Let’s get on the same page before we dive in. Supermarkets and supercenters prevail as the primary source of groceries for U.S. households. Supermarkets stock upwards of 30,000 different items, on average, including a nauseating variety of options for any given food. Most of the U.S. diet is composed of ultraprocessed foods, with higher intake of these foods linked to greater risk of chronic disease. At the same time, foundational training on managing home economics, including basic nutrition and food preparation skills, has been deprioritized in secondary school curricula. Food budgets feel more stretched than ever, and time for healthy food prep feels far from sufficient.
But there’s good news: The Trump administration has an opportunity to put its “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign into action. There is a groundswell of bipartisan support to combat our country’s chronic disease crisis. And there’s a clear and actionable strategy on the table: translate the FDA’s updated definition of “healthy” food into a simple symbol that we can all use to guide our supermarket choices.
What Counts as ‘Healthy’?
Per FDA’s updated policy, a food product can be labeled and marketed as “healthy” if it (1) contains a certain amount of a Dietary Guideline-aligned food group (fruits, vegetables, etc.) and (2) adheres to limits of added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat (with the amount depending on the food product category). Put more simply, a food can only qualify if it contains a minimum amount of the food it claims to be (e.g., a grain product, such as bread, must contain at least 0.75 oz of whole grain per serving) and is also below the maximum limits for nutrients we know to be harmful when eaten in excess.
For any non-nutrition scholars, this may sound a bit convoluted. It’s certainly nuanced, but it makes sense. Modern food products are a food science marvel; they often contain extensive ingredient lists composed of elements that work together to make the product not only palatable, but also attractive, shelf-stable, easy to prepare, and sometimes even “healthy” by FDA’s standards.
Is This Sound Nutrition Advice?
Yes, the FDA’s final rule leverages the full arsenal of scientific understanding available since the early 1990s, which is when the FDA last defined “healthy” for the sake of food product labeling.
The field of nutritional science has advanced tremendously in recent decades. We now understand the influence of different types of fat on our health, with saturated fat emerging as a concern. We have also demonstrated that food companies’ efforts to reformulate foods by replacing fat with sugar did not help anyone’s health. And, thanks to science at the intersection of nutrition and psychology, we are grappling with the reality that certain foods — ultraprocessed foods in particular — are hyper-palatable and perhaps even addictive.
Some examples may help: under the 1990s-era policy, salmon was deemed too high in fat to bear the “healthy” label, while some sugar-laden yogurts and salt-heavy breads enjoyed the designation. Under the updated rule, which has a compliance date of Feb. 25, 2028, the opposite is true (albeit with some exceptions based on a given brand’s formulation).
The Trump Administration’s Opportunity
Consumers need a tool they can use to make quick and healthy choices.
Even consumers who are diligent about their health may opt to purchase processed foods for a range of legitimate reasons. My family regularly purchases crackers, bread, and pasta sauce, among other processed foods, to balance cost, health, and efficiency in our pursuit of semi-homemade meals and snacks.
It would be impossible for any of us, myself included, to know at-a-glance which packaged foods will best support our family’s health. Any foods designated as “healthy” by the FDA can use this term in their packaging and marketing — a helpful signal to conscientious shoppers.
But use of the term alone is potentially meaningless in the milieu of food marketing tactics used to capture our eyeballs and our wallets. This is where Trumps’ team comes in.
Finalizing FDA’s Front-of-Package Labels
To support consumers’ decision-making in the overstimulating context of a modern supermarket, FDA has been working for years to develop a new front-of-package labeling scheme.
Early prototypes, circa 2021, appeared to favor a relatively simple symbol akin to the American Heart Association’s red check mark for heart-healthy approved foods. The symbol, such as those below, would indicate whether something could be considered “healthy” per FDA’s standards.
The upside of such a symbol is that it gives the consumer a black-and-white (or blue-and-white) assessment of which foods align with our country’s health standards. This retains consumer choice while minimizing confusion.
The downside of a decisive symbol is that it is unidimensional in what it communicates. Concerns with such simplicity are multi-faceted; some contend that oversimplified nutrition messaging may perpetuate counterproductive thought patterns related to (disordered) eating, and others support a multi-dimensional symbol that could both highlight “healthy” foods and warn consumers of foods with high levels of nutrients to limit.
In mid-January, the FDA proposed a label-like “nutrition info box” that provides more detailed information. Unfortunately, one of the key details from this option — a stoplight color system that would help consumers quickly interpret the label’s data points — has been abandoned because the uncolored versions performed better in FDA testing. Color me skeptical.
With the proposal still open to public comment through May 16, the jury is out on the final rule. My two cents: it’s an overdue move in the right direction, but the current administration has an opportunity to ensure it will function as intended by supporting smart consumer choices and pushing back against any false claims by the food industry.
The Bottom Line
This a clear opportunity for the next health secretary — whether it’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or someone else — to make their mark on America’s health. Even with a new symbol or label to guide us, supermarket aisles will remain the overwhelming mix of products and flashy food packaging they have been for decades. That doesn’t make this futile; it makes the integrity of this and other food environment efforts all the more important.
It’s crucial that the new administration recognizes this opportunity and takes it on as one strand in a metaphorical braid of strategies — such as reemphasizing family and consumer sciences and improving the affordability of healthy foods — toward meaningful public health impact.
Jennifer A. Garner, PhD, RD, is a behavioral intervention scientist and the John G. Searle assistant professor of nutritional sciences at University of Michigan’s School of Public Health in Ann Arbor. She works with community and clinical partners to study approaches for improving food and nutrition security and reducing risk of chronic disease.
Please enable JavaScript to view the