United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Ilya Rahkovsky, Steve Martinez, and Fred Kuchler

New Food Choices Free of Trans 

Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With 

Health Recommendations

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 95

April 2012
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

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.

Cover photo credit: Shutterstock.

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov

Find additional information on this topic: 

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

endorsement by USDA.

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Rahkovsky, Ilya, Steve Martinez, and Fred Kuchler. 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.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Federal agencies that are charged with giving dietary advice to consumers—the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—

recommend that consumers keep their intake of trans fatty acids as low as possible. To that 

end, Federal regulations now require food labels to say how many grams of trans fats are 

in each serving. In this report, we examine recent changes in the trans fats content of new 

food products and the use of “no trans fats” package claims. We fi nd a marked decline in 

the trans fats content of new food products from 2005 to 2010, along with an increase in the 

use of “no trans fats” claims on product packages. We also fi nd that only a small minority 

of foods that contain no trans fats make such claims even though the use of a “no trans 

fats” claim is associated with higher rates of successful market penetration in a majority 

of product categories. In addition, new products without trans fats generally contain less 

saturated fat, sodium, and calories, which suggests that the reduction of trans fats was not 

compensated by increases in these other nutrients. 

Keywords: trans fats, new products, nutrition, claims, labels, information

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank our USDA, Economic Research Service, Food Economics Division 

colleagues Laurian Unnevehr, Ephraim Leibtag, and Jay Variyam, as well as three anonymous reviewers for their comments. We also benefi tted from advice from Jordan Lin, U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration and from Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, USDA, Food Safety and 

Inspection Service. Priscilla Smith provided editorial expertise and Curtia Taylor provided 

graphic design expertise.

Ilya Rahkovsky, irahkovsky@ers.usda.gov

Steve Martinez, martinez@ers.usda.gov

Fred Kuchler, fkuchler@ers.usda.gov

New Food Choices Free of Trans 

Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With 

Health Recommendations

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin

Number 95

April 2012
ii

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

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

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

Trans Fats Coverage in the News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Data for Tracking Reformulation, Nutrition Claims, 

and Retail Sales in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Nutritional Content of New Products Introduced 

in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Average Trans Fats Content of New Food 

 Product Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Recent Trends in Trans Fats Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

What Have Food Manufacturers Done To Inform 

Consumers About Trans Fats Content? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Is There a Relationship Between Trans Fats Content 

and “No Trans Fats” Claims?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Does a “No Trans Fats” Claim Infl uence New 

Product Success in the Marketplace?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Are New Products With a “No Trans Fats” 

Claim Less Healthy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix 1—Mintel’s Data Collection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendix 2—New Food Product Introductions 

With a “No Trans Fats” Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
iii

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Federal Government’s quinquennial assessment of the linkage between diet and health, provides sciencebased advice on diet and physical activity to promote health and reduce the 

risk of major chronic diseases. In 2005 and 2010, that advice included the 

recommendation that Americans minimize their intake of trans fatty acids. 

While it is technically feasible to meet this goal, meeting the goal depends 

on consumers’ willingness to make dietary changes to restrict intake of 

trans fats. As long as consumers are not averse to consuming food products 

containing trans fats, there are fi nancial incentives for food manufacturers to 

continue using trans fats. Trans fats extend product shelf life and are cheaper 

than alternative fats. 

The Federal Government has tried to create incentives for food manufacturers 

to reduce their use of trans fats. Federal dietary guidance provides consumers 

with information about the hazards of trans fats, and Federal food labeling 

regulations began requiring the identifi cation of trans fats on Nutrition Facts 

panels in 2006. In this report, we examine whether food manufacturers are:

• reducing trans fats in foods in response to these changes.

• using trans fats-free claims on package labels as an advertising vehicle to 

inform consumers and increase sales.

• producing healthier foods. 

What Did the Study Find?

Most new food products contain no trans fats or do not contain enough to 

require reporting trans fats on the Nutrition Facts panel (together described 

here as products free of trans fats). Further, trends over recent years show that 

trans fats content in food products has been falling.

• In addition to labeling trans fats content on the Nutrition Facts panel of 

newly introduced foods, manufacturers have voluntarily highlighted the 

absence of trans fats on the front of food packages. 

- Food product introductions displaying package claims about the 

absence of trans fats began appearing in substantial numbers in 

2004 and increased every year through 2009.

- The two categories of foods where front-of-package statements 

appear most frequently are foods that had substantial trans fats in 

the past (bakery products, prepared meals, and desserts) and in 

foods that are nearly free of trans fats (baby food and cereals). 

- Most new foods that contain no trans fats do not make package 

claims about the absence of trans fats. 

• To calculate success rates of new products, products were deemed 

successful if available in at least 1 percent of the stores in our sample. 
iv

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Success rates for new products that contain trans fats have been about 

the same as for products that do not contain trans fats. However, success 

rates for products that are free of trans fats and that also carry the “no 

trans fats” front-of-package statement have been higher than for trans 

fats-free products that lack the “no trans fats” statement.

• New products without trans fats, including those that have front-ofpackage statements and those that do not have them, are likely to be lower 

in calories, sodium, and saturated fats than those containing trans fats. 

This suggests that food companies, when reformulating products to avoid 

trans fats, are generally substituting healthier ingredients for trans fats.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Using the Mintel Global New Products Database, we compared the average 

trans fats content of new food product introductions across 18 general food 

categories from 2006 to 2010. For fi ve categories displaying the highest trans 

fats content, the average annual trans fats content from 2005 to 2010 was 

also tracked, where data from 2005 were lower bound estimates. Growth in 

all new food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim from 2000 to 

2010 was examined. Researchers also compared the extent to which “no trans 

fats” claims were used on product packages for the 18 food categories and 

several subcategories from 2004—the fi rst year when a sizeable number of 

new food product introductions contained “no trans fats” claims—to 2010. 

Mintel data were also aligned with data from SymphonyIRI Group (formerly 

Information Resources, Inc.), which tracks monthly retail sales. The combined 

data set allowed comparisons between success rates of new products with 

and without trans fats from 2006 to 2010. Among products free of trans fats, 

success rates for those that had a “no trans fats” claim were compared with 

those that did not. Information from each new product’s Nutrition Facts panel 

was used to compare the per-serving nutrient content (sodium, sugar, saturated fat, and calories) of products containing trans fats with those that did not 

contain trans fats. For new products that were eligible to make “no trans fats” 

claims, nutritional comparisons were also made between products that made 

the claim versus those that did not make the claim.
1

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

In recent years, the public health community has agreed that consumers 

ought to eat as little trans fats as possible without compromising dietary 

quality. That message has been repeatedly conveyed to consumers from many 

different sources. Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have worked together 

to develop and disseminate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which 

provides information and advice based on a review of the most recent scientifi c evidence to help consumers choose a healthy eating pattern (Public Law 

101-445, Title III, 7 U.S. Code 5301 et seq.). Federal nutrition education 

guides, such as MyPlate (replacing MyPyramid), are used to translate nutrition recommendations into recommendations that consumers can use to guide 

their daily food choices. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines (released in January 

2011) offers clear-cut advice on trans fatty acid consumption:

Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible, especially by 

limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as 

partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting other solid fats. 

The recommendation to minimize intake of trans fatty acids began with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. At that time, the Food Guide 

Pyramid emphasized the benefi ts of reducing foods high in trans fatty acids. 

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines contain a recommendation similar to that in the 

2010 Dietary Guidelines, but without the advice on how to minimize intake 

of trans fats:

Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids 

and less than 300 mg/day of cholesterol, and keep trans fatty acid 

consumption as low as possible. 

The reasoning behind the recommendations was articulated by the Institute 

of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences): 

Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefi t to 

human health. Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. As with saturated 

fatty acids, there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid 

intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased 

risk of CHD. A UL is not set for trans fatty acids because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases CHD risk.1

Because trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan 

diets, consuming 0 percent of energy would require signifi cant 

changes in patterns of dietary intake. As with saturated fatty acids, 

such adjustments may introduce undesirable effects (e.g., elimination of commercially prepared foods, dairy products, and meats that 

contain trans fatty acids may result in inadequate intakes of protein 

and certain micronutrients) and unknown and unquantifi able health 

risks. Nevertheless, it is recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate 

diet. (Institute of Medicine, 2005, pp. 423-24)

1AI, Adequate Intake, is defi ned as 

the recommended average daily intake 

level. RDA, Recommended Dietary 

Allowance, is defi ned as the average 

daily dietary nutrient intake level suffi -

cient to meet nutrient requirements. UL, 

Tolerable Upper Intake Level, is defi ned 

as the highest average daily nutrient 

intake level that is likely to pose no risk 

of adverse health effects to almost all 

individuals in the general population. 

Coronary heart disease is abbreviated 

as CHD.
2

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

The recommendations pose a challenge for some food manufacturers. For 

many years, there were strong fi nancial incentives for food manufacturers to 

make products containing trans fats. Trans fats were commonly used in food 

processing because food processors could employ a process called hydrogenation to raise the melting point of relatively inexpensive products containing 

polyunsaturated fatty acids, making the products solid at room temperature.2

Foods that are higher in saturated fatty acids are more resistant to spoilage. 

The twin attractions of these synthetic trans fatty acids, found in partially 

hydrogenated oils, are reduced costs of food production and longer shelf life 

of products. Partially hydrogenated oils have been frequently used in margarines, snack foods, and prepared desserts, replacing saturated fatty acids. 

The diffi culty in solving the public health problem trans fats pose is that food 

manufacturers could reformulate their products to nearly eliminate trans fats 

from the food supply, but reformulation might require using alternative and 

more expensive oils and those alternative oils might compromise product 

quality. Production costs would rise and demand would fall as consumers 

reject the less tasty product. Thus, as long as consumers are not averse to 

eating trans fats, food manufacturers have a fi nancial incentive to continue 

using trans fats in their recipes and are likely to be unwilling to reformulate 

foods to eliminate trans fats.

If consumers were aware of the health problems caused by trans fats—they 

might be healthier without trans fats—they might be willing to pay a price 

premium for foods that did not contain trans fats, compensating manufacturers for reformulating. In that case, suppliers might even compete among 

themselves to reformulate, and inform consumers that they have removed 

trans fats from their products. Food manufacturers could earn higher prices 

and net returns by eliminating trans fats if consumers valued avoiding trans 

fats, and if willingness to pay for reduced trans fats exceeded reformulation costs. In effect, social goals of having a healthier population and private 

fi nancial incentives would be aligned to benefi t consumers and food manufacturers. Of course, this outcome only occurs if consumers are aware of the 

health issue, demand trans fat-free products, and manufacturers can reformulate and inform consumers that the products they are offering are superior (no 

trans fats) either to what had been offered previously or to what the competition is offering. Otherwise, removing trans fats would not offer a manufacturer a competitive advantage and would not offer the possibility of receiving 

a positive return on reformulation. 

The Federal Government has pursued two activities intended to reduce 

Americans’ dietary intake of trans fats by:

1. informing consumers that they can reduce health risks they face by 

choosing fats other than trans fats.

2. requiring food manufacturers to label the trans fats content of foods. 

That is, two types of Federal actions have been directed at reducing the 

consumption of trans fats. If consumers are aware that they ought to choose 

foods that do not include trans fats and know which foods to avoid, their diets 

might improve. If consumers have an incentive and the ability to avoid trans 

fats, food manufacturers’ fi nancial incentive to incorporate trans fats in foods 

might be reduced.3

2Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2010, Part D Section 3: Fatty Acids and 

Cholesterol, p. D3-7.

3While consumers’ use of food labels 

has been studied extensively, there are 

research gaps in understanding determinants of nutritional label use and 

the effect of label use on purchase and 

consumption behavior. See Drichoutis, 

Lazaridis, and Nayga (2006) for a 

review of empirical studies and an 

assessment of research needs. 
3

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

In November 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed 

a rule that would require the amount of trans fatty acids present in foods 

to be included in the product’s Nutrition Facts panel. In 2001, the Offi ce of 

Management and Budget (OMB) took the then-unique action of sending 

FDA a “prompt” letter asking the agency to give greater priority to the 

issue.4 The letter, from OMB’s Offi ce of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Administrator John D. Graham, urged the acceleration of ongoing rulemaking. A second letter followed in 2003 (OMB, 2003). In 2003, the rule 

became fi nal with requirements for labeling in 2006.

These actions—label regulations and dietary advice—were clearly intended 

to improve the quality of Americans’ diets. Ultimately, success or failure 

rests on whether consumers demand foods without trans fats and reject foods 

that contain trans fats. Success was not guaranteed by the actions. Nothing 

required consumers to avoid trans fats. The actions did not ban trans fats 

from supermarkets. Unless consumers are aware of the health issues raised by 

consuming trans fats, consumer demands might not change, and food manufacturers might not see any reason to reformulate their products. To do so, 

consumers have to be informed that there is a reason to avoid trans fats. 

Currently, it is not clear how much the trans fats content of foods has 

changed. Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) considered the incentives for 

reducing trans fats in the food supply and examined outcomes through 2006. 

Today we have access to additional years of data and can retrospectively 

examine a more complete set of adjustments that occurred in the food supply 

following changes to the Nutrition Facts panel requirements. 

In addition, why consumer and industry behavior changed in response to 

Government actions to reduce trans fats intake is only partially understood. 

Previous studies of similar, but not identical issues, found that new information, either through news media or through the Nutrition Facts panel, 

infl uenced consumers’ food choices (Chern, Loehman, and Yen, 1995; Kim, 

Nayga, and Capps, 2000). Extrapolating, one might conclude that the public 

health goal of reducing consumers’ intake of trans fats could have been met 

in either of two ways. The Federal Government could have required disclosure of trans fats on the Nutrition Facts panel or it could have conducted 

an education campaign that would inform consumers through news media 

outlets. However, Kozup, Burton, and Creyer (2006) conducted a consumer 

knowledge experiment to ask whether an education effort would increase 

the salience of trans fats information that is provided to consumers. They 

concluded that, by itself, requiring food suppliers to disclose trans fats on 

the Nutrition Facts panel might not be very effective at changing consumer 

behavior. Their research highlighted the importance of information and 

education that would accompany and complement the new disclosure rules: 

A comprehensive media campaign that serves to educate consumers 

about trans fats, the changes to the label, and the importance of the 

nutrition information contained within the Facts panel may have 

benefi cial results. 

4The “prompt” letter was the fi rst 

time that OMB publicly encouraged 

a new regulatory action rather than 

reviewing decisions initiated by agencies (OMB, 2001).
4

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Following the Kozup, Burton, and Creyer suggestion about the importance of 

a media campaign, the next section examines the timing and volume of news 

in major news media about trans fats. 
5

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Trans Fats Coverage in the News Media

The release of the Dietary Guidelines has been designed so that recommendations could be easily conveyed through the news media. To gauge whether and 

when consumers might have become aware of reasons to minimize intake of 

trans fats, this section examines the time pattern of news consumers received 

about trans fats. News might not compel consumers to make different food 

choices, but without trans fats recommendations making their way into mainstream news media, the possibility of changing food choices seems remote.5

Two news sources were examined. The fi rst source was the Vanderbilt 

Television News Archive, which provides access to the news broadcasts from 

the U.S. national television networks.6 The archive is a searchable database 

of news abstracts and broadcast descriptions. The Vanderbilt Television News 

Archive has been recording, preserving, and providing access to television 

news broadcasts of the national networks since August 5, 1968. The archive 

began with three networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—and added coverage of 

CNN in 1995 and FoxNews in 2004.

We searched the Vanderbilt Television News Archive for reports discussing 

trans fats during evening news broadcasts.7 The search returned 37 reports 

beginning with an NBC evening news report in 1978. The trans fats issue 

was not discussed again on an evening news broadcast until 1992. One report 

aired on ABC in 1992, one on CBS on 1993, and another on CBS in 1994. 

Four reports aired in 2003, with ABC, CBS, and NBC reporting on July 9, 

2003 on the trans fats label requirement. Four reports aired in 2005, with 

three networks reporting in August on the New York City government request 

for restaurants to stop using trans fats. The peak for coverage occurred in 

2006, with 15 reports. Total minutes of coverage follow closely the pattern 

shown for the annual count of reports (fi g. 1). 

5Media attention may also infl uence 

food suppliers’ incentives, thereby 

reducing the size of the public health 

problem posed by trans fats. Unnevehr 

and Jagmanaite (2008) argued that media 

attention to the trans fats issue spurred 

lawsuits against major food industry 

fi rms by public interest groups and the 

New York City attempt to phase out 

synthetic trans fats in restaurant foods.

6See http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/.

7The keyword search was conducted 

using various spellings of trans fats and 

hydrogenation.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Vanderbilt Television 

News Archive data.

Figure 1

Number of reports and minutes of television evening news 

coverage of trans fats, 1978-2010

Number of reports Minutes of broadcast time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Reports

Minutes
6

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Year-to-year comparisons, along with identifi cation of peaks in the series, 

have to be made cautiously. That is, as CNN and FoxNews reports were 

added to the archive many years after the archive began, one can ask whether 

the larger number of reports in later years might be the result of counting 

reports from more sources. Were consumers given more information about 

trans fats in more recent years? Or, are the greater numbers of reports in 

recent years the result of reports mirroring each other, simply splitting 

coverage among fi ve instead of three sources?

The answer to the latter question is largely no, that more sources imply more 

distinct news reports. There were fi ve reports in 2007, all from FoxNews. The 

2006 peak for coverage would have been identifi ed as a peak even without 

CNN and FoxNews, as the other three reported on trans fats 10 times.

Even in 2006—the peak year of trans fats coverage—the range of issues raised 

was not wide. One of the most frequently reported stories was the attempt by 

the New York City Board of Health to phase out synthetic trans fats in all New 

York City restaurants and other foodservice establishments. On September 27, 

ABC, CBS, NBC, and FoxNews all reported on the proposal. NBC, FoxNews, 

and CNN all reported that on December 5, 2006, the New York City Board 

of Health approved the amendment to the city’s Health Code. Five of the 

reports discussed the lawsuit by the Center for Science in the Public Interest 

demanding that KFC Corporation, a restaurant chain, stop using trans fats in 

oil used to fry chicken. Two reports discussed the new requirements for food 

labels: the Nutrition Facts Panel has to specify the per-serving quantity of trans 

fats. One report discussed Wendy’s new fry oil that eliminated trans fats.

Clearly consumers do not get all their news and information from television evening news broadcasts. Despite their shrinking readership, consumers 

have used newspapers for many years as a news source. The second source 

we examined, NewsBank, inc.’s searchable database, is populated with the 

complete electronic editions of more than 2,000 newspapers from around 

the world. The oldest reports in the database come from The Washington 

Post, which has been included since January 1, 1977. Other newspapers were 

included in the NewsBank database in years following that date.

To count consistently, the newspapers selected for search were those in the 

NewsBank database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2010. Without 

imposing this condition, the year-by-year expanding number of newspapers 

included in the NewsBank database would lead to an annual count that would be 

biased toward concluding that news coverage of trans fats was increasing over 

time. That is, the count of newspaper articles examining the trans fats issue might 

appear to rise just because there were more newspapers from which to draw 

articles. The starting date of January 1, 1992, is meant to be comparable with the 

Vanderbilt Television News Archive data. In that archive, the pre-1992 period 

shows only one television news report on trans fats. A few newspapers dropped 

out over time, leaving 109 U.S. newspapers from major cities across the United 

States with complete coverage 1992-2010 (fi g. 2).

The observed peak in newspaper coverage of trans fats issues occurred in 

2007 with 3,703 reports, higher than the 2006 total of 3,123. The volume of 

news was not uniform across 2006-07. Like the television news, one of the 

most frequently reported stories was the New York City Board of Health’s 
7

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

approval of an amendment to the city Health Code. On a monthly basis, the 

peak in news reports discussing trans fats occurred in January 2007 with 599 

news reports (5.5 stories per newspaper, on average) as newspapers reported 

that several State and municipal governments considered following the lead 

of New York City. At that time, newspapers reported that Girl Scout cookies 

had been reformulated to eliminate trans fats, McDonald’s had adopted 

a fry oil blended to eliminate trans fats, the J.M. Smucker Company had 

introduced a trans fats-free version of its Crisco shortening, Starbucks was 

reducing trans fats in its baked goods, and doughnut makers were searching 

for a way to reduce trans fats.

Across the 19-year period, there were 19,801 reports discussing trans fats 

(through December 31, 2010). The issue never disappeared from the newspapers. There were some reports every month (minimum of six). 

Reporting on trans fats has been persistent over many years, but sharply 

peaked about the same time as Federal regulations made it mandatory to label 

the trans fats content of foods. Tallying trans fats reports in newspapers and 

television news broadcasts demonstrates that issues raised by trans fats in 

Americans’ diets were given signifi cant coverage and attention. Although this 

is not a comprehensive list of news sources, it does suggest that there were 

multiple avenues through which consumers might become informed about the 

hazards of consuming trans fats. Further, with trans fats labeled on every food 

product, consumers had the means to avoid trans fats. These conditions raise 

the question whether consumers made use of the information and whether 

their food choices changed, altering the fi nancial incentives for food manufacturers to reformulate and introduce new food products free of trans fats. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on NewsBank, inc., data 

from 109 newspapers.

Figure 2

U.S. newspaper reports mentioning trans fats, annually, 1992-2010

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1992

Number of reports

94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08 10
8

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data for Tracking Reformulation, 

Nutrition Claims, and Retail Sales

in the United States

Consumer demand for trans fats-free food could have increased due to 

increased awareness of the health issues and due to consumers' increased 

ability to differentiate between products with and without trans fats. Some 

food suppliers could have benefi tted from this increased demand by reformulating products and by bringing greater attention to reformulated foods. 

To track these two possible effects, we used Mintel’s Global New Product 

Database (GNPD).8 This database allows users to track new products 

carrying specifi c product claims across 19 food and beverage product categories and associated subcategories from June 1996 to present (see Appendix 1, 

“Mintel’s Data Collection Procedure”). Mintel GNPD data contain detailed 

information on new consumer packaged goods introduced in the United 

States and 47 other countries, including new products, new variety extensions, new formulations, new packaging, and relaunches. GNPD is updated 

with new product information each business day.

Mintel has also partnered with SymphonyIRI Group (formerly Information 

Resources, Inc., and denoted here as IRI) to provide sales information on 

some products in Mintel's GNPD. IRI tracks in 34,000 grocery stores, drug 

stores, and supermarkets, with the important exception of Walmart stores. 

Sales data are available beginning in January 2005. New products are tracked 

when they reach 1-percent distribution (percent of stores selling products). 

Each record contains sales data for weeks 1 through 13, and then ongoing 

sales data for a maximum of 104 weeks. GNPD reports sales for 24 percent 

of the products introduced in 2005-10.

8Mintel is a privately owned, Londonbased market research fi rm with 

corporate offi ces in Chicago, New York, 

Belfast, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Sydney.
9

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nutritional Content of New Products 

Introduced in the United States

In 2006, Federal regulation required food manufacturers to identify the trans 

fats content in each food in the Nutrition Facts panel. Before 2006, such 

identifi cation was voluntary. Here, we categorize the entire set of new food 

product introductions in the Mintel database for 2006-10. Each new food 

product introduction is included in one of 18 general food product categories. We use the classifi cation scheme developed by Mintel, but exclude the 

Alcoholic Beverages category. Each product was categorized as containing 

trans fats or not, based on whether the Nutrition Facts panel reported positive 

or no trans fats.9 Products that did not report positive levels of trans fats on 

the Nutrition Facts panel are denoted here as free of trans fats. Among those 

products containing trans fats, the trans fats content was tallied. As most new 

product introductions did not contain trans fats, there are two distinct ways to 

characterize typical trans fats content of these foods: a simple average across 

all new product introductions and averages for those foods that contain positive quantities of trans fats.

Average Trans Fats Content of New Food 

Product Introductions

Table 1 shows that among new product introductions, trans fats are relatively 

small components of foods, and it is unusual to have any trans fats in foods. 

The left numerical column—average trans fats content—is a simple average 

of grams per serving across all new product introductions in each of 18 

broad categories of foods. Calculated averages are relatively small for two 

reasons. First, as the second column shows, it is relatively rare for any new 

product introduction to contain trans fats. The category denoted Meals and 

Meal Centers (which include sandwiches/wraps and prepared meals) showed 

the lowest rate at which new product introductions were free of trans fats, 

85.3 percent (14.7 percent contained trans fats). That is, among 2,607 new 

product introductions in this category, 2,224 did not contain trans fats and 

383 contained trans fats. Most other categories showed higher rates of new 

product introductions free of trans fats. Among the 231 new product introductions of Baby Food, there was not one that contained trans fats. 

Second, average trans fats content is a relatively small share of recommended 

fat intake. That is, when we compare the average trans fats content of foods 

with the recommended fat intake, each serving appears to be a very small 

share of daily fat intake. For example, the Bakery category has the largest 

amount of trans fats per serving, equaling 0.22 grams. For an adult on a 

2,000-calorie daily diet, recommended daily fat intake is 20 to 35 percent 

of calorie intake,10 equivalent to 400-700 calories. At 9 calories per gram of 

fat, a serving randomly drawn from all new products introductions of Bakery 

category items11 would contain 2 calories from trans fats. That is, an average 

serving contains trans fats that amount to no more than half of 1 percent of 

the recommended daily fat intake.

Even if a person chose only Bakery category items that contained trans fats, 

the results would still suggest that a serving contributes small amounts to 

9Some products contain trans fats, 

but in smaller quantities than reporting 

requirements (see box, “New Product 

Introductions That Qualify for a ‘No 

Trans Fat’ Claim on the Package”). We 

could account for this uncertainty in 

trans fats content by calculating a range 

for average trans fats content, with 

imputations of 0 leading to the lower 

end and imputations of 0.49 grams/

serving (just under reporting requirements) leading to the upper end. Here, 

we only report averages with imputations of 0. Doing so may underestimate 

the average, but the 0.49 grams/serving 

imputation would certainly overestimate average trans fats levels. The latter 

imputation would imply that products 

that never had trans fats do contain 

trans fats and would imply that products 

that were reformulated to eliminate 

trans fats contain trans fats. 

10See “Table 2-4, Recommended 

Macronutrient Proportions by Age,” 

in Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2010, p. 15.

11Note that this argument is about 

averages and typical fat consumption. 

As such, the depth of the American 

food supply makes the argument about 

entirely hypothetical choices; it would 

be physically impossible for a consumer 

to face such choices. Only a small fraction of new product introductions are 

successful in the marketplace, and no 

store stocks all items that are available.
10

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

daily fat intake. If a random draw were made among the subset of foods in 

the Bakery category that contain trans fats, a serving would be expected 

to contain 1.67 grams of trans fats, equivalent to 15 calories or less than 4 

percent of daily fat intake. 

The question these statistics raise is how fast new product introductions 

are replacing older products, possibly containing larger shares of trans fats. 

Assuming that new product introductions have or will soon replace older 

products, trans fats intake per serving appears to be small. 

Recent Trends in Trans Fats Content 

The simple average trans fats content in new product introductions may seem 

relatively small. The same might be said for averages conditional on having 

Table 1

Average trans fats content for all new product introductions and for those containing positive levels of 

trans fats, by product category, 2006-10

Category

Average trans fats 

content

Share of products 

with no trans fats

Average trans fats 

content for products 

containing trans fats 

Total new product 

introductions

Grams per serving Percentage Grams per serving Count

Baby food 0.00 100.0 0.00 231

Bakery 0.22 86.3 1.67 5,289

Breakfast cereals 0.00 99.7 0.88 1,169

Chocolate confectionery 0.05 96.2 1.40 2,169

Dairy 0.04 96.3 1.32 2,349

Desserts and ice cream 0.12 91.7 1.43 1,908

Fruits and vegetables 0.00 99.7 0.50 1,288

Meals and meal centers 0.21 85.3 1.41 2,607

Nonalcoholic beverages 0.01 99.2 1.06 3,684

Processed fi sh, meat, and egg products 0.08 92.9 1.17 2,945

Sauces, seasonings 0.01 99.4 1.70 4,023

Savory spreads 0.03 97.0 1.07 462

Side dishes 0.05 97.2 1.76 1,469

Snacks 0.08 96.2 2.06 4,294

Soup 0.05 94.8 1.03 638

Sugar, gum confectionery 0.02 98.2 1.14 2,138

Sweet spreads 0.01 99.5 1.13 806

Sweeteners and sugar 0.00 100.0 0.00 159

All new food product introductions 0.08 94.7 1.52 37,628

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.
11

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

positive trans fats content. Examining the averages over time reveals that 

levels have been generally diminishing.

While inclusion of trans fats levels on the Nutrition Facts panel was made 

mandatory in 2006, many food manufacturers voluntarily included the information in 2005. Calculating an average trans fats content from 2005 to 2010 

using the voluntarily reported trans fats content would have underestimated 

the average for that time period. That is, many products containing positive 

quantities of trans fats would not report their trans fats contents, and calculations would inappropriately posit zero trans fats for these products. 

However, data from 2005 is useful in looking at trends exactly because it 

underestimates typical trans fats content. The underestimated average trans 

fats content in 2005 is substantially higher than succeeding annual averages. 

While the trend lines—including averages from 2005—decline, the underestimate for 2005 implies that the actual decline was steeper still. Time plots 

of average trans fats content thus highlight the relatively large reductions in 

trans fats content that occurred over 2005 to 2010.

Figure 3 shows 2005-10 trends for the fi ve product categories displaying 

the highest average trans fats content: Bakery; Meals and Meal Centers; 

Desserts; Processed Fish, Meat, Egg Products; and Snacks. The underestimated average trans fats content for the Bakery category in 2005 was 

0.49 grams per serving. The unbiased average for 2010 was 0.13 grams per 

serving, a decline of at least 73 percent. For the other categories, the underestimated decline was approximately 50 percent. We can conclude that by 2010 

there was a signifi cant decline in amounts of trans fats in new products.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New 

Product Database data.

Figure 3

Trends in trans fats content for product categories with the 

highest trans fats content, 2005-10

Average trans fats content (grams) per serving

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bakery

Meals

Desserts

Processed meat and fish

Snacks
12

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

What Have Food Manufacturers Done To 

Inform Consumers About Trans Fats Content? 

FDA regulates the statements that food companies may make on product 

packages that characterize the level of particular nutrients in the food. So far, 

FDA has no regulation defi ning nutrient content claims that describe trans 

fats levels, such as “free” or “low” (Brandt, Moss, and Ferguson, 2009). 

However, a package may contain a claim about the amount, such as “0 g trans 

fats per serving,” since it is a statement of fact that can be verifi ed by the 

Nutrition Facts panel. FDA allows manufacturers to put 0 grams of trans fats 

on a Nutritional Facts panel if the product has less than 0.5 grams of trans 

fats per recommended serving.

Trends in Trans Fats Package Claims

Mintel tracks new products that make claims about trans fats content much 

as it has tracked claims about other fats. Mintel set up its system to tally 

product claims about trans fats when on-pack terms highlight a decreased 

amount of trans fats content, including terms such as low trans fats, reduced 

trans fats, or trans fats-free. It would also count a product as making a low/

no/reduced trans fats claim if the product claims to have reduced its hydrogenated oil content or claims to be free of hydrogenated fat. Data reveal that 

manufacturers have adopted terms such as “trans fats free,” “0 g trans fats 

per serving,” “no trans fats,” and “no trans fatty acids.” Here, we assume that 

consumers interpret all these claims as if they were the same.12

Prior to 2004, such claims were rarely made, but food and beverage products with a “no trans fats” claim showed a marked upward trend beginning 

in 2004. FDA issued the regulation requiring disclosure of trans fats on the 

nutrition label in 2003 (to be implemented in 2006). While companies were 

not required to eliminate trans fats, many reformulated products to meet the 

FDA’s per-serving standard for zero grams of trans fats prior to the 2006 

disclosure deadline. Some replaced trans fats with more healthy unsaturated 

fats, while others replaced trans fats with saturated fats. These reformulations allowed companies to introduce a wave of new products with claims of 

zero trans fats in response to consumers’ demand for products free of trans 

fats. Expressed as a percentage of all food and beverage products introduced, 

those with a “no trans fats” claim became an increasingly important component of all product introductions, peaking at 10.9 percent in 2009 (fi g. 4).13

Compared with the number of other commonly used nutrient claims made on 

food packages, “no trans fats” claims surpassed low/no/reduced cholesterol 

claims in 2004 and low/no/reduced sugar claims in 2005. Moreover, in 2008, 

the percentage of new products with a “no trans fats” claims exceeded those 

with no/low/reduced fat claims for the fi rst time.

Clearly, the growing number of new products with a “no trans fats” claim 

suggests that the returns to marketing products with this claim were high. 

However, after 2006—the fi rst year that the regulation was implemented—

the upward trend in new products with a “no trans fats” claim began to slow. 

Any answer to the question why the rate of growth in the percentage of new 

products with “no trans fats” claims declined after 2006 has to be speculative. Perhaps as more and more products became free of trans fats, consumers 

12Our assumptions are convenient for 

identifying and tallying new product 

introductions that highlight the absence 

of trans fats for consumers. Note, 

however, that the assumption that all 

such claims have identical impacts is in 

dispute. Some argue that a “0 trans fats” 

statement is misleading to consumers 

(Covington & Burling LLP, 2010).

13This compares with 12 percent of 

products with a statement about trans 

fats on the label that were purchased 

at retail stores throughout the United 

States, 2006 to 2007 (Brandt, Moss, and 

Ferguson, 2009).
13

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

lowered their expectations of fi nding trans fats in food products. If that were 

the case, producers’ returns from differentiating products by using the “no 

trans fats” claims would be smaller than when consumers more frequently 

expected trans fats in foods. In addition, the decrease could be the result of 

increasing diffi culty of fi nding suitable alternative oils. For example, early 

adoption of some oils pushed up prices, which made it diffi cult for other 

companies to follow suit (Pressler, 2004). Since 2008, the trendline has fl attened, and the percentage of products with “no trans fats” claims fell for the 

fi rst time in 2010 since the rise began.

In appendix 2 table 1, a tally of new products introduced from 2004 to 2010 

that bear a statement suggesting that the product contains “no trans fats” are 

broken down by the 18 product categories defi ned by Mintel. The tally is 

further broken into several leading subcategories. Most categories showed 

continual increases in the percentage of new products with a “no trans fats” 

claim before declining either in 2008 or 2009, which is refl ected in the 

overall pattern of food product introductions. Snacks (snack bars, potato-, 

corn-, and grain-based snacks; popcorn; hors d’oeuvres/canapés; nuts; and 

other snacks) and bakery products (cookies, bread products, crackers, cakes, 

and baking ingredients) led the way in percentage of new products with “no 

trans fats” claims, equaling 27.4 percent and 18.6 percent of all new products 

in 2010, respectively (fi g. 5). This is consistent with results from an earlier 

study of products purchased at retail stores throughout the United States. 

(Brandt, Moss, and Ferguson, 2009). The percentage peaked in 2008 for 

snacks and in 2009 for bakery products. In 2010, meals and meal centers14

and soup accounted for the third- and fourth-highest percentage of products 

with a “no trans fats” claim at 12.1 and 11.8 percent, respectively. Meals and 

meal centers also peaked in 2009, while the percentage of new soup products increased over 2008 to 2010, reaching its highest level in 2010. Products 

14Meals and meal centers include 

instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, 

pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, 

salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product 

Database data.

Figure 4

Percentage of new products with a "no trans fats" claim 

compared with other leading nutrient claims, annually, 2000-10

Percent

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

No trans fats Low/no/reduced fat

Low/no/reduced sugar Low/no/reduced cholesterol
14

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

with a “no trans fats” claim were relatively less important for sweeteners and 

sugar, fruit and vegetables, nonalcoholic beverages, and chocolate confectionery products, accounting for less than 3 percent of all new products introduced in these categories in 2010. 

Several of the leading subcategories showed a higher propensity to make 

a “no trans fats” claim in 2004-10 (see appendix 2 table 1). For example, 

margarine and other blends with a “no trans fats” claim accounted for 53.1 

percent of all products introduced in the category. Other subcategories with 

a high percentage of new products carrying a “no trans fats” claim included 

potato (46.1) and corn (40.3) snacks, nut spreads (e.g., peanut butter) (33.2), 

wheat snacks (31.2), crackers (27.1), bread (25.5), and popcorn (24.4). Most 

of these categories were important sources of trans fatty acids in the U.S. 

diet (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008), which suggests that incentives may 

have been greater for making a “no trans fats” claim for these products. For 

the remaining subcategories, the percentage of products making a “no trans 

fats” claim varied from 1.3 percent for Other sweet spreads to 17.1 percent for 

sandwiches/wraps. Cakes and pastries, which are more diffi cult to reformulate by substituting for partially hydrogenated oils, showed larger percentage 

point increases in “no trans fats” claims after the nutrition labeling deadline 

in 2006 (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008). 

Appendix 2 table 2 shows the percentage of all new “no trans fats” claims 

accounted for by the various food and beverage categories from 2004 to 

2010. Snacks and bakery products were by far the leading product categories, 

accounting for nearly 55 percent of all “no trans fats” claims in 2010 (fi g. 

6). These results are consistent with fi ndings of Unnevehr and Jagmanaite 

(2008). Meals and meal centers and processed fi sh, meat, and egg products 

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, 

prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product 

Database data.

Figure 5

Percentage of new products with a "no trans fats" claim,

by product category, 2004-10

Percent

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Snacks Bakery Meals and meal centers Soup
15

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

ranked third and fourth, accounting for 7.5 percent and 7.4 percent of “no 

trans fats” claims, respectively. 

Five of the 18 categories accounted for a smaller percentage of new “no trans 

fats” claims in 2010 compared with 2004. The reduction in the percentage of 

“no trans fats” claims accounted for by bakery products is especially notable, 

falling from 41.3 percent to 25.5 percent, with most of the reduction coming 

in 2005.15 Product categories that accounted for a larger share over time 

included meals and meal centers, sauces and seasonings, and side dishes.

15For food and beverage products 

introduced in the United States, there 

were 208 total trans fats claims in 2004 

and 1,069 in 2010.

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and 

sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.

Figure 6

Percentage of all new food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim accounted for by select 

product categories, 2004 and 2010

2004 2010

30.3

41.3

7.7

2.4

3.4

1.9

13.0

Snacks Bakery Fish, meat, and egg

Sauces and seasonings Side dishes

Meals and meal centers

All other

28.8

25.5 7.4

7.5

6.4

4.8

19.6
16

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Is There a Relationship Between Trans Fats 

Content and “No Trans Fats” Claims?

As long as consumers want to avoid trans fats, the best situation for a food 

manufacturer would be one in which the manufacturer has a food that is 

free of trans fats and all competitive products are high in trans fats. When 

a manufacturer can offer consumers relatively large reductions in trans fats 

intake, consumers will have more diffi culty trading off health concerns 

against taste; the demand for the trans fats-free product is more likely to 

rise than in the case of less difference in trans fats content. Then, we would 

expect the trans fats-free food to be advertised as such; the “no trans fats” 

claim might offer a manufacturer the ability to differentiate a product from 

all others, taking market share from competitors. Generally, one might 

expect to see a greater frequency of “no trans fats” claims among qualifying 

products when product categories are generally higher in trans fats (see box, 

“New Product Introductions That Qualify for a “No Trans Fats” Claim on the 

Package”). 

As part of their analysis of food company efforts to reduce trans fats, 

Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) matched new food product introduction categories claiming “no trans fats” to product categories that are major 

dietary sources of trans fats. They found that most of the “no trans fats” 

claims were concentrated in foods that are components of Mintel’s snacks 

New Product Introductions That Qualify

for a “No Trans Fats” Claim on the Package

To quantify the number of new product introductions that are considered to 

qualify for a “no trans fats” claim on the product package, we include three 

categories of new products:

• products that declare 0 trans fats in the Nutrition Facts panel. 

• those that declare less than 0.5 grams per serving of trans fats in the 

Nutrition Facts panel.

• products that do not make a declaration about trans fats in the Nutrition 

Facts panel (FDA, 2010a). 

In 1990, Congress amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 by enacting 

the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which authorized the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate nutrition labeling and disclosure statements on product packaging. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

established nutrition labeling regulations for processed meat products consistent 

with those issued by FDA. Thus, the mechanical way we are fi ltering data may 

not in every case yield answers equivalent to results of FDA’s or FSIS’s judgment. 

That is, the agencies may consider “no trans fats” claims on some products that 

we consider to qualify for the claim to be in violation of these regulations. Thus 

far, FDA challenges to claims about trans fats have been limited to warning letters distributed to fi ve food manufacturers. In each case, FDA ruled that the front 

panel showed that the product had no trans fat, but failed to disclose to consumers 

that the product had signifi cant levels of saturated fat and total fat (FDA, 2010b).
17

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

and bakery product categories. While most of the trans fats consumed come 

from bakery products and margarine, they found a smaller percentage of 

products with “no trans fats” claims in these categories. In comparison, this 

study covers data from more recent years, and covers a wider array of foods. 

No clear relationship between trans fats content and “no trans fats” claims 

emerges from the Mintel data (fi g. 7). For example, products in the meals 

and meal centers category contain 0.21 grams per serving of trans fats on 

average, while snacks contain 0.08 grams per serving. Yet, 28 percent of 

foods in the snacks category that are eligible for a “no trans fats” claim made 

the claim, while 13 percent of qualifi ed meals and meal centers items made a 

“no trans fats” claim. In only two categories, snacks and bakery items, did the 

percentage of qualifi ed products that made a “no trans fats” claim exceed 13 

percent.

Most categories contain less than 0.05 grams per serving of trans fats on 

average, so a “no trans fats” claim may not be an important selling point for 

these products. However, three categories, baby food, breakfast cereal, and 

sweet spreads, are almost free of trans fats, yet at least 10 percent of new 

qualifi ed products are labeled as containing no trans fats. A common feature 

of these three categories is that they are popular among children. Baby food 

is particularly striking because, from 2005 to 2010, there was not a single 

product introduced containing trans fats. The media attention given to trans 

fats may have provided food companies in these categories with a marketing 

opportunity for informing concerned parents.

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, 

prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product 

Database data.

Figure 7

Average trans fats content and percentage of qualified products 

with a "no trans fats" claim, by product category, 2005-10

Percent

Grams per serving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Snacks

Meals and meal centers

Bakery

Cereal

Baby food

Sweet spreads
18

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Does a “No Trans Fats” Claim Infl uence New 

Product Success in the Marketplace?

For new products with a “no trans fats” claim to lead to improvements 

in consumers’ diets, the new products must be purchased and consumed, 

replacing older products that contain large quantities of trans fats. Two problems make it diffi cult to measure the extent of these improvements. First, data 

are currently available for new product introductions, but not for old products 

that exit the market. Second, most new product introductions fail. Most do 

not reach many stores, and most are only offered for sale for a short time. 

Further, data offers only a limited view of sales of new product introductions. SymphonyIRI Group tracks the sales of a new product if the product is 

present in at least 1 percent of the stores in its sample.16

We use the fact that the data is censored in this way to indicate whether 

a product is being purchased and consumed. If a new product passes the 

1-percent threshold, we will term the product to be “successful.” Here, the 

“1 percent of stores” threshold is treated as an indicator that can be used to 

gauge whether diets are improving or not. With such an indicator, we can 

examine whether new products that are free of trans fats are more likely to be 

successful in the market than products containing trans fats. We can examine 

whether a “no trans fats” label is associated with market success. Of course, 

the indicator is not perfect as it excludes from consideration products that exit 

the market as well as the numerous products that do not cross the threshold.

Table 2 shows the percentage of successful new products with and without 

trans fats. For example, 29 percent of new products in the snack category 

without trans fats were successful, while 17 percent of new products in the 

snack category with trans fats were successful. The trans fats-free products 

were more successful in 9 of the 16 categories in which comparisons are 

possible.17 Products with trans fats were more successful in fruits and vegetables, meals and meal centers, side dishes, sweet spreads, gum and confectionary. In the categories bakery and savory spreads, the products with and 

without trans fats had the same success rates. 

Table 3 compares the success rates of trans fats-free products that advertise 

this fact on the front of the package (“claimers”) and trans fats-free products 

that do not advertise this fact (“nonclaimers”). For example, 32 percent of 

“claimers” in the bakery category were successful, while only 22 percent 

of “nonclaimers” were successful. “Claimers” were more successful than 

“nonclaimers” in all but four categories: dairy; fruits, vegetables; nonalcoholic beverages; and sweeteners, sugar. Except for dairy, in these categories 

only a relatively small percentage of new products made “no trans fats” 

claims. The degree to which the success rate of “claimers” exceeds that of 

“nonclaimers” is especially notable in the baby food and breakfast cereal 

categories. One possible explanation for the greater success of products in 

these two categories is that when it comes to foods consumed by children, 

parents make distinctly different food choices. Parents’ concerns about their 

children’s nutrition might make them especially sensitive to health claims 

for these categories (see fi gure 7). Other evidence supports this claim, 

for example, Schor et al. (2010) fi nd that parents are more likely to use 

front-of-the-package claims when shopping for their children. In general, 

16SymphonyIRI tracks sales from 

34,000 stores on a weekly basis across 

the grocery, drug, mass merchandiser, 

and convenience channels in the United 

States. If a product is present in 1,000 

stores (1,000/34,000 = 2.9 percent of 

stores), then it is considered successful. 

If a product is present in only 200 stores 

(200/34,000 = 0.6 percent of stores), 

then it is considered unsuccessful.

17There were no new product introductions in the categories baby food 

and sweeteners, making the comparison 

impossible for these categories.
19

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

these fi ndings indicate that the “no trans fats” claim could be a successful 

marketing strategy for highlighting the absence of this unhealthy nutrient. 

Note that the comparison of population means should not imply causality, as 

doing so ignores the possibility that many other factors that we do not observe 

could be responsible for observed relative magnitudes. Unfortunately, without 

observing sales and prices consumers face for new product introductions, 

we cannot estimate regression demand models that would measure the effect 

of trans fats content and claims on sales. Thus, we report comparison of the 

means, and any associations found should be treated as only suggestive.

Table 2

Success rates of the products with and without trans fats, 2006-10

Products 

with trans 

fats

Products 

without trans 

fats

Share of 

products with 

trans fats

Category Success rates1

--------------------Percent---------------------

Baby food na 39.0 0.0

Bakery 23.9 24.3 15.0

Breakfast cereals 0.0 22.2 0.6

Chocolate confectionery 24.4 29.7 3.2

Dairy 12.5 19.8 3.4

Desserts, ice cream 21.9 30.3 8.9

Fruits, vegetables 50.0 15.5 0.3

Meals and meal centers 31.8 26.0 15.1

Nonalcoholic beverages 0.0 27.2 0.9

Processed fi sh, meat, and egg 

products 18.6 20.8 7.5

Sauces, seasonings 15.4 18.0 0.6

Savory spreads 20.0 19.6 3.0

Side dishes 26.2 17.8 3.7

Snacks 16.7 29.3 4.1

Soup 15.2 18.9 4.7

Sugar, gum confectionery 31.7 31.1 1.8

Sweet spreads 25.0 12.8 0.5

Sweeteners and sugar na 14.6 0.0

1We defi ne the product to be successful if it is sold in at least 1 percent of the stores tracked 

by IRI.

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

na = Shares cannot be calculated due to the absence of products with trans fats.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New 

Products Database data and SymphonyIRI Group data. 
20

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

Percentage of new products containing no trans fats that are 

successful, with and without “no trans fats” labels, 2006-10

“No trans fats” 

claimers

“No trans fats” 

nonclaimers

Share of qualifi ed 

products with “no 

trans fats” claim

Category Success rates1

--------------------Percent---------------------

Baby food 60.9 36.7 9.5

Bakery 32.4 21.9 23.1

Breakfast cereals 38.2 20.0 11.9

Chocolate confectionery 41.8 29.4 2.4

Dairy 18.5 19.9 7.9

Desserts, ice cream 35.7 30.0 4.9

Fruits, vegetables 6.1 15.7 2.3

Meals and meal centers 33.6 24.8 13.4

Nonalcoholic beverages 12.5 27.4 1.5

Processed fi sh, meat, and egg 

products 31.7 19.3 12.0

Sauces, seasonings 25.6 17.6 4.8

Savory spreads 43.2 17.6 7.6

Side dishes 23.6 17.2 10.2

Snacks 37.1 26.4 27.5

Soup 30.4 17.9 8.4

Sugar, gum confectionery 35.7 31.0 1.9

Sweet spreads 26.3 11.4 9.6

Sweeteners, sugar 0.0 15.0 2.4

1We defi ne the product to be successful if it is sold in at least 1 percent of the stores tracked 

by IRI.

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New 

Products Database data and SymphonyIRI Group data. 
21

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Are New Products With a “No Trans Fats” 

Claim Less Healthy?

It is conceivable that consumers are purchasing new products with lower 

levels of trans fats at the expense of benefi cial nutrients or with higher 

levels of other undesired nutrients. Some have suggested that products reformulated to reduce trans fats content to qualify for a claim would include 

higher levels of unhealthy nutrients such as sugar, saturated fat, or sodium 

(Nestle and Ludwig, 2010; Colby et al., 2010; Silverglade and Heller, 2010). 

Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) demonstrate that the substitution of trans 

fats with saturated fats in product reformulations varies by product category, 

depending on the technical capability of using healthier oil alternatives. 

In table 4, we examine the nutritional profi les of products with and without 

trans fats. Products reformulated to reduce trans fats content may be compensated by an increase in saturated fat to preserve the taste of the product. 

However, we fi nd that in all categories except sweet spreads, the products 

with trans fats have more saturated fats and more calories than the products without trans fats. This fi nding is consistent with that of Mozaffarian, 

Jacobson, and Greenstein (2010) who found that among major brand-name 

U.S. supermarket products reformulated to reduce their trans fats content, 

52 of 58 ended up with lower levels of both trans fats and saturated fats. 

Producers could compensate for the reduction in trans fats with increases in 

sodium and sugar. We fi nd that in all categories in which comparisons are 

possible, new products with trans fats have more sodium per serving size, 

while no clear pattern appears in the amount of sugar. This suggests that if 

the labeling regulations led companies to reformulate products to reduce trans 

fats, they did not compensate with higher levels of saturated fats, sodium, or 

calories.

In table 5 we compare the nutritional profi le of “claimers” and “nonclaimers.” 

Differences between claimers and nonclaimers vary by nutrient. Nonclaimers 

in 11 of the 18 product categories have fewer calories and less sodium than 

claimers. On the other hand, claimers have less sugar in 13 categories. 

Categories with less saturated fat were roughly evenly split between claimers 

with nine categories and nonclaimers with eight categories. So, we cannot 

generalize about the healthfulness of new “no trans fats” products that make 

the claim versus those that do not, since it depends on the nutrient.
22

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Nutritional profi le of new products containing no trans fats compared with those containing trans fats, 

2006-101

With trans fats Without trans fats

Category Calories Sugar Sodium

Saturated 

fat Calories Sugar Sodium

Saturated 

fat

Grams Milligrams Grams Grams Milligrams Grams

Baby food na na na na 77 6.3 48.9 0.5

Bakery 193.5 13.9 192.2 3.0 149.6 9.2 171.2 2.0

Breakfast cereals 245.0 17.3 213.8 1.1 148.9 9.5 142.0 0.3

Chocolate confectionery 215.0 22.1 44.6 6.8 192.8 18.0 40.6 6.5

Dairy 105.6 4.0 170.6 3.9 101.3 7.5 146.3 3.1

Desserts, ice cream 316.2 24.7 174.0 9.9 144.8 15.8 68.8 3.8

Fruit, vegetables 160.0 8.8 402.5 3.1 72.0 6.9 147.0 0.2

Meals and meal centers 354.9 4.6 839.5 6.6 278.0 5.1 673.8 3.7

Nonalcoholic beverages 131.2 20.0 122.1 1.2 82.9 17.9 54.6 0.7

Processed fi sh, meat, and 

egg products 274.4 1.3 516.4 7.7 149.4 1.8 441.2 2.5

Sauces, seasonings 115.8 1.1 305.8 2.4 48.4 3.3 237.2 0.8

Savory spreads 63.9 0.9 176.4 1.4 57.8 1.4 171.7 1.3

Side dishes 210.5 2.5 480.6 3.3 183.3 2.0 268.9 1.0

Snacks 176.8 3.9 331.9 3.0 145.8 6.1 183.1 1.7

Soup 223.9 4.3 795.3 6.7 119.4 3.3 691.4 1.5

Sugar, gum confectionery 145.8 17.9 57.4 1.6 95.4 15.7 22.7 0.9

Sweet spreads 97.5 9.0 67.5 1.2 105.7 13.7 35.6 1.4

Sweeteners, sugar na na na na 14.9 4.4 0.4 0.0

1Table contains average nutrient content per serving size of products containing no trans fats (for both “claimers” and “nonclaimers”) and the 

nutrient content of products containing trans fats. For baby food and sweeteners, there were no products with trans fats introduced in the 

period studied. 

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

na = No new products containing trans fats.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Products Database data. 
23

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

Nutritional profi le of new trans fat-free products with and without front-of-the-package claim about trans 

fats, 2006-101

Claimers Nonclaimers

Category Calories Sugar Sodium

Saturated 

fat Calories Sugar Sodium

Saturated 

fat

Grams Milligrams Grams Grams Milligrams Grams

Baby food 65.9 3.0 50.8 0.2 78.2 6.7 48.7 0.6

Bakery 143.2 7.3 184.6 1.6 151.6 9.8 167.2 2.2

Breakfast cereals 159.0 8.7 124.5 0.5 147.4 9.6 144.5 0.3

Chocolate confectionery 169.6 13.4 39.1 5.0 193.4 18.1 40.6 6.5

Dairy 76.2 4.6 116.5 1.9 103.4 7.7 148.9 3.2

Desserts, ice cream 160.9 14.9 91.5 4.3 144.1 15.9 67.7 3.7

Fruit, vegetables 79.0 7.1 161.9 0.4 71.8 6.9 146.6 0.2

Meals and meal centers 278.8 5.3 644.6 3.7 277.8 5.1 678.8 3.7

Nonalcoholic beverages 126.6 14.3 109.1 1.8 82.3 18.0 53.8 0.6

Processed fi sh, meat, and 

egg products 165.4 2.0 458.3 2.0 147.2 1.8 438.8 2.6

Sauces, seasonings 66.3 2.6 166.5 1.1 47.5 3.4 240.9 0.7

Savory spreads 62.8 1.6 147.0 1.0 57.3 1.4 174.0 1.3

Side dishes 179.7 1.9 327.0 1.1 183.7 2.0 261.8 0.9

Snacks 142.8 4.0 193.0 1.5 147.1 6.9 179.4 1.8

Soup 131.5 3.4 715.7 1.7 118.2 3.3 689.0 1.4

Sugar, gum confectionery 120.9 20.0 23.1 0.4 94.9 15.7 22.7 0.9

Sweet spreads 175.7 5.0 77.6 2.4 98.6 14.5 31.3 1.2

Sweeteners, sugar 30.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 4.2 0.4 0.0

1Table contains average nutrient content per serving size of products containing no trans fats (for both “claimers” and “nonclaimers”) and the 

nutrient content of products containing trans fats. For baby food and sweeteners, there were no products with trans fats introduced in the 

period studied. 

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Products Database data. 
24

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

There was a marked reduction in the trans fats content of new products 

containing trans fats from 2005 to 2010. In this period, there were still some 

food products introduced that contained trans fats, but in the majority of the 

food categories, the products with trans fats were generally less successful. 

Surprisingly, even among the products free of trans fats, products carrying 

a “no trans fats” claim were more successful than products without such a 

claim. These results indicate that while consumers are trying to avoid products with trans fats, some consumers cannot fully utilize the information 

from the Nutrition Facts panel. These consumers rely on the front-of-thepackage claims. This is supported by previous research that consumers prefer 

simple presentation of nutritional information and many consumers fi nd 

Nutrition Facts panels too complicated (Borra, 2006).

A policy that would require a front-of-the-package warning about the trans 

fats content might benefi t consumers who do not use the Nutrition Facts 

panel. However, such a policy may not be necessary because, even in the 

absence of this policy, trans fats are gradually disappearing from the new 

product introductions and probably from the overall food supply. The tabulations presented here suggest that consumers have responded to the mandated 

label changes and to the information the food industry voluntarily supplied. 

That is, some dietary improvements were accomplished with a new disclosure 

requirement, and without resorting to more coercive policies such as a regulation that would forbid the inclusion of trans fats in food.

Conceivably, the reduction in trans fats could present a new challenge for 

public health authorities if this reduction were compensated by increases in 

saturated fat, sugar, calories, and sodium. On average, we did not fi nd such 

compensation to be the case. From 2006 to 2010, the average amounts of 

calories, sodium, and saturated fat found in new products without trans fats 

were below amounts contained in new products with trans fats.

The goal of improving the quality of food supply can be approached by 

targeting one nutrient such as trans fat or by targeting the whole nutritional 

profi le. For example, nutritional rating might be accomplished with the 

Guiding StarsTM and NuValTM nutritional information systems adopted by 

some U.S. supermarkets. Our results suggest that targeting of one nutrient 

may not lead companies to compensate by increasing levels of undesirable 

nutrients, resulting in improvements in the overall nutritional profi le.

We found that the nutritional profi le of products free from trans fats that 

featured a “no trans fats” claim was similar to the products without such a 

claim. The higher market success rates of products making a “no trans fats” 

claim could indicate a “halo” effect, that consumers are expecting more from 

the labeled product than it delivers. However, even if such an effect exists, 

similar nutritional profi les of these two groups of food products indicates that 

producers are not (on average) taking advantage of consumers’ confusion by 

selling products with large amounts of saturated fat, sodium and sugar under 

cover of a “no trans fats” claim.
25

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Our conclusions have to be tempered by the limits imposed by data availability. One limitation of our study is the focus on products introduced 

into the marketplace, rather than the complete set of products available to 

consumers on store shelves. Further, new food product introductions point to 

ways food prepared and eaten at home is changing, but offer no insight into 

changes made to meals eaten in restaurants. Our evidence is consistent with 

the hypothesis that producers are trying to reduce the amounts of trans fats in 

foods intended for home consumption. They are introducing products largely 

free of trans fats. Whether this effort will result in a trans fats-free food 

supply depends on how quickly consumers switch to these new products—an 

important question that still remains unanswered.
26

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

 Borra, Susan. 2006. “Consumer Perspectives on Food Labels,” American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 83(5): 1235S. 

Brandt, Mary, Julie Moss, and Martine Ferguson. 2009. “The 2006-2007 

Food Label and Package Survey (FLAPS): Nutrition Labeling, Trans Fat 

Labeling,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22(Supplement, 

December): S74-77.

Chern, Wen .S., Edna T. Loehman, and Steven T. Yen. 1995. “Information, 

Health-Risk Beliefs, and the Demand for Fats and Oils,” Review of 

Economics and Statistics 76(3, August): 555-64.

Colby, Sarah, E., LuAnn Johnson, Angela Scheett, and Bonita Hoverson. 

2010. “Nutrition Marketing on Food Labels,” Journal of Nutrition 

Education and Behavior 42(2, March): 92-98. 

Covington & Burling LLP. 2010. “FDA Issues 17 Warning Letters As Part of 

an Enforcement Sweep Regarding Food Labels,” E-Alert Food & Drug, 

March 4.

Drichoutis, Andreas C., Panagiotis Lazaridis, and Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. 

2006. “Consumers’ Use of Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research 

Studies and Issues,” Academy of Marketing Science Review 10(9). 

Available at: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/drichoutis09-2006.pdf/. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. 2005. Dietary 

Reference Intakes for Energy, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and 

Amino Acids (Macronutrients): A Report of the Panel on Macronutrients, 

Subcommittees on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients and Interpretation 

and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on 

the Scientifi c Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: 

National Academy of Sciences Press.

Kim, Sung-Yong, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., and Oral Capps, Jr. 2000. “The 

Effect of Food Label Use on Nutrient Intakes: An Endogenous Switching 

Regression Analysis,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

25(1): 215-31.

 Kozup, John, Scot Burton, and Elizabeth H. Creyer. 2006. “The Provision 

of Trans Fat Information and Its Interaction with Consumer Knowledge,” 

Journal of Consumer Affairs 40(1, Summer): 163-76.

Mozaffarian, Dariush, Michael F. Jacobson, and Julie S. Greenstein. 2010. 

“Food Reformulations to Reduce Trans Fatty Acids,” The New England 

Journal of Medicine 362(May 27): 2037-39.

Nestle, Marion, and David S. Ludwig. 2010. “Front-of-Package Food 

Labels: Public Health or Propaganda?” Journal of the American Medical 

Association 303(8): 771-72.
27

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Offi ce of Management and Budget. 2001. OMB Encourages Lifesaving 

Actions by Regulators, news release 2001-35. Available at: http://www.

reginfo.gov/public/prompt/2001-35.html/.

 Offi ce of Management and Budget. 2003. OIRA “prompt” letter. Accessed 

May 5, 2011, at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/prompt/prompt_

dietary_052703.pdf/.

Pomeranz, Jennifer L. 2011. “Front-of-Package Food and Beverage Labelling: 

New Directions for Research and Regulation,” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine 40(3): 382-85.

Pressler, M.W. 2004. Foodmakers Search for a New Fat ... Again, 

Washingtonpost.com, August 31, 2004. Accessed May 2011 at: http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47534-2004Aug30.html/.

Schor, Danielle, Shelley Maniscalco, Michele M. Tuttle, Sarah Alligood, and 

Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak. 2010. “Nutrition Facts You Can’t Miss: The 

Evolution of Front-of-Pack Labeling: Providing Consumers With Tools to 

Help Select Foods and Beverages to Encourage More Healthful Diets,” 

Nutrition Today 45(1): 22-32.

Silverglade, Bruce, and Ilene Ringel Heller. 2010. Food Labeling Chaos: The 

Case for Reform, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, 

DC. Accessed Dec. 12, 2011, at: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food_labeling_

chaos_report.pdf/.

Unnevehr, Laurian J., and Evalina Jagmanaite. 2008. “Getting Rid of Trans 

Fats in the U.S. Diet: Policies, Incentives, and Progress,” Food Policy 33: 

497-503.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th Edition. 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010a. Trans Fat Now Listed With 

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol on the Nutrition Facts Panel. Updated 

March 3, 2004. Accessed June 30, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/food/

labellingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm109832.htm/.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010b. Understanding Front-ofPackage Violations: Why Warning Letters Are Sent to Industry. Updated 

March 3, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/food/

labelingnutrition/ucm202784.htm/.

Wansink, Brian, and Se-Bum Park. 2002. “Sensory Suggestiveness and 

Labeling: Do Soy Labels Bias Taste?” Journal of Sensory Studies 17(5): 

483-91. 
28

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 1—Mintel’s Data Collection 

Procedure

Mintel fi eld associates identify new products and document over 80 product 

characteristics, including company, brand, ingredients, nutritional information, and claims (e.g., low/no/reduced claims, whole grain, added calcium, 

added fi ber). Field associates are provided with a list of stores they are to 

target for new products, and they shop on a weekly basis. Distribution channels monitored include supermarkets, mass market, drug stores, natural food 

stores, convenience stores, club stores, specialty stores, mail order/Internet, 

and some direct-to-consumer. New products are shipped to the Mintel offi ces. 

Mintel also monitors other sources of new product information including 

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

online newsletters. A secondary coverage team creates a list of new product 

launches found through the other sources and sends them to the fi eld associates for them to identify the high-priority products.

When a new product is identifi ed, the product is cross-referenced with the 

Mintel Shopper Website to limit duplication of products that have already 

been identifi ed. The product is then purchased and sent to Mintel’s offi ces. 

The fi eld associates enter basic product data into the Mintel Shopper Website, 

including company, brand, product, product description, ingredients, and 

nutritional information. They also translate any product information on the 

front, back, and sides of the package. 

The products are then shipped to Mintel’s London offi ce for additional data 

entry, package photography, and several levels of quality control. The Mintel 

data entry team records pertinent information from the package, including 

product claims, barcodes, ingredients, nutritional data, and category information. Field associates are contacted about any quality control problems identifi ed from the basic data entry by the fi eld associate. The data entry team then 

analyzes all information from the package and enters the data. The products 

are then sent to be photographed. Each product record is quality checked 

by a team of editors before publication on the website. Other quality checks 

are conducted to identify needed reworks and retraining of fi eld associates. 

Products appear in the database within approximately a month’s time of 

launch or as close to launch as possible, including some products published 

before their offi cial launch date. Product records in GNPD include a publication date (month/year), which indicates when the product was added.

A senior editor reviews, on average, 1,000 records per month as an additional 

quality control check. Other quality control concerns raised by the data entry 

team, GNPD consultancy teams, and feedback from clients are considered for 

possible reworks and retraining where necessary.

Sales information is collected by fi rst matching bar codes in the GNPD and 

IRI databases. For most GNPD products that are populated from secondary 

sources such as press releases, Internet searches, and trade magazines, information on bar codes is not available. For these products, information on categories, company name, product, and brand name is compared with GNPD 

and IRI sources to provide a list of potential matches. Items that match the 

record are then manually selected, and the matching barcode is uploaded. 
29

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Once the main product record has been matched, product variants are identifi ed. Product variants that appear in a GNPD record, such as fl avor and 

positioning, do not carry a barcode since fi eld associates purchase the main 

item and report on any variant that may have been launched at the same time. 

After the main product record has been matched, a list of similar products is 

generated based on category matching, company matching, similar barcode, 

and similar launch date. Items that match the variant list for a record are then 

tagged. Finally, any duplication (variants that appear in more than one record) 

is removed to ensure that variants are matched to the correct record.

Not all product records in GNPD will have sales data. Sales data are not 

included in a product record if the product is:

• classifi ed as new packaging, relaunch, or reformulation.

• private label (store brand), found outside of stores not covered by IRI, 

including Walmart, club stores, convenience stores, health food stores, 

dollar stores, and Internet/mail order. 

• priced over $24.99.

• sold in fewer than 1 percent of stores.
30

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2—New Food Product 

Introductions With a “No Trans Fats” Claim 

Appendix 2 table 1

New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all new food product 

introductions, by product category, 2004-10

Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total 

2004-10

Percent

Snacks 5.7 15.1 22.7 25.6 29.7 27.8 27.4 21.9

Snack/cereal/energy bars 5.6 23.6 25.2 23.5 25.4 19.9 24.3 20.1

Potato snacks 7.0 27.5 44.0 65.5 56.9 72.9 52.3 46.1

Corn-based snacks 14.4 16.2 38.8 47.6 57.6 47.4 56.1 40.3

Wheat and other grain-based 

snacks 15.0 23.2 33.7 31.3 45.4 37.8 30.5 31.2

Popcorn 2.4 18.0 24.6 34.2 41.0 18.6 32.3 24.4

Hors d'oeuvres/canapés 0.9 2.2 18.4 17.6 20.4 27.9 27.2 15.4

Nuts 0.9 4.6 7.5 7.9 13.0 10.7 14.5 8.7

Other snacks 4.5 11.4 12.5 11.3 17.8 20.5 13.8 13.8

Bakery 5.3 11.8 15.9 18.0 21.8 22.5 18.6 15.8

Baking ingredients and mixes 2.5 5.2 8.8 11.4 14.0 9.7 10.3 8.8

Sweet biscuits/cookies 5.5 13.6 14.5 15.7 20.8 23.4 20.9 15.6

Bread and bread products 6.9 18.3 33.2 33.2 35.1 35.4 26.6 25.5

Savory biscuits/crackers 9.6 27.3 25.8 31.9 37.4 38.7 22.7 27.1

Cakes, pastries, and sweet goods 5.0 4.5 7.3 12.3 15.6 18.2 19.7 11.4

Processed fi sh, meat, and egg 

products 2.2 6.0 10.1 10.1 12.1 11.8 10.0 8.8

Fish products 0.5 9.8 13.2 15.1 20.8 13.1 11.7 11.9

Poultry products 1.7 7.0 13.8 15.5 15.8 21.9 18.2 13.4

Other processed fi sh, meat, and 

egg products 3.4 3.4 6.3 4.9 5.8 5.5 5.4 4.9

Meals and meal centers 0.8 1.9 8.5 11.0 12.7 17.6 12.1 9.2

Sandwiches/wraps 0.9 0.0 17.6 19.2 29.9 31.8 18.0 17.1

Prepared meals 1.0 2.1 4.7 9.9 7.9 17.1 9.9 6.8

Other meals and meal centers 0.4 2.6 8.7 8.7 8.5 12.9 11.6 8.1

Sauces and seasonings 0.7 1.8 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.3 5.0 3.3

Dairy 1.9 6.2 6.3 6.1 7.0 8.2 7.7 6.3

Margarine and other blends 17.4 62.5 65.0 63.0 61.5 55.6 50.0 53.1

Other dairy 1.1 3.3 4.1 3.4 5.8 6.1 6.4 4.5

--continued
31

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 1

New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all new food product 

introductions, by product category, 2004-10--continued

Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total 

2004-10

Percent

Side dishes 1.2 3.3 7.5 7.7 9.9 14.0 11.5 7.9

 Potato products 4.8 9.0 13.8 14.6 17.9 26.3 22.4 15.8

 Other side dishes 0.0 1.6 5.2 5.3 6.6 9.5 7.7 5.1

Breakfast cereal 1.2 5.0 6.9 12.9 12.4 14.8 9.6 10.5

Chocolate confectionery 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.7 1.7

Sugar and gum 

confectionery 0.1 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.0 3.1 1.4

Desserts and ice cream 0.2 2.3 3.9 5.5 5.8 3.9 4.9 3.6

Sweet spreads 5.3 7.0 8.7 3.8 11.9 5.9 8.4 7.2

 Nut spreads 27.8 38.5 29.2 20.0 48.5 25.0 44.9 33.2

 Other sweet spreads 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.5 3.5 1.8 0.8 1.3

Nonalcoholic beverages 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.7 0.8 0.8

Soup 0.0 6.1 4.4 8.9 6.0 8.9 11.8 6.5

Savory spreads 0.0 1.0 6.5 7.3 12.6 12.6 6.9 6.7

Fruits, vegetables 0.0 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.8

Baby food 0.0 5.7 1.7 11.8 12.2 7.3 4.3 6.8

Sweeteners and sugar 0.0 2.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4

All new food product 

introductions 2.0 5.1 7.9 9.1 10.3 10.9 10.6 5.6

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.
32

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 2

New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all “no trans fats” claims, 

by product category, 2004-10

Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total 

2004-10

Percent

Snacks 30.3 30.9 30.2 30.7 32.5 26.2 28.8 29.9

 Snack/cereal/energy bars 8.2 10.8 6.4 5.5 5.4 3.8 4.1 5.7

 Potato snacks 3.4 4.3 5.3 8.0 5.5 5.9 4.1 5.5

 Corn-based snacks 7.7 2.4 4.8 5.0 5.4 4.2 5.2 4.8

 Wheat and other grain-based

 snacks 4.3 3.7 3.9 3.2 4.2 2.0 2.5 3.3

 Popcorn 1.0 2.2 1.9 2.6 3.1 0.9 2.5 2.2

 Hors d'oeuvres/canapés 0.5 0.6 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.8 3.1 2.1

 Nuts 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.4

 Other snacks 4.8 5.9 4.2 3.5 5.2 5.4 5.3 4.9

Bakery 41.3 30.7 28.3 26.8 26.7 27.3 25.5 27.8

 Baking ingredients and mixes 4.3 3.0 3.7 4.2 4.1 2.9 3.7 3.7

 Sweet biscuits/cookies 13.0 10.6 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.2 8.2 7.8

 Bread and bread products 10.6 8.1 10.6 7.0 7.0 7.3 6.6 7.7

 Savory biscuits/crackers 6.3 6.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 5.0 3.0 4.4

 Cakes, pastries, and sweet goods 7.2 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.7 5.0 3.9 4.0

Processed fi sh, meat, and egg

products 7.7 7.9 9.2 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.4 7.9

 Fish products 0.5 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.6 2.0 2.2 2.7

 Poultry products 1.4 2.4 3.6 2.8 2.4 3.9 3.2 3.0

 Other processed fi sh, meat, and

 egg products 5.8 2.2 2.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.2

Meals and meal centers 2.4 2.2 7.1 7.8 7.9 10.7 7.5 7.4

 Sandwiches/wraps 0.5 0.0 2.5 2.4 3.8 3.2 1.9 2.4

 Prepared meals 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.7 1.7 3.8 2.0 2.2

 Other meals and meal centers 0.5 1.0 2.9 2.8 2.4 3.7 3.6 2.8

Sauces and seasonings 3.4 4.1 4.0 5.0 3.3 4.2 6.4 4.5

Dairy 4.3 6.1 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.0 5.3 4.5

 Margarine and other blends 1.9 3.0 1.6 1.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.4

 Other dairy 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.1

--continued
33

New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix 2 table 2

New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all “no trans fats” claims, 

by product category, 2004-10--continued

Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total 

2004-10

Percent

Side dishes 1.9 2.2 3.3 2.6 2.6 4.8 4.8 3.4

 Potato products 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.8

 Other side dishes 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.6

Breakfast cereal 1.4 2.2 2.3 3.7 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.4

Chocolate confectionery 0.5 2.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.4

Sugar and gum 

confectionery 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.5 1.2

Desserts and ice cream 0.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.9 2.2

Sweet spreads 4.8 2.6 1.9 0.9 2.0 1.4 2.2 1.9

 Nut spreads 4.8 2.0 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.6

 Other sweet spreads 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3

Nonalcoholic beverages 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 1.3

Soup 0.0 1.6 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.9 1.3

Savory spreads 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.0

Fruits, vegetables 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7

Baby food 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5

Sweeteners and sugar 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data