New FDA Labels Will Only Worsen Americans' Health

Instead of creating yet another flawed definition, the FDA should reconsider whether government food labels should even be on products in the first place.

What does "healthy" really mean? In a matter of weeks, the FDA will finalize a rule to determine which packaged foods can carry this highly sought-after label.

At first glance, the initiative seems reasonable. Chronic diseases are widespread: more than 40% of adults are obese, 38 million live with diabetes, and heart disease remains the leading cause of death.

But the FDA's new rule falls short, just as previous federal nutrition policies have for decades: it relies on outdated science and overlooks the real health risks people face.

The rule gets one thing right: it sets strict limits on added sugars, acknowledging their clear link to chronic disease. However, it incorrectly lumps sugar together with saturated fat and sodium, treating all three as equally harmful. This results in a policy that may steer consumers away from whole, nutrient-rich foods.

Rather than entrenching another misguided definition, the FDA should rethink whether government-issued food labels are even necessary.

The FDA’s treatment of saturated fat as a dietary danger, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, shows a refusal to adapt to new scientific findings. Rigorous clinical trials reveal no link between saturated fat and increased cardiovascular or overall mortality. A review published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, authored by leading nutrition experts, concluded that there is no strong evidence to support the idea that population-wide limits on saturated fat consumption would prevent heart disease or reduce mortality.

Yet, under the FDA's proposed rule, any food with more than two grams of saturated fat per serving would be disqualified from the "healthy" label. This would exclude whole milk, yogurt, cheese, and many meats. There are some exceptions for seafood, nuts, and seeds, but not for other beneficial, full-fat foods.

Sodium limits are similarly misguided. The rule caps sodium at 0.23 grams per serving for most products, despite evidence that reducing sodium intake across the population is unnecessary and, in some cases, harmful. Large studies, including one published in The Lancet, have found that low sodium intake can increase the risk of mortality. A 2017 report from the World Heart Federation and other health organizations found inconsistent evidence supporting further reductions in sodium intake below a moderate range of 3–5 grams per day—well above the 2.3-gram daily cap in U.S. nutrition guidelines.

The new “healthy” rule could penalize naturally sodium-rich foods like many cheeses, while allowing ultra-processed, reformulated foods to qualify.

These flawed standards are not developed in a vacuum. They are influenced by the food industry's power, through lobbying, research funding, and regulatory capture, which shapes federal nutrition policy and public perceptions.

The FDA’s rule is based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which have long influenced public views on healthy eating and even school lunches, senior nutrition programs, and military food supplies.

Corporate influence on these guidelines is well-documented. An analysis of the 2020 guidelines' expert committee members found that 95% had ties to the pharmaceutical or food industries. A similar analysis of the more recent committee found that nearly half had such connections, yet the government still lacks a policy to disclose these conflicts. The FDA has similarly bowed to industry pressures, leaving food safety concerns, including those around industrial ingredients and additives, largely unaddressed.

Industry influence on nutrition policy isn’t new. In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research to downplay sugar’s health risks and shift the blame to fats. By the 1980s and '90s, food companies had responded to government low-fat advice by flooding the market with low-fat, high-sugar snacks marketed as "healthy."

Seed oils provide another example. Initially developed as machine lubricants, oils like those from cottonseeds entered the food supply as Crisco, a product of Procter & Gamble (P&G). In 1961, the American Heart Association endorsed seed oils as heart-healthy, after receiving a significant donation from P&G. This endorsement helped seed oils become a staple in American diets, despite evidence linking them to inflammation, oxidative stress, and chronic diseases. Meanwhile, saturated fats like butter remain unjustly vilified in nutrition guidelines.

The FDA risks repeating these same mistakes—clinging to outdated fears about fats and sodium while ignoring stronger, more current scientific evidence.

Beyond the "healthy" label, the FDA also proposes a new front-of-package warning for foods that exceed certain thresholds for saturated fat, sodium, or added sugars. This means that a product like low-sodium Ritz crackers could earn the "healthy" label, while nutrient-rich foods like whole milk or cheese might be flagged with warnings.

To his credit, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delayed the effective date of the "healthy" label rule until April 28, signaling a potential willingness to reconsider its merits.

But given the government’s track record on nutrition, it may be time to ask a larger question: Should the FDA be in the business of labeling foods at all? Americans don’t need another misleading seal of approval.

If the FDA insists on moving forward, it must align its policies with modern science—eliminating arbitrary limits and unfounded warnings on saturated fat and sodium. Consumers deserve accurate, transparent information, not labels that confuse rather than clarify healthy choices.