US shoppers became less willing to buy higher-added-sugar yoghurts and cookies after manufacturers disclosed added sugar separately on nutrition labels, according to research highlighted by Penn State on 16 October.
The findings concern a commercial question that extends beyond compliance: can making an ingredient more visible alter demand for an otherwise familiar product?
Researchers Yuxiang Zhang and Yizao Liu examined retail sales and prices from 2015 to 2020. Their sample covered 312 yoghurt products from seven major brands and 430 cookie products from 15 brands across 3,528 markets.
The study, published in Agribusiness on 1 August, found a negative response to added sugar in both categories once it appeared as a separate item on the label.
“Giving people clearer information about added sugar can change purchasing decisions, and it also means policymakers may have more targeted options,” Liu said in Penn State’s account of the research.
What the label actually tells shoppers
Added sugar includes sweeteners introduced during processing, such as sucrose, as well as honey and syrups. It excludes sugars naturally present in milk, fruit and vegetables.
The US Food and Drug Administration explains that added sugar forms part of total sugar. The two numbers should not be added together.
For example, a serving containing 15 grams of total sugar, including seven grams of added sugar, contains eight grams of naturally occurring sugar. Separating the figures lets a shopper compare products without assuming that all their sugar comes from added sweeteners.
The FDA adopted the revised Nutrition Facts requirements in 2016. The main compliance deadlines were January 2020 for manufacturers with at least $10 million in annual food sales and January 2021 for smaller manufacturers, according to its implementation guidance.
Sales records and modelled consumption are different evidence
The research used scanner records of purchases, then estimated a demand model to examine how product choices related to prices, nutritional attributes and the label revision.
Its simulations calculated that, without the label change, total sugar consumption associated with yoghurt purchases would have been 4.43% higher. For cookies, the estimated increase was 11.41%.
Those are comparisons with a modelled alternative scenario. Researchers did not directly observe what people ate, and the percentages are not measured reductions in every shopper’s sugar intake.
The label revision also changed other information, and manufacturers adopted it over a transition period. Alternative specifications produced similar broad results, but historical sales analysis still depends on its modelling assumptions.
Food companies face a positioning question
A manufacturer selling yoghurt on its nutritional credentials may face different expectations from a biscuit maker selling an occasional treat. The study found responses differed across products, even though added sugar attracted a negative response in both categories.
For suppliers, the commercial issue is whether a product’s recipe, price and nutritional information support the position it occupies on the shelf. Reducing added sugar could affect taste and production costs, so a recipe change would need its own customer and financial assessment.
Our earlier coverage of Berkeley’s healthy checkout rules examined a different influence on buying: which products retailers place at the till. Here, the intervention changed information about products that remained available to buy.
The researchers examined only yoghurt and cookies. Whether comparable purchasing responses persist in other food categories, and whether manufacturers subsequently reformulate their products, remains open.
