Unlocking consumer trust: How FDA-approved “healthy” labels influence snack selection

New research from Oregon State University and Tufts University in the US finds that consumers are more likely to choose healthier snack options when those products carry a “healthy” label, and that they are willing to pay a premium for them. The effect is strongest when the label carries the endorsement of the US FDA.

“Our main finding is that trust in government was an important part for people and that they were willing to pay more for that label,” says lead author Katherine Fuller, an assistant professor at Oregon State University who studies consumer behavior in the context of food and sustainability.

The findings arrive at a significant moment for food labeling policy. In 2024, the FDA updated its definition of the term “healthy” as it applies to food packaging for the first time since 1992, aligning the standard with current nutrition science and federal dietary guidance. The agency also proposes an “FDA healthy” icon for food packages, which is still undergoing approval.

The study design

The research, published in the journal Food Quality and Preference, uses data from a 2023 experiment with 276 shoppers at six grocery stores in lower-income communities in the Boston area. Researchers give participants tablets and show them images of 15 real-world snack products — nine meeting the new FDA healthy standard and six that do not.

Participants first view the products without any special labeling, then view the same products again. Those meeting the FDA standard appear to bear either a generic healthy label or the FDA-specific healthy label. To ensure the exercise carries real economic stakes, each participant receives US$5 in cash and a US$10 store gift card, with the cash applicable toward an actual purchase from one of the scenarios they are shown.

“Giving study participants purchasing power in a setting that mirrored a real shopping experience let us better observe how the labels might influence behavior,” says senior author Sean Cash, chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

What the data shows

The results confirm several existing assumptions about healthy labeling — and add new detail. Without any label present, consumers select the healthier snack options roughly 60% of the time. That figure rises to approximately 67% when a healthy label is added. Both the FDA and generic labels drive higher selection rates, but only the FDA label produces a statistically significant effect.

The premium findings are equally concrete. Consumers are willing to pay US$0.59 more on average for a healthy product carrying an FDA-endorsed label compared to one with no label at all. Fuller notes the parallel to prior research on the US Department of Agriculture organic label, which researchers also associate with a price premium.The research suggests that brands that carry the FDA “healthy” icon could have a competitive market advantage.

The study draws a meaningful distinction between two types of trust — generalized trust and trust in government specifically. The FDA label’s effectiveness varies according to how much trust consumers place in government institutions, while the generic label’s effect tracks more closely with generalized trust. The stronger the institutional trust, the stronger the FDA label’s influence on purchasing decisions.

“Our findings demonstrate that labels act as signals for consumers, and policy can shape how well those signals work,” says Cash. “When labels are viewed as credible, such as when they have the endorsement of a government agency, they are more likely to influence eating patterns and purchasing habits.”

Why labeling context matters

The study’s findings land against a specific regulatory backdrop worth understanding. Front-of-package labeling in the US remains largely unregulated and primarily industry-driven. Manufacturers routinely place claims like “natural,” “low fat,” or “supports immunity” on packaging, often with little nutritional basis and without oversight. Research shows that many consumers either misunderstand or underutilize the Nutrition Facts panel, finding it dense and difficult to interpret at the point of purchase.

The results show that the distinction matters in the current environment. Recent evidence the researchers cite shows that US citizens report especially low trust in health-related food claims, a reality shaped in part by past mislabeling, fraud, and food safety scandals. Against that backdrop, the FDA’s institutional credibility functions as a signal that generic healthy claims cannot replicate.

“Right now, there is a lot of misinformation about what is healthy and what isn’t healthy,” Fuller says. “Having a clear label, supported by scientific research, saying this is healthy because we checked, is important.”

Industry implications

According to the results, institutional credibility, and not just the presence of a health claim, drives consumer behavior and purchasing power. A generic healthy label can move the needle, but an FDA-endorsed one may move it further.

The FDA healthy icon still awaits final approval, leaving the full market impact of the updated standard to be seen. However, the research suggests that when the icon arrives, brands positioned to carry it will hold a measurable advantage — both in consumer preference and the price consumers are prepared to pay.