The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

Health claims can encourage consumers to try new food products, but they are doing little to persuade shoppers to pay more, according to new research from consumer intelligence business Vypr.

The findings, published in Vypr’s latest Emerging Trends Report, reveal a significant gap between the ability of health claims to attract consumer interest and their ability to translate into additional value at the point of purchase.

In three pricing exercises, consumers were presented with products with and without a clean-label health claim and asked how much they would be willing to pay. On average, respondents were willing to pay just 0.5% more for the product carrying the clean-label claim.

The findings suggest that while health positioning can help brands secure initial attention, consumers remain reluctant to attach a significant financial premium to such claims.

Among the health and quality claims tested, easily understood messages were the strongest prompts for consumers to try a new food product.

Natural ingredients emerged as the biggest driver, cited by 47% of consumers. This was followed by no artificial additives at 39% and low sugar at 37%.

High protein and high fibre were also identified as trial drivers, with around three in 10 consumers saying these claims would encourage them to try a new product.

However, the claims consumers find most appealing are not necessarily those they trust most.

No artificial additives was the most trusted individual claim, cited by 16% of respondents, followed by a short ingredient list at 15% and natural ingredients at 12%.

High protein, despite being one of the stronger drivers of product trial, was trusted by only 10% of consumers. It was also the claim most likely to be considered overused, with 15% of respondents selecting it.

The findings point to a growing distinction between claims that attract consumer attention and those that establish credibility.

Almost a quarter of consumers (24%) said they do not trust any health claims on food products. Among consumers aged over 65, this rose to one in three.

The most common reason for doubting a health claim was that it appeared “too good to be true”, cited by 40% of respondents.

A further 32% said vague language reduced their confidence in health claims, while 30% pointed to long ingredient lists that appeared to contradict claims made on the front of pack.

The latter concern was particularly pronounced among older consumers, with 41% of those aged over 65 citing a contradiction between the ingredient list and the front-of-pack claim.

For brands, the findings suggest that simply increasing the number of health messages on pack may not be enough to build consumer confidence.

Vypr’s research also found limited consumer benefit from loading packaging with multiple health claims.

More than half of consumers (54%) said having three or more claims on a pack would make no difference to their likelihood of buying the product.

While 33% said multiple claims would make them more likely to purchase, 14% said they would be less likely to buy.

Ben Davies, founder of Vypr, said: “In this age of UPF and food quality concerns, consumers are more confused than ever before about what to choose. Brands and manufacturers need to reformulate for HFSS rules and continue to improve their product offering, but this will not correlate with a willingness for consumers to pay more.”

Davies added: “This data shows that consumers are feeling overwhelmed by the claims and so brands need to build trust and belief in the health claims rather than adding more onto pack.”

The research also highlights the growing role of third-party food-rating and ingredient-scanning apps in how some consumers assess food products.

Approximately a quarter of consumers use apps such as Yuka, Open Food Facts and FoodSwitch to check on-pack claims.

Among these users, 70% said they trusted the ratings to some degree, including 57% who reported some trust and 14% who expressed complete trust.

The potential impact on purchasing behaviour is significant. When asked what they would do if a product they regularly purchased received a poor rating, 62% of respondents said they would be likely to stop buying it. This included 15% who said they would be very likely to stop purchasing the product.

Davies said the users of these apps represented an important early-adopter segment for brands seeking to understand how consumer scrutiny could evolve.

“For the scanning-app minority users, who are younger, engaged and willing to abandon a product over a poor rating, still offers a definable early-adopter segment,” he said. “Designing products that withstand third-party scrutiny rather than relying on front-of-pack framing is the route to that segment, and its behaviour serves as a leading indicator of where wider scrutiny may move.”

The research suggests that for food and beverage manufacturers, the challenge is increasingly not simply to make a health claim, but to ensure that the product itself can substantiate the message.

While clear health and ingredient claims can encourage consumers to explore new products, the limited price premium indicates that health positioning alone may not be enough to justify a higher price. At the same time, growing scepticism and the rise of independent product-rating tools could place greater emphasis on formulation, ingredient transparency and consistency between on-pack messaging and the product itself.