updated information on new product 

introductions 24 hours a day, 5 days per week. A field research team 

collects information across 20 elements for each product in the database, 

including brand, product category (e.g., snacks, cereal, dairy), package 

size, ingredients, and most common marketing messages or claims made 

on packages. A qualitative product description is also provided. For a 

product to count as “new,” it must have been launched within the last 

12 months of being identified (see box “Datamonitor’s Product Launch 

Analytics Data Collection Methodology”). 

Attributes of new products are generally only incrementally different from 

existing products. Product introductions that closely resemble successful 

products may be viewed by companies as less risky compared to major 

changes since consumers are averse to radically different products (Padberg 

and Westgren, 1979). Datamonitor identifies six types of innovative new 

products that are the first to offer breakthrough features and benefits:

1. Innovative formulations include a first-ever variety or products containing new ingredients that offer benefits not previously 

provided. Examples include a tortilla chip line made from blue corn 

that contains fruits such as blueberries, strawberries and cranberries; 

a gluten-free chocolate glazed doughnut; and popcorn that is high in 

omega-3, omega-6, and omega-9 fatty acids.

2. Innovative positioning targets new users or positioning for new uses 

compared to existing products, such as a raw pork product geared 

exclusively toward making fajitas and a sandwich spread designed 

specifically for panini sandwiches. 

3. Innovative packaging benefit provides a new benefit through 

package design, for example, a compostable bag for chips that is 

made from wood pulp sourced from tree plantations that are certified 

by the Forest Stewardship Council, a rice pouch that converts to a 

bowl, and a plastic bottle with a built-in straw.

4. New market products create a new market that does not compete 

with any existing product categories, such as a sandwich packaged in 

a can that offers convenience and protection for people on the go.

5. Innovative technology includes new products that use a new 

manufacturing process to provide consumer benefits. For example, 

advanced freezing technology for fully cooked rice that prevents the 

rice from clumping to allow the consumer to control serving size, and 

an innovative process that allows plant-based material to be used in 

plastic bottles that replaces nonrenewable resources typically used, 

such as petroleum. 
9

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

6. Innovative merchandising includes products marketed through an 

outlet unique to the category, for example, a unique display or packaging option, or a pouch of soup with a unique tracking code that 

can be used to track the ingredients and allows the consumer to see 

where each ingredient is sourced. 

Typically, fewer than 10 percent of new food and beverage product introductions are classified by Datamonitor as innovative. For example, in 2010, only 

2.7 percent were classified as innovative, down from 7.4 percent in 2001 and 

8.4 percent in 1995. Innovative formulations were by far the most common 

type of innovation. In 2010, they accounted for 80 percent of innovative products, followed by innovative packaging benefits (15 percent), innovative positioning (12 percent), and innovative merchandising (4 percent).4 4Percentages do not sum to 100 since 

a product may have more than one type 

of innovation.

New product information for Datamonitor’s Product Launch Analytics (PLA) 

database is captured from a variety of primary and secondary sources. The 

major primary source of data is actual new product samples. These samples 

are obtained through regular shopping trips conducted by PLA shoppers and 

staff, trade show visits by PLA staff, and samples sent by manufacturers and 

retailers. Regular visits are made to local retail outlets to purchase new products, 

including grocery chains, drug stores and pharmacies, convenience stores, club 

stores, mass merchandisers, hypermarkets, health food stores, and gourmet 

and specialty stores. PLA shoppers are asked to target specific categories and 

brands. PLA editors attend trade shows on a regular basis to gain first-hand 

information on new product launches, in some cases before the products reach 

the shelves. Through partnerships with key marketers/manufacturers, new 

product samples are sometimes sent along with a press release. Secondary 

data sources include company and trade websites, manufacturer and PR firm 

press releases, trade and consumer magazines and newspapers, and news and 

broadcast advertisements.

Data quality control measures include:

•	Processes and procedures for data collection, product classification, and

listing of product details, 

•	An editorial board to ensure consistency and quality standards,

•	Intensive training of editors to ensure consistency across editorial offices,

•	Stringent checks of all new reports before publication, and

•	Checks of all product reports against past entries to ensure that that only

new products are reported.

Datamonitor’s Product Launch Analytics Data 

Collection Methodology
10

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Use of Health- and Nutrition-Related 

Claims on New Products

We track trends in new U.S. food and beverage introductions with voluntary HNR claims over 1989 to 2010. We trace changes in food producers’ 

use of claims after implementation of the NLEA in 1994, along with recent 

developments in claim usage. HNR claims include those from the list of 

most common claims/tags in the Product Launch Analytics (PLA) database. 

Because the number of new products introduced varies from year to year, the 

importance of HNR claims is measured by the percentage of new products 

with these claims. 

In general, between 25 percent and 44 percent of new products carried at 

least one HNR claim on an annual basis from 1989 to 2010. Use of the claims 

displayed divergent trends over the period (fig. 1). From 1989 to 2001, the 

percentage of new products with at least one HNR claim trended downward, 

from 34.6 percent in 1989 to 25.2 percent in 2001. After 2001, this percentage 

showed a marked reversal from earlier years, increasing from 25.2 percent in 

2001 to 43.1 percent in 2010.

In the following sections, we delineate HNR claims by food categories and 

type of nutrient claims to gain insight into the underlying factors associated 

with the general trends described earlier in this report. We trace changes in 

the use of HNR claims when use was declining (1989-2001) and when it was 

growing (2001-2010).

Figure 1

Percentage of new food and beverage products with health- and 

nutrition-related claims, 1989-2010

Percent

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05 07 09

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
11

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

New Food Labeling Regulations and Use of 

Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims From 

1989 and 2001

The downward trend in new product introductions with HNR claims over 

1989 to 2001 suggests that implementation of the NLEA in 1994 may have 

restricted use of the claims. This corroborates an earlier analysis of existing 

products at a representative superstore by Caswell et al. (2003). They found 

that the percentage of products with voluntary health and nutrient content 

claims fell by 5 percentage points from 1992 to 1999. As noted by Caswell et 

al. (2003), the impact of NLEA on voluntary nutrient content claims may be 

understated in their study if manufacturers began to adjust to the new regulations prior to their implementation.5

For those products with HNR claims, the number of claims per product 

increased from 2.0 claims in 1989 to 2.2 in 2001. This lends support for the 

“unfolding hypothesis,” that competition between companies will lead to 

a more complete representation of the nutrition and health dimensions of 

their products than provided through a single claim (Ippolito and Mathios, 

1994; Ippolito and Pappalardo, 2002). The NLEA did not appear to undermine the unfolding process, but may have contributed to its expansion by 

providing a credible means of promoting the health and nutritional characteristics of products.

Health and Nutrition-Related Claims 

by Food Category

Appendix 1 table 1 shows the percentage of new products with HNR claims in 

16 product categories and several subcategories in select years from 1989 to 2010. 

Over 1989 to 2001, the percentage of products that carried HNR claims fell in 12 

of the 16 categories. Oils and fats, such as cooking spray, shortening, and frying 

oil, had by far the largest reduction, falling from 65.8 percent to 19.6 percent. 

Ippolito and Pappalardo (2002) found that after publication of proposed NLEA 

regulations in 1991, which prohibit health claims for products that are not low fat, 

health and nutritional claims in the oils and fats category fell dramatically. This 

suggests that the NLEA rules may have shifted the focus of competition in the 

oils and fats category away from nutrition to other issues.6 Reductions in the other 

11 categories ranged from 0.6 percentage points for beverages to 15 percentage 

points, led by desserts and ice cream (-14.4 points); meat, fish, and poultry (-13.9 

points); bakery items (-12.6 points); and snacks (-11.4 points) (fig. 2). Declines in 

the bakery, snack, and oils and fats categories occurred prior to 1994, perhaps in 

anticipation of the NLEA. 

Four categories had relatively modest percentage point increases in HNR 

claims, including fruits and vegetables (4.7 points), soup (2.4 points), baby 

food (1.9 points), and meals and entrees (1.5 points).7 Hence, following 

NLEA, there was some redistribution of HNR claims from products such 

as oils and fats, desserts and ice cream, bakery items, and snacks toward 

meals and entrees, soup, and fruits and vegetables. This suggests that the 

post-NLEA environment was successful in inducing greater health focus in 

advertising for the foods targeted for increased consumption, such as fruit 

and vegetables, compared to foods targeted for reduced consumption, such 

5They also contend that while 

consumer demand for nutritional attributes may also affect claim usage, 

demand did not change quickly in the 

mid-1990s, which is consistent with 

the conjecture that the NLEA did have 

an impact.

6Over 1989 to 2001, Datamonitor 

did not list nutrient content information to compare the nutritional quality 

of new products with HNR claims 

versus those without these claims. The 

most common oil ingredient used over 

the period was olive oil, which was 

contained in 55 percent of new oil and 

fat products. We flagged only 10 oil 

and fat products that contained oils 

with relatively high saturated fats or 

trans fatty acids, including coconut oil, 

partially hydrogenated oils, lard, meat 

fats, and vegetable shortening. Four 

of these products had claims of “low 

calorie,” “no cholesterol,” “low fat,” 

“no trans fat,” and/or “low saturated 

fat.” While HNR claims declined over 

the period, claims of “upscale,” “gourmet,” “pure,” “natural,” “organic,” or 

“no chemicals/additives/preservatives” 

remained central to the marketing of 

these products, ranging from 48 percent of new oil and fat products in 1992 

to 85 percent in 1998.

7Between 1989 and 2001, soup 

showed considerable variation in the use 

of HNR claims, increasing from 24.6 

percent in 1989 to 51.2 percent in 1997, 

before falling to 27 percent in 2001.
12

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

as fats and oils. Caswell et al. (2003) also found redistribution of nutrient 

content claims away from products such as oils and cookies and toward 

soups and vegetables, based on products sold at a superstore. Lohman and 

Kant (1998) surmised that after release of the Food Guide Pyramid in 

1992, the frequency of advertisements bearing nutrition claims would be 

expected to decrease for beverages, fats and oils, and sweets, and increase 

for fruits and vegetables. The 1992 Food Guide Pyramid emphasized eating 

fewer foods that are high in sugar, including sweet desserts and soft drinks, 

eating more fruits and vegetables, and using fats and oils sparingly (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1992).

Types of Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims

For the 19 leading HNR claims used over 1989 to 2010, the percentage of 

new products bearing the claims are shown in appendix 1 table 2. Low/no fat 

accounted for the largest share of new products (13.6 percent), outpacing high 

vitamins/minerals by 5 percentage points. However, there was considerable 

variation in the importance of specific claims over time. 

From 1989 to 2001, five claims had sizeable percentage point reductions 

in percent of new products carrying the claim, including cholesterol (-10.4 

points), sodium (-9.0 points), calories (-7.4 points), fiber (-6.3 points), and sugar 

(-3.2 points) (fig. 3).8 Each of the five nutrients is required to be listed on the 

Nutrition Facts label, and conditions under which products qualify for nutrientcontent claims are specifically defined. In addition, except for calories, FDA 

has established specific requirements for claims made about the health benefits 

of the nutrients (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). The 

Nutrition Facts label is a potentially important source of background information available to consumers to assess nutrient and health claims (Ippolito and 

Mathios, 1993). For each of the five claims, reductions in the percentage of new 

products with the claims appear more pronounced prior to 1994, as the deadline for complying with the NLEA approached (see fig. 3).

8Reductions in whole grain and high 

fruit claims were less than 0.5 percentage points.

Figure 2

Percentage of new products with health- and nutrition-related claims, 

by product category, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2001 

Percent

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

Desserts 

and ice cream

Meat, fish,

and poultry

Bakery Snacks Oils and fats

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 1989 1993 1997 2001
13

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

These results are consistent with analysis of nutrient content claims in magazine ads by Ippolito and Pappalardo (2002). From 1991 to 1997, they found 

that the share of food ads with cholesterol content claims decreased from 

24.7 percent to 5.8 percent. They also found systematic reductions in sodium, 

sugar, and calorie claims.

Food industry concerns that consumers associated poor taste with low- and 

reduced-sodium foods may also have contributed to the decrease in the 

percentage of new products carrying such claims (IOM, 2010). The industry 

has used two approaches to reduce sodium content through reformulation of 

existing products (IOM, 2010). The first is to change the sodium content of 

foods so that they qualify for sodium claims and market them to consumers 

interested in low-sodium foods. The second approach is to make gradual 

reductions in the sodium content of foods that go unadvertised, which 

is commonly referred to as “silent reductions.” This is intended to allow 

consumers to slowly adjust their taste preferences for salt in the product. 

Neither approach appears to be widespread given the reduction in sodiumrelated claims and modest reductions in the sodium content across the food 

supply (IOM, 2010). Research to find replacements for sodium have not been 

as successful as some other nutrients, such as sugar.9

Eleven claims displayed percentage-point increases over 1989 to 2001, 

including vitamins and minerals (8.3 points), followed by protein (3.7 points) 

and calcium (3.2 points). Increases in the other 8 claims were each less than 2 

percentage points.

Top Five Food Categories for Leading Health- and 

Nutrition-Related Claims

We evaluate the top five food categories for each of the top 10 HNR claims in 

1989, 2001, and 2010. Appendix 2 table 1 shows the top five product categories contributing to each claim. Appendix 2 table 2 illustrates the top five 

product categories in terms of the share of new products carrying the claim to 

gauge their importance within a food category. 

9Recent advances in food science 

may facilitate further reductions in 

sodium content. For example, food 

science innovations enabled Frito-Lay 

to reduce the sodium content of its 

seasoned chips by 25 percent without 

compromising taste by cutting topical 

salt and other ingredients (Gallagher, 

2011). The company chose not to advertise the reduction on its packages.

Figure 3

Percentage of products with health- and nutrition-related claims, 

1989-2001 

Percent

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16 Calories

Cholesterol

Sugar

Sodium

Fiber
14

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

From 1989 to 2001, bakery products were important contributors to reductions found in the use of cholesterol-, sodium-, calorie-, fiber-, and sugarrelated claims (fig. 4). Percentage point reductions were especially notable 

for fiber- (-17.9 points), cholesterol-(-11.5 points), and sodium-related claims 

(-8.7 points). The reduction in fiber claims carried by breakfast cereal (-14.2 

points) was also prominent. In addition, cereal also dropped from the top five 

food categories making cholesterol-, sodium-, and sugar-related claims. 

Snacks and sauces, dressings, and condiments accounted for a smaller 

percentage of three of the five HNR claims. For snacks, these nutrients 

included fiber (-6.2 points), sodium (-3.1 points), and cholesterol (-2.1 points). 

Sauces, dressings, and condiments accounted for a smaller share of sodium-

(-5.2 points) and sugar-related claims (-1.1 points) and also fell from the top 

five categories making calorie-related claims. 

In 1989, bakery items, breakfast cereal, and snacks ranked among the leaders 

in the share of new products with cholesterol-, sodium-, fiber-, or sugarrelated claims (appendix 2 table 2). Consistent with the findings above, these 

claims became a less important component of new products introduced in 

the categories from 1989 to 2001. Percentage-point reductions ranged from 

3.2 points for sugar claims on bakery products to 47.3 points for fiber claims 

carried by cereal, which appeared on nearly 70 percent of all new cereal 

products in 1989.

Figure 4

Product categories accounting for a smaller share of healthand nutrition-related claims from 1989 to 2001 

Percent of claims

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

Bakery Bakery

Sauces, 

dressing, 

condiments

Sauces, 

dressing, 

condiments

Snacks Snacks

Cereal

Bakery

Bakery

Dairy

Bakery

Snacks

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1989 2001

Cholesterol

Sugar

Sodium

Fiber

Calories
15

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Growth in Health- and Nutrition-Related 

Claims From 2001 to 2010

From 2001 to 2010, companies relied on HNR claims to a greater extent to 

market their new products in all product categories (appendix 1 table 1). 

Breakfast cereals had the largest percentage-point increase (30.1 points). 

Five categories had increases between 20 and 30 percentage points, including 

soups (27.5); snacks (26.5); sweet and savory spreads (22.7); meals and 

entrees (22.0); and pasta, pizza, noodles, and rice (20.6). The remaining 10 

categories had increases ranging from 8 percentage points for dairy to 19.6 

points for meat, fish, and poultry.

In 2010, breakfast cereal had by far the highest percentage of products with at 

least one HNR claim in 2010 (90.5 percent). Since cereals are usually sold in 

large boxes, cereal producers have a relatively low-cost means of highlighting 

the health and nutritional benefits on the package (Ippolito and Mathios, 

1990). Many cereal marketers also have large budgets for advertising and 

product development. Other categories most likely to carry HNR claims in 

2010 included snacks (59 percent), dairy (54.8 percent), soup (54.5 percent), 

and bakery items (50.9 percent). For subcategories, meat substitutes (93.8 

percent), milk (92.2 percent), and yogurt (90.9 percent) ranked among the 

leaders in HNR claim usage in 2010.

From 2001 to 2010, use of HNR claims increased for all claims except low/

no fat, high calcium, and low/no carbohydrates, each of which fell by less 

than 1 percentage point (appendix 1 table 2). Many consumers found the taste 

of fat-free and low-fat foods introduced in the mid-1990s to be unacceptable 

(Putnam et al., 2002), which may have led companies to limit use of low/no 

fat claims in later years (see box, “Low/No Fat Claims Peak in the 1990s”).

The number of HNR claims per product also increased from 2.2 in 2001 

to 2.6 in 2010 for those products making at least one claim. This provides 

further support for the unfolding hypothesis and competitive pressures based 

on nutritional issues that led companies to highlight more of the health and 

nutritional characteristics of their products.

New Diet and Nutrition Information and Claims 

Targeting Weight-Conscious Consumers

The overall growth in HNR claims from 2001 to 2010 reflects increases in 

claims related to calories, vitamins/minerals, whole grain, fiber, and sugar 

(fig. 5).10 The increase in claims related to calories, fiber, and sugar was 

a marked reversal from previous trends (see fig. 3). The increase in low/

no calorie claims, compared to a slight reduction in the use of low/no fat 

claims, is consistent with findings by Kiesel and Villas-Boas (2010). In 

an experimental setting at a major supermarket chain in 2007, they found 

that low-fat labels on store shelves significantly reduced sales of microwave popcorn, while low-calorie labels significantly increased sales. This 

occurred despite the World Health Organization’s endorsement of low-fat 

product promotions to reduce obesity rates. They attributed the results 

to consumers having less favorable taste perceptions of low-fat products 

compared to those that are low in calories.

10For each of these claims, the 

share of new products with the claim 

increased by over 2.5 percentage points 

from 2001 to 2010. Sodium claims 

increased by 2 percentage points, with 

most of the increase coming in 2010 

when they were carried by 4.7 percent 

of new products, compared to 3.6 

percent in 2009.
16

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The increasing emphasis on claims related to calories, fiber, sugar, and whole 

grain may reflect nutrition information from Government and nongovernment 

sources related to the obesity problem.11 Statistics from the National Center 

for Health Statistics indicate that the percentage of obese U.S. adults and children increased from 1988-1994 to 2009-2010 (Ogden and Carroll, 2010a and 

2010b) and Ogden et al. (2012). The prevalence of obesity among different 

age groups increased from:

•	22.9 percent to 35.7 percent for those 20 years and older,

•	10.5 percent to 18.4 percent for those 12 to 19 years of age,

11Increased emphasis on the 

obesity problem is also reflected by 

the formation of the Healthy Weight 

Commitment Foundation, which is 

a coalition of retailers (e.g., United 

Supermarkets), manufacturers (e.g., 

Kellogg, PepsiCo), nonprofit organizations, and trade associations formed in 

2009 with the stated purpose of reducing obesity.

The percentage of new products with low/no fat claims displayed contrasting 

trends from 1989 to 2010. New products with low/no fat claims grew from 9.2 

percent in 1989 to over 25 percent in 1995 and 1996. In 1997, they accounted 

for 21.7 percent of all new products, far exceeding all other health- and 

nutrition-related claims (see table 1). According to Putnam et al. (2002), 

mandatory nutrition labeling and consumer concerns about fat prompted food 

manufacturers to sell lower fat versions of high-fat foods. This led to a modest 

decline in added fat consumption from 1993 to 1997. 

In contrast, from 1997 to 2001, new products with low/no fat claims fell by 11.8 

percentage points to 9.9 percent. Many companies reformulated their low/no 

fat products in the late 1990s by adding some fat to improve taste (Putnam et 

al., 2002). Between 1997 and 2000, per capita daily consumption of added fats 

increased by 16 percent. Since 2001, the percentage of products introduced with 

these claims has apparently reached an equilibrium between 8 to 13 percent.

The above findings are consistent with other studies of nutrient advertising 

claims. Ippolito and Pappalardo (2002) found that after NLEA enforcement, 

total fat claims in magazine food advertising became the primary nutritional 

focus up to 1997, away from other major nutrients. Analysis of supermarket 

sales data by LeGault et al. (2004) found that products sold with total fat claims 

had the largest percentage point reduction compared to other nutrient content 

claims from 1997 to 2000-2001.

Low/No Fat Claims Peaked in the 1990s

Percent of new products with low/no fat claims, 1989-2010 

Percent

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05 07 09

0

5

10

15

20

25

30
17

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

•	11.3 percent to 18 percent for those 6 to 11 years of age, and

•	7.2 percent to 12.1 percent for those 2 to 5 years of age.

In the nutrition area, information is usually disseminated through the release 

of Government studies or scientific panel recommendations and redistributed 

through the popular press (Ippolito and Mathios, 1990).12 This, in turn, may 

affect consumer food preferences and/or product reformulations and voluntary labeling practices of producers (Chern et al., 1995; Golan and Unnevehr, 

2008; Ippolito and Mathios, 1990).

We use U.S. national television network broadcasts related to obesity from 

1989 to 2010 to gauge changes in obesity-related coverage. TV-News Search 

offers a searchable database of material in the collection of the Vanderbilt 

Television News Archive, which includes evening broadcasts and special 

news programs airing on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and FOX News (added 

in 2004). Since the addition of FOX News in 2004 may have contributed 

to increases in obesity related coverage, rather than expanded coverage by 

existing networks, the network was excluded from our study. 

The number of television news media reports from our search of headlines 

and abstracts using the keyword “obesity” increased after 2001 (fig. 6). In 

2001, obesity was labeled as an epidemic by the World Health Organization 

(Gogoi, 2004), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Seiders and 

Petty, 2004), and the U.S. Surgeon General (Gates, 2005). News coverage 

increased in the 3 succeeding years, with topics such as the National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey statistics on the cost of obesity-related 

health problems and how the food industry advertises sugary snacks to children. In 2010, news broadcasts rose to their highest level over 1989 to 2010. 

Thirty-six of the 58 news reports focused on childhood obesity (see fig. 6), 

including taxing soft drinks to prevent childhood obesity, the First Lady 

Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to fight childhood obesity, and the 

marketing of unhealthy “happy meals” to children.

12For example, in 2004, an FDA obesity working group released a report 

identifying calorie content as a key 

nutrient in determining weight gain, 

and recommended giving calories more 

prominence on the food label (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2004a). In 2005, the Institute 

of Medicine issued a congressionally 

mandated study, Preventing Childhood 

Obesity: Health in the Balance, to 

guide development of a plan to combat 

the growing obesity epidemic in children (Koplan et al., 2005).

Figure 5

Percentage of new products with health- and nutrition-related claims, 

2001-2010 

Percent

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16 Calories Sugar Fiber Whole grain Vitamins/minerals
18

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans may also affect the food industry’s focus on new product development and marketing around specific nutrients related to weight control. The 2000 Dietary Guidelines recommended that 

consumers choose a diet to moderate consumption of foods containing sugars 

added during processing, which are often high in calories and low in vitamins 

and minerals.13 Recommendations also included choosing a variety of grains, 

especially whole grains, to increase fiber, vitamins, and minerals. It was also 

the first edition of the guidelines to recognize the unique benefits of whole 

grains (Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000).

Key recommendations from the 2005 Dietary Guidelines included 

balancing calories consumed with calories expended, limiting calories by 

reducing consumption of added sugars, fats, and alcohol, and consuming 

a specific amount of fiber-rich whole-grain products (Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans, 2005).14 New whole grain products as a percentage of all 

new products began to increase prior to 2005, most likely in anticipation of 

the release of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and food pyramid emphasizing 

whole grains (see fig. 5). This occurred despite many consumers displaying 

no knowledge of the new guidelines or preferences for whole grain products 

(Golan and Unnevehr, 2008). 

The whole-grain segment was expected to reenergize a stagnant cereal 

market, where sales were limited by the low-carb fad, growth in portable 

meals such as cereal bars, and lower cost private label versions (Lee, 

2004). In 2004, General Mills, the Nation’s second-leading breakfast cereal 

producer, announced that it would begin producing all cereals with whole 

grains (Horovitz, 2004). The move followed a Federal advisory panel 

recommendation that refined grains be replaced by whole-grain products to 

reduce risks of heart disease and other conditions. Following the General 

Mills announcement, Nestle announced a new Lean Cuisine line made with 

100-percent whole-grain rice and pastas as sales of frozen meals were also 

limited by the “low-carb” craze (Thompson, 2004). Such product reformulations may also reflect efforts by manufacturers to improve their brand image 

(Golan and Unnevehr, 2008). 

13Another contributing factor to the 

growth in sugar- and calorie-related 

claims by manufacturers was encouragement from Walmart to introduce 

low-calorie and low-sugar versions of 

their products to counter flat store sales 

by targeting their more health-conscious customers (Thompson, 2003).

14Dietary fiber was important in the 

formulation of some companies’ products that were targeted to consumers 

concerned about weight (O’Donnell, 

2008).

Figure 6

Television news reports related to obesity and childhood obesity, 

1989-2010 

Number

Source: Vanderbilt Television News Archive.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Childhood obesity

Obesity
19

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

According to Mintel, a market research organization, the introduction of the 

Whole Grains Council stamp in 2005 was a driving force behind the rapid 

rise in whole-grain claims (Scott-Thomas, 2010). The Whole Grain Stamp 

program gave manufacturers the opportunity to signify the level of whole 

grain in their products as consumer recognition of the symbol increased. 

Companies must be members of the Whole Grains Council, file information 

about each qualifying product with the Council, and sign a legal agreement 

that they will abide by all requirements of the Stamp program. Such services 

strengthen the credibility of voluntary labeling (Golan et al., 2007).15

The growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets also may have contributed 

to a surge in products with sugar-related claims, as consumption of processed 

sugars is discouraged in low-carb diets. The percentage of new products with 

low/no carb claims peaked in 2004, when it was the most popular HNR claim, 

accounting for 17 percent of all new product introductions (Datamonitor, 

Product Launch Analytics database). At the same time, the use of sugar-related 

claims also peaked, accounting for over 10 percent of new product launches. 

In 2004, 65.1 percent of products introduced with a no-sugar claim also had a 

low/no carb claim, compared to 5.7 percent in 2000.16 By 2006, as the market 

for low-carb products had waned, the percentage of new products with sugarrelated claims fell back to levels found in 2003.

Sugar claims in the beverage category accounted for the biggest increase in 

the share of claims accounted for by a product category from 2001 to 2010, 

increasing by 21.3 percentage points (fig.7). In addition, there was a notable 

increase in the share of calorie claims accounted for by beverages. These 

developments followed the release of the 2000 Dietary Guidelines that 

emphasized the role of soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages in 

the U.S. obesity problem. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines reiterated the need to 

limit calories from soft drinks and emphasized the importance of consuming 

nonfat and low-fat milk instead of carbonated soft drinks (Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans, 2005). Diet soda’s share of the soda market grew steadily, as 

15In 2006, the FDA issued guidance to the food industry about what 

the agency considers “whole grain” to 

mean, and to assist manufacturers with 

food label statements related to “whole 

grain” content (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2006). 

The guidance contains recommendations that are not legally enforceable.

16Splenda, a no-calorie sweetener 

approved for use in 1998, was well 

suited for the low-carbohydrate fad 

and increasing interest in lower calorie 

and lower sugar alternatives. Based 

on a keyword search for the term 

“Splenda” in Datamonitor’s Product 

Launch Analytics database, use of the 

sweetener peaked in 2004, accounting 

for 14 percent of all new products with 

sugar-, carbohydrate-, or calorie-related 

claims.

Figure 7

Product categories accounting for a larger share of calorie, 

vitamin/mineral, fiber, and sugar-related claims, 2001-10 

Percent of claims

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

Cereal

2001 2010

Vitamin/mineral Sugar

Fiber

Calories

Beverages

Beverages Bakery Snacks Beverages Bakery Beverages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60
20

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

retailers gave low-calorie beverages more prominent shelf space to attract 

calorie-conscious consumers (Hirsch, 2004). Sales were also sparked by 

new flavors and sweeteners that provided similar taste compared to regular 

versions, but with fewer calories. While we cannot establish that growth in 

low/no calorie claims was due to the guidelines without industry corroboration, these results are consistent with those of Dharmasena et al. (2011). 

They found a statistically significant reduction in caloric intake from at-home 

consumption of nonalcoholic beverages following implementation of the 2000 

Dietary Guidelines. 

Snacks and desserts and ice cream moved into the top five categories with 

calorie-related claims in 2010 (see appendix 2 table 1). The growing importance of new beverage and snack products with calorie-related claims is especially relevant given that snacks and beverages between meals account for a 

quarter of Americans’ daily calories (Scott-Thomas, 2011c). 

Among calorie-, fiber-, and sugar-related claims, fiber claims in the cereal 

category accounted for the largest increase in the share of new products with 

a claim carried by a product category (see appendix 2 table 2). Thirty-eight 

percent of all new cereal products introduced in 2010 carried a fiber claim, 

up from 22 percent in 2001. This is a marked reversal from 1989 to 2001, 

when fiber claims carried by cereal products fell by 47.3 percentage points. 

Other notable increases included calorie claims carried by desserts and ice 

cream (11.6 points) and beverage products (9.8 points), and fiber claims in the 

bakery category (6.2 points). As expected, beverages moved into the top five 

categories with sugar-related claims, while snacks moved into the top five for 

low/no calorie claims. 

Claims Target Evolving Consumer Needs and 

Preferences for a Healthy Lifestyle

While claims related to gluten, antioxidants, and omega-3 were used sparingly, 

if at all, prior to 2001, they ranked among the leading claims by 2010 (table 

1). According to the Nielsen Company, products with “high omega-3,” “high 

antioxidant,” and “gluten-free” claims ranked among those HNR claims with 

the highest annual sales growth in 2009, increasing by 42, 29, and 16 percent, 

respectively (Pirovano, 2010).

Over 2001 to 2010, the percentage of new products with a “no gluten” claim 

showed the greatest percentage point increase among HNR claims, equaling 

11.0 points (see appendix 1 table 2). By 2010, “no gluten” ranked second 

only to claims related to vitamins/minerals. The introduction of no-gluten 

products perpetuated sales growth in the category as companies responded 

to a growing number of consumers adopting a diet that is free from gluten—

a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. According to Packaged Facts 

(February 2011), a market research firm, sales of gluten-free products more 

than doubled from 2006 to 2010 and is expected to grow from $2.64 billion 

in 2010 to $5.5 billion by 2015.17

Some consumers purchase gluten-free products to control celiac disease, an 

inherited autoimmune condition that can lead to malnutrition, osteoporosis, 

and other potentially fatal health problems (Beck, 2011). Celiac disease 

has increased fourfold in the last 50 years and is estimated to afflict 1 in 

17In 2005, Walmart, the Nation’s 

leading food retailer, introduced 

gluten-free products and required suppliers to identify whether gluten is used 

in its store brand products (Associated 

Press, 2005).
21

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

133 Americans (Beck, 2011; Lapid, 2009; National Foundation for Celiac 

Awareness, 2011).18 According to the University of Chicago Celiac Disease 

Center, 97 percent of those with celiac disease are undiagnosed. Gluten may 

also trigger an allergic reaction to wheat that results in hives, congestion, 

nausea, or anaphylaxis—an allergic reaction that may be fatal (Beck, 2011). 

Surveys suggest that there are other health benefits that consumers attribute to 

a gluten-free diet. Based on a nationally representative online poll of 1,881 U.S. 

adults in the fall of 2010, Packaged Facts (February 2011) found that 15 percent 

reported buying or consuming products with gluten-free claims within the past 

30 days.19 Only about 10 percent of gluten-free consumers purchased the products because someone in their household had celiac disease or intolerance to 

gluten. The top reason given for purchasing gluten-free products is the perception that they are generally healthier (46 percent), followed by weight management (30 percent), and generally higher in quality (22 percent) (Scott-Thomas, 

2011a). These findings corroborate an earlier nationally representative survey 

of 1,730 U.S. adults in July 2009 by The Hartman Group, a research consulting 

firm specializing in consumer purchase behavior (The Hartman Group, 2011). 

18In 2007, the FDA issued a proposed rule on gluten-free food labeling 

that foods bearing the claim cannot 

contain 20 parts per million or more 

of gluten, but a final rule has yet to be 

released (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2011). In August 

2011, FDA announced that it was reopening the public comment period on 

the 2007 gluten-free labeling proposal 

for 60 days. 

19The sample was balanced to census 

data based on measures of age, gender, 

geographic region, ethnicity, and 

income.

Table 1

Leading health- and nutrition-related claims for new food and beverage products in 1989, 2001, and 2010

1989 2001 2010

Claim Percent 

of claims1 Claim Percent of claims1 Claim Percent of claims1

Top 10 claims

Low/no cholesterol 20.3 High vitamins/minerals 17.7 High vitamins/minerals 12.2

Low/no salt/low/no sodium 16.6 Low/no fat 17.5 No gluten 10.8

High fiber/high bran 12.5 High protein 9.2 Low/no fat 8.8

Low/no calories 14.8 No/low sugar/no sweeteners 8.1 Low/no calories 7.8

Low/no fat 13.1 No/low cholesterol 7.0 Low/no trans fats 7.7

Low/no sugar/no sweeteners 10.9 High calcium 6.8 Low/no sugar/no added 

sugar/no sweeteners 6.8

High vitamins 2.4 Low/no calories 5.4 High fiber 5.3

High protein 2.2 Low/no sodium/low/no salt 4.9 High protein 4.8

Whole grain 1.9 High fiber 4.5 Low/no cholesterol 4.3

High fruit 1.6 Low/no carbohydrates 3.4 Low/no salt/low/no sodium/

no added salt 4.2

Total 96.3 Total 84.5 Total 72.7

Other health- and nutrition-related claims2

No monosodium glutamate 

(MSG) 2.1 High antioxidants 4.1

Whole grain 4.0

High calcium 3.0

High omega-3 2.2

No MSG 2.0

Number of nutrient claim 

categories identified 17 28 36

Total number of health- and 

nutrition-related claims made 2,368 2,912 8,098

1Percent of all health- and nutrition-related claims.

2These claims accounted for 2 percent or more of all health- and nutrition-related claims.

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.
22

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Thirteen percent of respondents reported purchasing gluten-free products 

within the previous 3 months. Among these consumers, 5 percent reported 

purchasing gluten-free products to treat celiac disease. The top three reasons 

for purchasing gluten-free products were for digestive health (39 percent), nutritional value (33 percent), and weight loss (25 percent). Other health benefits 

ascribed to avoiding gluten found on the Internet and popular press include 

reducing the effects of rheumatoid arthritis, depression, autism, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, diabetes, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and fatigue 

(Wilson, 2012; Scott-Thomas, 2011b; Solan, 2011; Gibeson, 2012; Gorton, 

2010; Springen, 2008).20

In 2010, bakery items and snacks were the leading contributors to no-gluten 

claims (see appendix 2 table 1). Reformulation of products for the “no 

gluten” market presents challenges in some product categories. For example, 

removing gluten from cookies requires use of wheat-free flours, such as 

rice or tapioca flours, that may not provide the same texture and flavor 

(Wilson, 2012). In addition, alternatives to wheat flours may be deficient in 

protein, fiber, iron, calcium, and other vitamins and minerals (Gorton, 2011). 

Specialty ingredients are also more costly to source than wheat flour. As the 

demand for gluten-free food has expanded, companies have introduced new 

gluten-free products that overcome much of the sensory issues (Gibeson, 

2012; Gorton, 2010). 

The introduction and sales of products with antioxidant and omega-3 claims 

suggest that food companies were responding to consumer preferences for 

products that promote overall health beyond basic nutrition (Jones and Jew, 

2007; Toops, 2008) (see box “Antioxidants and Omega-3 Fatty Acids: What 

Are They and What Do They Do?”). For example, an analysis based on 

SymphonyIRI Group’s (formerly Information Resources, Inc. or IRI) panel 

of over 55,000 households found that 60 percent are trying to eat snacks 

that prevent and/or manage health problems, while 24 percent seek benefits 

beyond basic nutrition (Wyatt, 2011). A 2010 survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,579 U.S. primary grocery shoppers by the Food Marketing 

Institute and Prevention magazine found that omega-3 and antioxidants 

ranked among the top 5 ingredients sought by respondents (Scott-Thomas, 

2011d). Factors driving demand for such “functional” foods include: scientific advances in understanding the relationship between diet and disease; 

increasing life expectancy and health-care costs; and growing health awareness by aging baby boomers with monetary resources for slowing the aging 

process and managing chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular 

disease (Archibald, 2007; Singletary and Morganosky, 2004; Roberfroid, 

2000; Jones, 2010).

New Labeling Regulations for Trans Fats 

and Growth of “No Trans Fats” Claims 

In 2003, FDA issued a mandatory disclosure regulation for trans fatty acids, 

or trans fats, on the nutrition label by 2006, which marked the first significant change to the Nutrition Facts label since the NLEA rules were finalized 

(Kozup et al., 2006). Prior to the 1990s, there was little consensus from the 

scientific community on the harmful effects of trans fatty acid intake. In 

2002, the Institute of Medicine recommended that trans fatty acids in the diet 

20A strong body of scientific research 

that supports health benefits beyond 

that related to celiac disease and wheat 

allergy is lacking (Springen, 2008; 

Wilson, 2012; Solan, 2011; Gorton, 

2010). However, a 2011 study provided 

scientific evidence of the existence of 

gluten sensitivity, or gluten intolerance (Beck, 2011). In this case, gluten 

can trigger a reaction in the intestines 

and immune system that is less severe 

than celiac disease. The most common 

symptoms include stomach problems, 

headaches, fatigue, and depression.
23

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

When the body comes into contact with oxygen, a process called “oxidation” 

occurs, which can lead to permanent damage to cells and DNA. Oxidative stress 

may contribute to the development of numerous conditions, such as cancer, 

cataracts, arthritis, stroke, and heart disease.

Antioxidants are substances that absorb free oxygen molecules, which may 

prevent damage to the body that occurs naturally through aging (Gray, 2011; 

Archibald, 2007). Diets high in antioxidant-containing foods have the potential 

to improve overall health, delay of the onset of many age-related diseases, 

prevent eye disease, reduce the risk of some cancers, and improve cardiovascular 

function.1 Some of the most common antioxidants include vitamin E, vitamin 

C, and beta carotene.

In 1997, FDA amended regulations to define claims using the term “antioxidant” 

on labels, which became effective in 1999 (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2008). The antioxidant nutrient must meet the general 

requirements for nutrient content claims related to “high,” “good source,” and 

“more.” For example, for a “good source” claim, the food must contain between 

10 to 19 percent of the daily value per reference amount customarily consumed 

per eating occasion (RACC).

Omega-3 fatty acids are a particular type of essential unsaturated fatty acid. 

These fatty acids cannot be produced naturally in the human body, but are 

necessary for the body’s metabolism. They can only be obtained by eating 

foods that contain them or by taking a supplement. Research has found that 

certain omega-3 fatty acids can aid cognitive function; prevent eye disease, 

depression, and muscle degeneration in the elderly; and prevent the incidence 

of cardiovascular disease (Packaged Facts, June 2011). A recent study of the 

mortality effects of 12 modifiable dietary risk factors in the United States 

found that having a low intake level of omega-3 fatty acids ranked among the 

top 3 dietary risks, behind intakes of high salt levels and ahead of high trans 

fatty acids levels (Danaei et al., 2009). Novel production technologies are now 

allowing omega-3 oils to be added to a greater number of food and beverage 

products (Packaged Facts, June 2011; Jones and Drew, 2007).

In 2004, FDA approved a health claim for omega-3 fatty acids (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2004b), which may have helped to legitimize and 

propel the market. According to Packaged Facts (August 2011), the number of 

consumers who are seeking high omega-3 products has increased dramatically 

over the past few years and will likely continue to grow rapidly over 2011 to 

2015. Future growth is likely to depend on scientific data supporting its health 

benefits, new product introductions, and consumer awareness and demand.

1

While the general benefits of antioxidants in the diet have been acknowledged, conclusive 

evidence does not exist for making recommendations concerning the consumption of 

certain amounts of antioxidants to combat specific diseases (Archibald, 2007).

Antioxidants and Omega-3 Fatty Acids: 

What Are They and What Do They Do?
24

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

should be as low as possible and any intake was associated with increased 

health risk (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008). In 2005, the importance of 

limiting trans fats was further instilled by the Dietary Guidelines that recommended lowering trans fatty acid consumption to as low as possible.

As food companies revised labels to meet the impending 2006 deadline, 

some also reformulated their products with new trans fats-free oils and used 

claims to tout their lack of trans fats. Prior to 2001, Datamonitor identified 

no products with “low/no trans fats” claims. The percentage of new products 

with “no/low trans fats” claims increased from 0.1 percent in 2001 to 7.8 

percent in 2005, which was the largest increase among leading HNR claims 

over the period (see appendix 1 table 2). From 2001 to 2010, the percentage 

of new products with “low/no trans fats” claims increased by 8.4 percentage 

points, which was the second largest increase among HNR claims, behind 

only “no gluten.” In 2010, “low/no trans fats” ranked as the fifth most popular 

claim (see table 1). The increase in products with a “low/no trans fats” claim 

is testimony to competitive pressures in the food industry, as companies 

respond to new food labeling regulations and public communications that 

gave prominence to limiting trans fatty acids.21

In 2010, new bakery items and snacks were the leading contributors to “low/

no trans fats” claims (fig. 8). Growth in bakery and snack products with a 

“low/no trans fats” claim illustrates differences among product categories 

in the technical feasibility of reformulating products to contain healthier 

alternatives. Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) compared oil ingredients used 

in new cookie and chip products with “no trans fats” claims to those introduced in earlier years. For new cookie products with “no trans fats” claims, 

partially hydrogenated oils—a source of trans fatty acids—were replaced 

primarily by palm oil or butter, which contain higher levels of unhealthy 

saturated fats. On the other hand, new chip products claiming “no trans fats” 

contained primarily sunflower, corn, or canola oil, which are healthier oil 

alternatives. While cake, doughnuts, and pastry were the biggest source of 

trans fats, few products were introduced with a “no trans fats” claim, which 

21According to FDA research, “no 

trans fats” claims by food companies 

increased despite consumers not knowing whether trans fats were good or bad 

in the period leading up to mandatory 

labeling (Golan et al., 2007).

Figure 8

Percentage of "low/no trans fats" claims accounted for by the top 5 

product categories in 2010

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.

Snacks

All other

Sauces, dressings, 

condiments

Meat, fish, poultry

Meals and entrees Bakery

29.1

25.5

4.7

7.6

9.3

23.8
25

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

is also indicative of technical differences in the ability to find substitutes for 

partially hydrogenated oils (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008). 

It is possible that companies who reformulated products to contain no trans 

fats following implementation of the new labeling regulations could compensate by adding unhealthy nutrients. Rahkovsky et al. (2012) found that among 

products introduced from 2006 to 2010, those that contained no trans fats 

did not have higher levels of saturated fats, sodium, or calories compared 

to new products with trans fats. In addition, among products containing no 

trans fats, generalizations could not be made about the healthfulness of products carrying a “no trans fats” claim versus those without the claim, since it 

depended on the nutrient.
26

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Sales and Nutritional Content of New 

Products with Health- and NutritionRelated Claims

The public health impact of new products will depend on whether HNR 

claims are effective in influencing consumer purchase behavior and the 

overall nutritional profile of products with such claims. Sales of new products with HNR claims provide some insight into whether these products are 

purchased and consumed. Because Datamonitor’s Product Launch Analytics 

database does not contain sales data, this section compares sales and nutritional content of new products using market-research firm Mintel’s Global 

New Product Database (Mintel GNPD). 

New Product Sales

Mintel GNPD allows users to track new products carrying specific HNR 

product claims from June 1996 to present. Field associates shop for new 

products at supermarkets, mass merchants, drug stores, natural food stores, 

convenience stores, club stores, specialty stores, other independent outlets, 

mail order/Internet products, and some direct-to-consumer products. Mintel 

also monitors secondary sources for new product information, including 

trade publications, trade shows, company websites, press releases, and 

online newsletters. 

The Mintel GNPD database includes information for five types of new 

products:

1. New product. New product is assigned when a new range, line, or 

family of products is encountered.

2. New variety/range extension. This launch type is used to document 

an extension to an existing range of products.

3. New packaging. This launch type is determined by visually 

inspecting the product for changes, and also when terms like “new 

look,” “new packaging,” or “new size” are written on the package.

4. New formulation. This launch type is assigned when terms such as 

“new formula,” “even better,” “tastier,” “now lower in fat,” “new and 

improved,” or “great new taste” are indicated on the package. The 

ingredient list is not used to determine whether the product is a new 

formulation.

5. Relaunch. This launch type depends entirely on secondary sources 

of information.

Mintel partnered with SymphonyIRI Group to provide sales information 

for its new products. SymphonyIRI Group tracks sales of some products 

in Mintel GNPD at 34,000 grocery stores, drug stores, and supermarkets, 

with the important exception of Walmart stores, club stores, convenience 

stores, health food stores, dollar stores, and mail order/Internet products. 

The web-based tool for tracking sales is referred to as Mintel GNPD IRIS. 

Sales data are available beginning in January 2005. Tracking begins when a 

new product reaches 1-percent distribution (percent of stores selling). Each 
27

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

product record contains sales data for a maximum of 104 weeks. After this 

period, the products are no longer considered new, and sales are no longer 

tracked. The data offer only a limited view of new product sales because 

sales data are not available for new products that are:

•	classified as new packaging, relaunch, or new formulation,

•	private label (store brand),

•	found outside of stores not covered by SymphonyIRI Group, as described

previously,

•	priced over $24.99, or

•	not sold in at least 1 percent of stores.

We compare sales of new products with HNR claims to sales of all new products using Mintel GNPD IRIS.22 Sales data are available for 27 percent of 

new products with the claims and 20 percent of all new products in Mintel 

GNPD because of the product exclusions cited previously. Average unit sales 

over 4-week blocks of time (i.e., quad weeks) are compared. Sales in week 1 

(when the product reaches 1-percent distribution) are aligned for all products, 

and then tracked for up to 26 quad weeks (104 weeks). 

We restrict our comparison to products that were introduced in 2009 and 

2010 and that carry at least 1 of the top 10 HNR claims from 2010 (see table 

1).23 Sales of new products with nutrient content claims exceed that of all new 

food products, ranging from 8 percent higher in quad week 2 to 28 percent 

higher in quad weeks 18 through 20 (fig. 9). This suggests that products introduced with HNR claims were more successful compared to all new product 

introductions. However, because we do not control for other factors that could 

affect new product success, such as pricing strategies, packaging, advertising, 

and product positioning, our results only suggest that HNR product claims 

could be effective in generating sales. 

22We were not able to compare sales 

of new products with HNR claims 

to sales of new products without the 

claims because of a glitch in the download feature of the web-based Mintel 

GNPD IRIS. Because users of the 

online database cannot access the disaggregated sales data, sales of products 

without the claims could not be derived 

by subtracting sales of products with 

claims from sales of all new products.

23Some aspects of relevancy are gone 

beyond a 2-year comparison, because 

new product sales data are no longer 

tracked after 2 years. We chose the 

most recent 2-year period and the top 

10 claims in 2010.

Figure 9

Sales of new products introduced in 2009 and 2010 with healthand nutrition-related (HNR) claims versus all new food products 

Thousand $

Source: Mintel, Global New Product Database IRIS (web-based sales-tracking tool).

1 9 3 5 1 7 1 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

All new food products

Top 10 HNR claims

Quad weeks
28

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

These results corroborate findings from a recent study of Nielsen sales data 

from grocery stores, drug stores, and mass merchandisers by the Hudson 

Institute, a policy research organization (Hudson Institute, 2011). Nielsen 

data from 2007 to 2011 were first used to classify food products produced 

by 15 of the largest food and beverage manufacturers into traditional and 

“better-for-you” (BFY) product categories. BFY products are comprised of 

“lite” foods, or those designated as diet, lite, fewer, or zero calories (e.g., 

Lean Cuisine, Coca-Cola Zero, Tropicana 50), and “good” foods, including 

those generally considered as wholesome (e.g., whole-grain products) and 

healthier traditional product formulations that do not qualify as “lite” (e.g., 

Cheerios, Dannon Yogurt, Nabisco Wheat Thins). Traditional products, or 

those not considered to be a BFY item (e.g., Pepsi, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, 

Hellmann’s Mayonnaise), accounted for 61.4 percent of sales, while “lite” and 

“good” products each accounted for 19.3 percent of sales. While BFY products accounted for less than 40 percent of sales, they accounted for over 70 

percent of sales growth between 2007 and 2011.

Nutritional Content of New Products

Producers have incentives to focus on the positive attributes of their products and downplay the negative. For example, Colby et al. (2010) found 

that nearly half of products with nutritional marketing claims (defined as 

any marketing, such as marketing on television, radio, or food labels, using 

health or nutrition information beyond minimum requirements) contained 

high levels of saturated fat, sodium, and/or sugar. This is of particular 

concern if consumers assume that products with HNR claims are healthier 

with respect to nutrients not mentioned in the claim (“halo” effect), or associate inappropriate health benefits to the product (“magic bullet” effect) 

(Roe et al., 1999). On the other hand, Ippolito and Mathios (1990 and 1991) 

found that competition among companies can lead them to improve multiple 

nutritional attributes of their products and market them by providing a more 

complete depiction of their healthfulness. 

In addition to sales, we use data from Mintel GNPD to compare the average 

nutritional content of products with HNR claims versus all new food products. However, nutrient content information is not available for some products 

when downloaded from the Mintel GNPD database. Not all products are 

required to carry a Nutrition Facts label. Exemptions include foods manufactured by small businesses and foods that provide no significant nutrition, such 

as instant coffee and most spices (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2009). Also, according to Mintel, nutritional information may not 

be available if the product is not acquired and secondary sources are relied on 

for new product information. In addition, if the product is a multi-pack item, 

nutrition information may not be available in separate fields for individual 

nutrients. Mintel cannot record nutrition information for multiple items on 

one product record since some products carry nutrition information for more 

than one component. 

Over 2009 to 2010, we compare the nutritional content of new products with 

at least 1 of the top 10 HNR claims from 2010 to all new products. We focus 

only on products with no missing nutritional information. These products 

accounted for 64 percent of new products carrying a top 10 HNR claim and 
29

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

56 percent of all new food products. Nutrient contents were standardized to a 

48-gram serving to control for variations in serving size.

For each of the seven select nutrients that should be consumed in moderation, 

all new products had higher levels of the nutrients per serving, on average, 

compared to those with HNR claims (table 2). This suggests that companies did not use the claims to market products that are more unhealthy with 

respect to these nutrients. In addition, it suggests that if companies reformulated products to qualify for a HNR claim, they did not compensate by 

adding unhealthy nutrients.24

24It is important to note that differences in the nutritional content of 

aggregate food groups will not necessarily equal nutritional differences in 

any particular food category. Results 

represent average nutritional content 

across all food categories.

Table 2

Mean nutrient content of new products with a health- and nutritionrelated claim versus all new products, 2009-101

Nutrient Unit Top 102 All new products

Calories from fat Kilocalories 46.04 56.60

Saturated fat Grams 1.54 2.34

Fat Grams 5.16 6.34

Cholesterol Milligrams 6.04 8.78

Sodium Milligrams 205.84 253.42

Sugar Grams 6.90 8.40

Trans fats Grams 0.03 0.07

1Standardized 48 gram serving size. Differences in nutrient content are statistically significant 

at the 1-percent level of significance for each nutrient.

2Products carrying at least one of the top 10 health- and nutrition-related claims from 2010.

Source: Mintel Global New Product Database.
30

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

The voluntary use of HNR claims on new food products is an important 

component of food companies’ marketing strategy. In 2010, 43 percent of new 

food products carried at least one HNR claim. This compares to 25 percent 

of new products in 2001, which suggests that companies have increasingly 

chosen to compete by targeting health-conscious consumers. The extent of 

HNR claims on packaged food products introduced into the food supply 

highlights the importance of understanding how consumers use these claims, 

in conjunction with nutrition information, to form product evaluations.

Tracking of HNR claims beginning in 1989 reveals that the recent growth in 

HNR claims stands in marked contrast to reductions found in earlier years. 

From 1989 to 2001, the percentage of new products with HNR claims fell 

from 34.6 to 25.2 percent. This followed passage of the Nutrition Labeling 

and Education Act of 1990 that led to dramatic changes in food labeling by 

requiring most food products to carry a Nutrition Facts label and establishing 

rules for voluntary HNR claims. This suggests that the new food labeling 

regulations may have had an important impact on companies’ use of voluntary claims and marketing messages conveyed to consumers. 

The growth in “no trans fats” claims after 2001 lends further support to the 

importance of nutrient labeling regulations on the use of HNR claims. The 

biggest change to the Nutrition Facts label since NLEA (1990) was issued by 

FDA in 2003 and required food companies to include trans fatty acids in the 

Nutrition Facts label by 2006. The increase in new products with a “no trans 

fats” claim exceeded all other HNR claims from 2001 to 2005. 

Claims related to calories, whole grain, fiber, sugar, and vitamins and 

minerals also were important contributors to the overall growth in HNR 

claims on new products after 2001. This followed communications regarding 

the obesity epidemic and educational campaigns by Government and other 

public information sources that highlighted the importance of calories, 

moderating sugar intake, and choosing foods high in fiber-rich whole grains. 

For example, the 2000 and 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans emphasized the role of sugar-sweetened beverages in the growing obesity problem 

and recommended limiting calories from consumption of such products. 

Sizeable increases subsequently occurred in the share of sugar and calorie 

claims accounted for by beverages over 2001 to 2010. 

Other notable increases in HNR claims after 2001 included nontraditional 

claims related to gluten, antioxidants, and omega-3. For example, the biggest 

increase among HNR claims from 2001 to 2010 was for “no gluten,” and 

it also ranked as the second most popular nutrient claim in 2010. The decision by food companies to feature these attributes reflects consumer needs 

and preferences for food products that provide health benefits beyond basic 

nutrition. Consumer demand for “functional” foods may be impacted by 

new scientific information linking diet and disease, an aging population, and 

growing health care costs. 

Sales data for new products introduced in 2009 and 2010 suggest that HNR 

claims may have a positive impact on purchase behavior. This is consistent with the growing use of HNR claims by food companies and further 
31

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

highlights the need for understanding the implications of such claims for 

diet and health. In general, our study indicates that HNR claims not only 

highlight health and nutritional benefits for consumers targeting specific 

nutritional characteristics, but also that products with these claims may have a 

healthier nutritional profile. Competition among food companies, along with 

a credible means of highlighting nutrient and health impacts, may provide 

incentives to use HNR claims on products of higher nutritional quality.
32

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Allshouse, J., B. Frazao, and J. Turpening. 2002. “Are Americans Turning 

Away From Lower Fat Salty Snacks?” Food Review, Vol. 25, pp. 38-43. 

Archibald, A. 2007. “Antioxidant Products: Nutritional Science and 

Marketplace Opportunities,” Prepared Foods Network, June 11, 2007. 

Accessed May 5, 2011, at: http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/

print/105875/

Arsenault, J.E. 2010. “Can Nutrition Labeling Affect Obesity?” Choices, 

Third Quarter 2010. 

Associated Press. 2005. “Gluten-Free Market Goes Mainstream,” July 27, 

2005.

Beck, M. 2011. “Clues to Gluten Sensitivity,” The Wall Street Journal, 

March 15, 2011. 

Brat, I., and P. Ziobro. 2010. “Campbell to Put New Focus on Taste,” The 

Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2010.

Brecher, S.J., M.M. Bender, V.L. Wilkening, N.M. McCabe, and E.M. 

Anderson. 2000. “Status of Nutrition Labeling, Health Claims, and 

Nutrient Content Claims for Processed Foods: 1997 Food Label and 

Package Survey,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 100: 

pp. 1057-1062.

Carlson, L. 2010. “Front-of-the-Pack and On-Shelf Labeling: Tools for 

Spotting Nutritious Choices at the Supermarket Shelf,” Nutrition Today, 

Vol. 45: pp. 15-21. 

Caswell, J.A., Y. Ning, F. Liu, and E.M. Mojduszka. 2003. “The Impact of 

New Labeling Regulations on the Use of Voluntary Nutrient-Content 

and Health Claims by Food Manufacturers,” Journal of Public Policy & 

Marketing, Vol. 22: pp. 147-158.

Chandon, P., and B. Wansink. 2011. “Is Food Marketing Making us Fat? A 

Multi-disciplinary Review,” Foundations and Trends in Marketing, Vol. 5: 

pp. 113-196.

Chern, W.S., E.T. Loehman, and S.T. Yen. 1995. “Information, Health Risk 

Beliefs, and the Demand for Fats and Oils,” The Review of Economics and 

Statistics, Vol. 77: pp. 555-564.

Colby, S.E., L. Johnson, A. Scheett, and B. Hoverson. 2010. “Nutrition 

Marketing on Food Labels,” Journal of Nutrition Education and 

Behavior, Vol. 42: pp. 92-98. 

Connor, J. 1981. “Food Product Proliferation: A Market Structure Analysis,” 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 63: pp. 607-617.
33

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Danaei, G., E.L. Ding, D. Mozaffarian, B. Taylor, J. Rehm, C.J.L. Murray, 

and M. Ezzati. 2009. “The Preventable Causes of Death in the United 

States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic 

Risk Factors,” PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6.

Dharmasena, S., O. Capps Jr., and A. Clauson. 2011. “Ascertaining the 

Impact of the 2000 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans on the 

Intake of Calories, Caffeine, Calcium, and Vitamin C from At-Home 

Consumption of Nonalcoholic Beverages,” Journal of Agricultural and 

Applied Economics, Vol. 43: pp. 13-27.

Drewnowski, A., H. Moskowitz, M. Reisner, and B. Krieger. 2010. “Testing 

Consumer Perception of Nutrient Content Claims Using Conjoint 

Analysis,” Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 13: pp. 688–694.

Drichoutis, A.C., P. Lazaridis, and R.M. Nayga. 2006. “Consumers’ Use of 

Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research Studies and Issues,” Academy 

of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2006. Accessed December 16 2011, at: 

http://www.amsreview.org/articles/drichoutis09-2006.pdf

Finkel, Y., E. Alonso, and P. Rosenthal. 2005. “Gluten-Free Food Labeling in 

the United States,” Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 

Vol. 41: pp. 567–568.

Ford, G.T., M. Hastak, A. Mitra, and D. Jones Ringold. 1996. “Can 

Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health 

Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” Journal of Public Policy and 

Marketing, Vol. 15: pp. 16-27. 

French, S.A., M. Story, P. Hannan, K.K. Breitlow, R.W. Jeffery, J.S. Baxter, 

and M.P. Snyder. 1999. “Cognitive and Demographic Correlates of 

Low-Fat Vending Snack Choices Among Adolescents and Adults,” 

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 99: pp. 471-475.

Gallegher, J. 2011. “Survival of the Fittest,” Supermarket News, October 24, 

2011.

Garretson, J.A., and S. Burton. 2000. “Effects of Nutrition Facts Panel 

Values, Nutrition Claims, and Health Claims on Consumer Attitudes, 

Perceptions of Disease-Related Risks, and Trust,” Journal of Public 

Policy and Marketing, Vol. 19: pp. 213-227. 

Gates, K. 2005. “Stepping Up,” Supermarket News, March 14, 2005.

Gelski, J. 2005. “Numbers Game Swings Low-Calorie Way,” Milling & 

Baking News, July 5, 2005. 

Ghani, W.I., and N.M. Childs. 1999. “Wealth Effects of the Passage of 

the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 for Large U.S. 

Multinational Food Corporations,” Journal of Public Policy and 

Marketing, Vol. 18: pp. 147-158. 
34

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Gibeson, A. 2012. “The Gluten-Free Quandary,” BakingBusiness.com, 

January 17, 2012. Accessed February 1, 2012, at: http://www.bakingbusiness.com/News/News%20Home/Features/2012/1/The%20gluten%20

free%20quandary.aspx

Glanz, K., M. Basil, E. Maibach, J. Goldberg, and D. Snyder. 1998. “Why 

Americans Eat What They Do: Taste, Nutrition, Convenience, and Weight 

Control Concerns as Influences on Food Consumption,” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association, Vol. 98: pp. 1118-1126.

Gogoi, P. 2004. “The Food Giants Go on a Diet: Rising Obesity Worries 

Force Big Changes,” Bloomberg Businessweek, November 1, 2004. 

Accessed April 20 2011, at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6362472/

print/1/displaymode/1098/

Golan, E., F. Kuchler, and B. Krissoff. 2007. “Do Food Labels Make a 

Difference?...Sometimes,” Amber Waves, November, pp. 11-17.

Golan, E., and L. Unnevehr. 2008. “Food Product Composition, Consumer 

Health, and Public Policy: Introduction and Overview of Special Section,” 

Food Policy, Vol. 33: pp. 465-469.

Gorton, L. 2011. “Niche Formulating: The Five Essentials,” BakingBusiness.

com, February 3, 2011. Accessed February 1, 2012, at: http://www.bakingbusiness.com/Features/Formulating%20and%20R%20and%20D/2011/2/

The%20Five%20Essentials.aspx

Gorton, L. 2012. “Ingredient Alternatives: Serious Concern,” BakingBusiness.

com, April 1, 2010. Accessed February 1, 2012, at: http://www.bakingbusiness.com/Features/Formulating%20and%20R%20and%20D/2010/4/

Ingredient%20Alternatives%20Serious%20Concern.aspx

Gray, E. 2011 “What’s a Calorie? (And More Nutrition Buzzwords Defined),” 

The Huffington Post, July 21, 2011. Accessed November 18 2011, at: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/what-is-a-calorie_n_905311.

html#s312674&title=Antioxidants

Harris, J.L., J.M. Thompson, M.B. Schwartz, and K.D. Brownell. 2011. 

“Nutrition-Related Claims on Children’s Cereals: What Do They Mean 

to Parents and Do They Influence Willingness to Buy?” Public Health 

Nutrition, August 2, 2011. 

Hirsch, J.M. 2004. “Calorie-Conscious Soda Drivers Drive Sales of Diet 

Products,” The Seattle Times, December 22, 2004. 

Horovitz, B. 2004. “General Mills Cereals Go Totally Whole Grain,” USA 

Today, September 30, 2004.

Hudson Institute. 2011. Better-For-You Foods: It’s Just Good Business, 

Obesity Solutions Initiative, October 2011.
35

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Institute of Medicine, National Academies. 2010. Strategies to Reduce 

Sodium Intake in the United States. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press.

Ippolito, P.M., and A.D. Mathios. 1990. “Information, Advertising and 

Health Choices: A Study of the Cereal Market,” The RAND Journal of 

Economics, Vol. 21: pp. 459-480. 

Ippolito, P.M., and A.D. Mathios. 1991. “Health Claims in Food Marketing: 

Evidence on Knowledge and Behavior in the Cereal Market,” Journal of 

Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 10: pp. 15-32. 

Ippolito, P.M., and A.D. Mathios. 1993. “New Food Labeling Regulations 

and the Flow of Nutrition Information to Consumers,” Journal of Public 

Policy and Marketing, Vol. 12: pp. 188-205. 

Ippolito, P.M., and A.D. Mathios. 1994. “Information, Policy, and the Sources 

of Fat and Cholesterol in the U.S. Diet,” Journal of Public Policy and 

Marketing, Vol. 13: pp. 200-217. 

Ippolito, P.M., and J.K. Pappalardo. 2002. Advertising Nutrition & Health, 

Evidence from Food Advertising 1977-1997, Staff Report, Federal Trade 

Commission, Bureau of Economics

Jones, B. 2010. “Prepared Foods Exclusive: No Functional Fad,” Prepared 

Foods Network, February 2, 2010. Accessed May 26 2011, at: http://www.

preparedfoods.com/articles/prepared-foods-exclusive-no-functional-fad

Jones, P.J., and S. Jew. 2007. “Functional Food Development: Concept to Reality,” 

Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 18(7): pp. 387-390, July. 

Kaiser Family Foundation. 2007a. Children’s Exposure to Food Advertising 

on Television: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Results from Recent Studies 

by the Federal Trade Commission and the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA. June 5, 2007.

Kaiser Family Foundation. 2007b. Food For Thought: Television Food 

Advertising to Children in the United States. Kaiser Family Foundation, 

Menlo Park, CA. March 28, 2007.

Keller, S.B., M. Landry, J. Olson, A.M. Velliquette, S. Burton, and J.C. 

Andrews. 1997. “The Effects of Nutrition Package Claims, Nutrition Facts 

Panels, and Motivation to Process Nutrition Information on Consumer 

Product Evaluations,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 16: 

pp. 256-269.

Kemp, E., S. Burton, E.H. Creyer, and T.A. Suter. 2007. “When Do Nutrient 

Content and Nutrient Content Claims Matter? Assessing Consumer 

Tradeoffs Between Carbohydrates and Fat,” The Journal of Consumer 

Affairs, Vol. 41: pp. 47-73.
36

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Kiesel, K., S.B. Villas-Boas. 2010. “Can Information Costs Affect Consumer 

Choice? Nutritional Labels in a Supermarket Experiment,” International 

Journal of Industrial Organization, In Press, Corrected Proof. November 

26, 2010.

Kim, S.Y., R.M. Nayga, and O. Capps. 2001. “Food Label Use, SelfSelectivity, and Diet Quality,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35: 

pp. 346-363. 

KPMG International Cooperative. 2011. KPMG International Survey of 

Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011, Publication No. 110973, 

November 2011.

Koplan, J.P., C.T. Liverman, and V.A. Kraak, editors. 2005. Preventing 

Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press, 2005.

Koplan, J.P., C.T. Liverman, V.A. Kraak, and S.L. Wisham, editors. 2006. 

Progress in Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We Measure Up?

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.

Kozup, J., S. Burton, and E.H. Creyer. 2006. “The Provision of Trans Fat 

Information and Its Interaction with Consumer Knowledge,” The Journal 

of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 40: pp. 163-176.

Kozup, J.C., E.H. Creyer, and S. Burton. 2003. “Making Healthful Food 

Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on 

Consumers’ Evaluations of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu 

Items,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67: pp. 19-34.

Lapid, N. 2009. “The Celiac Disease Diagnosis Rate,” About.com, April 

1, 2009. Accessed April 13 2012, at: http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/

diagnosingceliacdisease/a/DiagnosisRate.htm

Lee, T. “Big G Takes High Road With Whole Grains,” Star Tribune, 

October 10, 2004. 

LeGault, L., M.B. Brandt, N. McCabe, C. Adler, A.M. Brown, and S. Brecher. 

2004. “2000-2001 Food Label and Package Survey: An Update on Prevalence 

of Nutrition Labeling and Claims on Processed, Packaged Foods,” Journal of 

the American Dietary Association, Vol. 104: pp. 952-958.

Levi, J., S. Vinter, L. Richardson, R. St. Laurent, and L.M. Segal. 2009. F as 

in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America. Washington, DC: 

Trust for America’s Health, July 2009.

Lohmann, J. and A.K. Kant. 1998. “Effect of the Food Guide Pyramid on 

Food Advertising,” Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 30: pp. 23-28.

Mancino, L., F. Kuchler, and E. Leibtag. 2008. “Getting Consumers to 

Eat More Whole Grains: The Role of Policy, Information, and Food 

Manufacturers,” Food Policy, Vol. 33: pp. 489-496.
37

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

McLaughlin, E.W., and V.R. Rao. 1990. “The Strategic Role of Supermarket 

Buyer Intermediaries in New Product Selection: Implications for 

Systemwide Efficiency,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 

Vol. 72: pp. 358-370.

Mitra, A., M. Hastak, G.T. Ford, and D. Jones Ringold. 1999. “Can the 

Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret the FDA-Mandated Nutrition Facts 

Panel in the Presence of an Implied Health Claim?” Journal of Public 

Policy and Marketing, Vol. 18: pp. 106-117.

Moorman, C. 1998. “Market-Level Effects of Information: Competitive 

Responses and Consumer Dynamics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 

Vol. 35: pp. 82-98.

Moorman, C., R. Ferraro, and J. Huber. September/October 2012. 

“Unintended Nutrition Consequences: Firm Responses to the Nutrition 

and Education Act,” Marketing Science, Vol. 31:738-755.

National Foundation for Celiac Awareness. 2011. Celiac Disease Facts 

and Figures. Accessed April 13, 2012, at: http://www.celiaccentral.org/

celiac-disease/facts-and-figures/

Nielsenwire. 2010. “U.S. Healthy Eating Trends Part 1: Commitment 

Trumps the Economic Pinch,” January 26, 2010. Accessed August 

31 2011, at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/

healthy-eating-trends-pt-1-commitment-trumps-the-economic-pinch/

O’Donnell, C. 2008. “Choices for Weight Management 

Products,” Prepared Foods Network, May 2008. Accessed 

May 5 2011, at: http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/

article-choices-for-weight-management-products-may-2008

Ogden, C.L., and M.D. Carroll. 2010a. “Prevalence of Overweight, Obesity, 

and Extreme Obesity Among Adults: United States, Trends 1960-

1962 Through 2007-2008,” Health E-Stats, National Center for Health 

Statistics, January 2010.

Ogden, C.L., and M.D. Carroll. 2010b. “Prevalence of Obesity Among 

Children and Adolescents: United States, Trends 1963-1965 Through 

2007-2008,” Health E-Stats, National Center for Health Statistics, June 

2010.

Ogden, C.L., M.D. Carroll, B.K. Kit, K.M. Flegal. 2012. Prevalence of 

Obesity in the United States, 2009-2010, Data Brief No. 82, National 

Center for Health Statistics, January.

Packaged Facts. 2011. Gluten-Free Foods and Beverages in the U.S., 3rd 

Edition, February.

Packaged Facts. 2011. Omega-3 Foods and Beverages in the U.S., 3rd 

Edition, June.
38

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Packaged Facts. 2011. Omega-3: Global Product Trends and Opportunities, 

August.

Padberg, D.I. 1992. “Nutritional Labeling as a Policy Instrument,” American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 74: pp. 1208-1212.

Padberg, D.I., and R.E. Westgren. 1979. “Product Competition and Consumer 

Behavior in the Food Industries,” American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics, Vol. 61: pp. 620-625.

Parker, B.J. 2003. “Food for Health: The Use of Nutrient Content, Health, 

and Structure/Function Claims in Food Advertisements,” Journal of 

Advertising, Vol. 32: pp. 47-55.

Petruccelli, P.J. 1996. “Consumer and Marketing Implications of Information 

Provision: The Case of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 

1990,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 15: pp. 150-153.

Pietzak, M. 2005. “Gluten-Free Food Labeling in the United States,” Journal 

of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Vol. 41: pp. 567–568.

Pirovano, T. 2010. “U.S. Healthy Eating Trends Part 1: Commitment Trumps 

the Economic Pinch,” Nielsenwire, January 26, 2010. 

Progressive Grocer. 1997. “Special Report: Efficient New Product 

Introduction,” July.

Putnam, J., J. Allshouse, and L.S. Kantor. 2002. “U.S. Per Capita Food 

Supply Trends: More Calories, Refined Carbohydrates, and Fats,” Food 

Review, Vol. 25, pp. 2-15. 

Rahkovsky, I., S. Martinez, and F. Kuchler. 2012. New Food Choices Free 

of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations, 

EIB-95, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

April 2012.

Roberfroid, M.B. 2000. “Concepts and Strategy of Functional Food Science: 

the European Perspective,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 

Vol. 71, pp. 1660S-1664S.

Roe, B., A.S. Levy, and B.M. Derby. 1999. “The Impact of Health Claims on 

Consumer Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Results from FDA 

Experimental Data,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 18: pp. 

89-105.

Röger, C., R. Herrmann, and J. Connor. 2000. “Determinants of New Product 

Introductions in the US Food Industry: A Panel-Model Approach,” 

Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 7: pp. 743-748. 

Sachdev, A. 2001. “New Food Products Battle for Survival,” Chicago 

Tribune, May 8, 2001.

Scott-Thomas, C. 2010. Whole Grains Claims Soar in 2010, Food 

Navigator-USA.com, September 20, 2010.
39

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Scott-Thomas, C. 2011a. Celiac Disease May Have Little Influence on 

Soaring Gluten-Free Market, Food Navigator-USA.com, February 4, 2011.

Scott-Thomas, C. 2011b. Gaining Loyalty in the Gluten-Free Market, Food 

Navigator-USA.com, April 4, 2011.

Scott-Thomas, C. 2011c. Snacks Deliver a Quarter of U.S. Calorie Intake, 

Food Navigator-USA.com, June 24, 2011.

Scott-Thomas, C. 2011d. Fortification Drives Consumer Definition of 

“Healthy,” Food Navigator-USA.com, July 25, 2011.

Silverglade, B., and I.R. Heller. 2010. Food Labeling Chaos: The Case for 

Reform, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC.

Singletary, K.W., and M.A. Morganosky. 2004. “Functional Foods: Consumer 

Issues and Future Challenges,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, 

Vol. XXV: pp. 1-5.

Siro ́, I., E. Ka ́polna, B. Ka ́polna, and A. Lugasi. 2008. “Functional Food. 

Product Development, Marketing and Consumer Acceptance—A Review,” 

Appetite, Vol. 51: pp. 456-467.

Solan, M. 2011. “Is Gluten Making Us Fat?” Men’s Health, January 31, 2011.

Springen, K. 2008. “A New Diet Villain—Are Gluten -Free Diets Healthier, 

or Is It Hype?” Newsweek, December 3, 2008.

Stewart, H., N. Blisard, and D. Jolliffe. 2006. Let’s Eat Out: Americans 

Weigh Taste, Convenience, and Nutrition, EIB-19, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October 2006.

Szykman, L.R., P.N. Bloom, and A.S. Levy. 1997. “A Proposed Model of the 

Use of Package Claims and Nutrition Labels,” Journal of Public Policy & 

Marketing, Vol. 16: pp. 228-241.

Tanner, J., and M.A. Raymond. 2010. Principles of Marketing. Irvington, NY: 

Flat World Knowledge. 

Teratanavat, R.P., N.H. Hooker, C.P. Haugtvedt, and D.D. Rucker. 2004. 

Consumer Understanding and Use of Health Information on Product 

Labels: Marketing Implications for Functional Food, presentation at the 

2004 American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. 

Denver, CO. 

Thompson, S. 2004. “Nestle to Roll Out Whole-Grain Lean Cuisine Line,” 

AdAge.com, October 21, 2004.

Thompson, S. 2003. “Wal-Mart Muscles Marketers Toward Low-Cal Foods,” 

AdAge.com, June 30, 2003.
40

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Toops, D. 2008. “The Year’s Top-Selling Food Products,” FoodProcessing.

com, May 2, 2008. Accessed May 26 2011, at: http://www.foodprocessing.

com/articles/2008/119.html

Unnevehr, L.J., and E. Jagmanaite. 2008. “Getting Rid of Trans Fats in the 

U.S. Diet: Policies, Incentives, and Progress,” Food Policy, Vol. 33: pp. 

497-503.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

1992. The Food Guide Pyramid, Home and Garden Bulletin Number 252.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2000. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2005. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2004a. Calories Count: Report of the Working Group on 

Obesity. 2004.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2004b. FDA Announces Qualified Health Claims for 

Omega-3 Fatty Acids, FDA News Release, September 8, 2004. Accessed 

February 9, 2012, at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/

PressAnnouncements/2004/ucm108351.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2006. Draft Guidance: Whole Grain Label Statements,

February 17, 2006. Accessed January19, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/

Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/

FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm059088.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2011. FDA Reopens Comment Period on Proposed 

“Gluten-free” Food Labeling Rule, FDA News Release, August 2, 

2011. Accessed December 8, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/

Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm265838.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2008. Guidance for Industry: Food Labeling; Nutrient 

Content Claims; Definition for “High Potency” and Definition 

for “Antioxidant” for Use in Nutrient Content Claims for Dietary 

Supplements and Conventional Foods; Small Entity Compliance Guide.

July 2008. Accessed December 28 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/

GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/

FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm063064.htm
41

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2009. Food Labeling Guide. October 2009. 

Accessed November 17 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/

GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/

FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/default.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

Office of the Surgeon General. 2001. The Surgeon General’s Call to 

Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. 2001.

U.S. General Accountability Office. 2011. Food Labeling: FDA Needs 

to Reassess its Approach to Protecting Consumers From False or 

Misleading Claims. January 2011.

Van Camp, D.J., N.H. Hooker, and D.M. Souza-Monteiro. 2010. “Adoption of 

Voluntary Front of Package Nutrition Schemes in UK Food Innovations,” 

British Food Journal, Vol. 112: pp. 580-591.

Wansink, B., and P. Chandon. 2006. “Can Low-Fat Nutrition Labels Lead to 

Obesity?” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43: 605-617.

White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. 2010. Report to the 

President: Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a 

Generation. May 2010.

Wilson, N.L.W. 2012. “How the Cookie Crumbles: A Case Study of GlutenFree Cookies and Random Utility,” American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics, Vol. 94: pp. 576-582. 

Wyatt, S.L. 2011. State of the Snack Industry 2010. SymphonyIRI Group, 

2011.

Yach, D., M. Khan, D. Bradley, R. Hargrove, S. Kehoe, and G. Mensah. 2010. 

“The Role and Challenges of the Food Industry in Addressing Chronic 

Disease,” Globalization and Health, Vol. 6: pp. 1-8.
42

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 1 Tables

Appendix 1 table 1

New products with health- and nutrition-related claims by product category, select years, 1989-2010

Product category Percent of new products with a health- and nutrition-related claim

1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2010

Snacks 43.9 34.2 46.8 32.5 52.7 61.0 59.0

 Potato snacks 57.3 44.0 54.3 25.6 64.6 79.2 71.0

 Other snacks 36.8 30.6 44.0 34.4 49.5 55.9 54.3

Bakery 50.3 35.6 37.8 37.7 60.8 54.1 50.9

 Sweet biscuits/cookies 30.8 33.5 32.5 12.7 33.5 42.7 40.8

 Bread and bread products 64.9 31.6 30.1 35.9 64.3 51.5 51.6

 Savory Biscuits/Crackers 57.9 42.3 52.8 31.0 71.7 59.2 48.3

 Other bakery 78.3 66.7 61.9 78.9 85.6 68.1 61.4

Processed fish, meat, and poultry products 42.0 46.2 46.5 28.0 39.9 41.2 47.6

 Meat and meat products 40.0 45.8 40.3 18.3 29.0 26.3 34.0

 Poultry and poultry products 43.2 50.0 51.9 16.0 34.8 53.2 60.0

 Meat substitutes 71.4 73.9 87.5 70.3 81.8 94.4 93.8

 Fish and fish products 25.5 13.0 21.3 32.8 51.4 41.0 40.0

Meals and entrees 13.0 13.3 20.5 14.5 32.1 38.3 36.5

Pasta, pizza, noodles, and rice 28.0 31.5 24.5 18.5 36.3 46.4 39.1

Sauces, dressings, and condiments 26.0 29.2 28.9 16.2 25.3 28.2 30.7

 Dressings 49.4 40.5 52.3 26.3 50.0 38.3 46.4

 Seasonings 26.7 33.0 23.8 13.1 24.8 21.1 27.7

 Other sauces and condiments 18.8 26.2 25.7 15.2 20.6 28.8 28.5

Dairy 56.0 53.7 53.9 46.8 52.9 45.9 54.8

 Yogurt 84.6 67.4 90.9 73.6 84.1 87.5 90.9

 Milk 61.1 76.2 71.4 72.5 82.6 77.3 92.2

 Cheese 34.6 31.6 33.0 19.2 31.2 19.2 22.6

 Other dairy 68.2 63.5 58.3 48.5 58.1 51.2 45.8

Breakfast cereal 63.8 57.3 52.9 60.4 86.4 61.5 90.5

Chocolate, sugar, and gum confectionery 12.4 9.9 19.5 11.5 20.8 19.7 23.0

Desserts and ice cream 38.9 39.1 35.5 24.5 46.7 49.5 43.3

Beverages 26.4 21.9 19.4 25.8 33.1 39.8 44.0

 Bottled water 57.8 34.3 28.2 40.7 73.9 56.5 50.0

 Other beverages 23.1 20.5 18.6 24.5 30.9 39.0 43.6

Soup 24.6 40.9 51.2 27.0 33.3 54.4 54.5

Sweet and savory spreads 24.4 23.5 28.0 15.6 26.8 35.8 38.3

Fruit and vegetables 18.1 22.6 25.5 22.8 34.4 34.0 39.1

Baby food 9.5 22.2 12.9 11.4 20.8 23.9 20.6

Oils and fats 65.8 42.1 33.9 19.6 28.3 26.5 28.6

All food and beverage 34.6 30.3 30.8 25.2 37.8 40.8 43.3

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.
43

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 1 table 2

Leading health- and nutrition-related claims on new food and beverage products, select years, 1989 to 2010

Claim1 Percent of new products with claim2

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010

1989 

to

20103

Low/no fat 9.2 15.6 15.9 25.5 21.7 14.8 9.9 12.1 11.0 9.6 8.9 9.7 13.6

High minerals/high vitamins 1.7 2.2 1.9 2.2 3.9 6.5 10.0 12.5 13.0 13.0 12.4 13.5 8.5

Low/no calories 10.4 11.1 7.7 4.9 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.8 7.9 7.3 10.2 8.6 6.7

Low/no cholesterol 14.3 14.2 9.3 8.6 5.8 5.4 3.9 5.3 4.6 5.3 3.6 4.8 6.5

Low/no sugar, no added sugar, no sweeteners 7.7 6.9 5.8 6.2 3.6 3.9 4.5 7.3 9.0 7.5 7.3 7.3 6.4

Low/no sodium, low/no salt, no added salt 11.7 11.5 8.4 5.9 4.6 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.9 3.6 4.7 5.0

High protein 1.5 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 3.7 5.2 6.3 5.7 4.7 5.8 5.3 4.0

High fiber/high bran 8.8 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 3.7

Low/no trans fats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 7.8 10.6 9.3 8.5 3.5

No gluten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.1 5.6 9.0 12.0 2.9

High calcium 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 3.6 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.3 2.6

Low/no carbohydrates 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.9 3.9 6.5 1.5 1.7 1.2 2.2

Contains whole grains 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.3 3.7 3.7 4.5 1.9

No monosodium glutamate (MSG) 1.0 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.2 1.7

High antioxidants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 4.8 5.6 4.5 1.7

Low/no saturated fat 0.2 2.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2

High fruit 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1

No/low lactose 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.1

High omega-3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.4 1.0

1Includes those claims that accounted for 1 percent or more of all new products introduced over 1989 to 2010.

2Darkened line between the years 1993 and 1995 denotes pre- and post-Nutrition Labeling Education Act (NLEA).

3Includes all years between 1989 and 2010.

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.
44

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 Tables

Appendix 2 table 1

Top 5 product categories for leading health- and nutrition-related claims, percent of claims, 1989, 2001, 

and 2010

Top 10 claims in 1989 Top 10 claims in 2001 Top 10 claims in 2010

Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1

Cholesterol Bakery 22.2

Vitamins/

minerals Beverages 34.9

Vitamins/

minerals Beverages 43.8

Snacks 15.8 Bakery 19.2 Cereal 11.4

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 10.4 Dairy 13.2 Dairy 9.2

Dairy 9.4 Snacks 5.6 Bakery 7.6

Cereal 6.2 Cereal 5.4 Snacks 5.2

Sodium Snacks 16.5 Total fat Dairy 18.6 No gluten Snacks 16.3

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 16.5 Snacks 15.5 Bakery 15.1

Bakery 15.7 Bakery 10.8 Beverages 15.1

Beverages 12.9

Meat, fish, 

poultry 10.0

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 12.6

Cereal 11.2

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 7.8

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 6.4

Fiber/branrelated Bakery 39.4 Protein Bakery 25.7 Total fat Dairy 18.6

Cereal 29.6 Snacks 14.2 Snacks 13.1

Snacks 16.2 Beverages 9.3

Meat, fish, 

poultry 9.9

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 7.4

Meat, fish, 

poultry 8.6 Bakery 8.7

Fruits and 

vegetables; 

meat, fish, 

poultry 2.4

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 6.0 Beverages 8.0

Calorie-related Dairy 13.7 Sugar Beverages 24.1 Calorie-related Beverages 40.2

Beverages 12.3

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 21.5 Bakery 10.4

Bakery 11.4 Bakery 11.8 Snacks 8.2

Desserts and 

ice cream 10.6

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 9.3 Dairy 5.7

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 9.4

Desserts and 

ice cream 6.8

Desserts and 

ice cream 5.5

Total fat Dairy 25.7 Cholesterol Dairy 21.0 Trans fats Snacks 29.1

Meat, fish, 

poultry 16.4 Snacks 13.7 Bakery 23.8

Desserts and 

ice cream 15.1 Bakery 10.7

Meals and 

entrees 9.3

—continued
45

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 1

Top 5 product categories for leading health- and nutrition-related claims, percent of claims, 1989, 2001, 

and 2010—Continued

Top 10 claims in 1989 Top 10 claims in 2001 Top 10 claims in 2010

Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1

Bakery 10.3

Meat, fish, 

poultry 10.7

Meat, fish, 

poultry 7.6

Snacks 7.4

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 10.7

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 4.7

Sugar Beverages 19.3 Calcium Dairy 36.5 Sugar Beverages 45.4

Bakery 13.9 Beverages 24.4

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 11.7

Cereal 12.4 Bakery 16.2 Bakery 10.4

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 10.4 Cereal 3.6

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 6.6

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 8.5

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 3.6

Fruits and 

vegetables 6.2

Vitamins Beverages 26.3 Calorie-related Beverages 34.2 Fiber-related Bakery 24.2

Cereal 21.1 Dairy 9.5 Cereal 13.9

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 7.0 Bakery 9.5 Snacks 10.4

Fruits and 

vegetables 3.5

Meat, fish, 

poultry 6.3 Beverages 10.4

Dairy 3.5

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 6.3

Fruits and 

vegetables 7.4

Protein

Meat, fish, 

poultry 45.1 Sodium Beverages 23.9 Protein Bakery 20.8

Dairy 13.7 Snacks 13.4 Beverages 18.4

Snacks 11.8

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 11.3

Meals and 

entrees 11.2

Bakery 7.8 Dairy 10.6 Snacks 10.1

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments, 

pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 5.9 Bakery 7.0 Dairy 9.9

Whole grain Bakery 31.1 Fiber-related Bakery 21.5 Cholesterol Snacks 21.9

Cereal 22.2 Cereal 15.4 Bakery 15.9

Snacks 13.3 Snacks 10.0 Cereal 8.5

Beverages 4.4 Beverages 8.5

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 7.4

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, 

rice, sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments; 

chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 2.2

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 7.7 Dairy 6.5

—continued
46

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 1

Top 5 product categories for leading health- and nutrition-related claims, percent of claims, 1989, 2001, 

and 2010—Continued

Top 10 claims in 1989 Top 10 claims in 2001 Top 10 claims in 2010

Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1

High fruit Beverages 36.8 Carbohydrates Bakery 26.0 Sodium Snacks 15.8

Cereal 18.4 Beverages 21.0 Beverages 15.5

Desserts and 

ice cream 13.2 Snacks 12.0

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 15.2

Sweet and 

savory spreads 10.5

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 6.0 Bakery 13.2

Snacks 5.3

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 5.0

Meat, fish, 

poultry 7.9

1Percent of claims accounted for by the product category.

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.
47

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 2

Top 5 product categories for leading health- and nutrition-related claims, percent of new products 

introduced, 1989, 2001, and 2010

Top 10 claims in 1989 Top 10 claims in 2001 Top 10 claims in 2010

Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1

Cholesterol Oils and fats 55.3

Vitamins/

minerals Cereal 30.8

Vitamins/

minerals Cereal 70.9

Bakery 28.9 Bakery 23.0 Beverages 25.8

Snacks 27.3 Dairy 22.1 Dairy 24.5

Dairy 24.7 Beverages 17.9

Fruits and 

vegetables 11.9

Cereal 23.6

Fruits and 

vegetables 14.8

Desserts and 

ice cream 11.6

Sodium Cereal 34.6 Total fat Dairy 30.8 No gluten Snacks 22.6

Oils and fats 28.9 Cereal 22.0 Soup 17.0

Snacks 23.4 Snacks 19.9

Desserts and 

ice cream 16.3

Bakery 16.8

Meat, fish, 

poultry 18.8 Bakery 16.0

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 16.5 Soup 15.7

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 14.9

Fiber/branrelated Cereal 69.3 Protein Bakery 16.0 Total fat Dairy 35.5

Bakery 31.6 Cereal 12.1

Desserts and 

ice cream 26.0

Snacks 17.3 Snacks 9.6 Cereal 22.2

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 13.4

Meat, fish, 

poultry 8.5

Meat, fish, 

poultry 19.7

Fruits and 

vegetables 6.0

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 7.6 Soup 17.0

Calorie-related Dairy 26.4 Sugar

Sweet and 

savory spreads 9.5 Calorie related

Desserts and 

ice cream 16.3

Desserts and 

ice cream 22.8

Desserts and 

ice cream 8.3 Beverages 15.2

Oils and fats 15.8 Cereal 7.7 Soup 12.5

Soup 13.1 Bakery 6.5 Dairy 9.7

Meals and 

entrees 11.1

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 6.4 Snacks 8.3

Total fat Dairy 44.0 Cholesterol Oils and fats 14.3 Trans fats Snacks 28.9

Meat, fish, 

poultry 29.3 Dairy 14.0 Bakery 17.9

Desserts and 

ice cream 29.0 Cereal 8.8

Meals and 

entrees 13.3

Oils and fats 23.7

Meat, fish, 

poultry 8.1 Cereal 13.3

Bakery 8.6 Snacks 7.1

Meat, fish, 

poultry 13.2

Sugar Cereal 25.2 Calcium Dairy 23.4 Sugar Beverages 14.9

Sweet and 

savory spreads 13.4 Cereal 7.7

Sweet and 

savory spreads 14.4

Beverages 10.7 Bakery 7.4 Cereal 12.0

—continued
48

Introduction of New Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010 / EIB-108 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 2

Top 5 product categories for leading health- and nutrition-related claims, percent of new products 

introduced, 1989, 2001, and 2010—Continued

Top 10 claims in 1989 Top 10 claims in 2001 Top 10 claims in 2010

Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1 Type of claim Top 5 product 

groups

Percent1

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 10.1 Beverages 4.8

Fruits and 

vegetables 9.9

Bakery 9.7 Baby food 4.4

Chocolate, 

sugar, and gum 

confectionery 8.0

Vitamins Cereal 9.4 Calorie-related Beverages 5.4 Fiber-related Cereal 38.0

Beverages 3.2 Dairy 4.9 Bakery 12.7

Oils and fats 2.6

Desserts and 

ice cream 4.7 Soup 12.5

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 2.4

Meat, fish, 

poultry 3.7

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 10.0

Fruits and 

vegetables 1.7 Bakery 3.5

Fruits and 

vegetables 9.3

Protein

Meat, fish, 

poultry 13.2 Sodium Soup 9.0 Protein Cereal 11.4

Dairy 3.8 Cereal 8.8

Meat, fish, 

poultry 10.4

Snacks 2.2 Dairy 4.9 Dairy 10.2

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 1.8 Snacks 4.8

Meals and 

entrees 9.9

Soup 1.6 Beverages 3.4 Bakery 9.7

Whole grain Cereal 7.9 Fiber related Cereal 22.0 Cholesterol Cereal 19.0

Baby food 4.8 Soup 6.7 Oils and fats 12.9

Bakery 3.8 Bakery 6.5 Soup 12.5

Snacks 2.2

Fruits and 

vegetables 5.4 Snacks 12.3

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 0.6

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 4.7 Bakery 6.8

High fruit Cereal 5.5 Carbohydrates Bakery 6.0 Sodium Soup 20.5

Sweet and 

savory spreads 3.4 Snacks 3.0 Cereal 8.9

Desserts and 

ice cream 3.1

Sweet and 

savory spreads 2.7 Snacks 8.6

Beverages 3.0 Beverages 2.1

Meat, fish, 

poultry 7.6

Fruits and 

vegetables 0.9

Pasta, pizza, 

noodles, rice 1.9

Sauces, 

dressings, 

condiments 7.0

1Percent of new products carrying the claim within the product category.

Source: Datamonitor, Product Launch Analytics database.