Dive Brief:

• A new report by AlixPartners shows that food manufacturers might be wasting packaging and label space with some nutritional promises.
• The survey, containing 19 options, was given to 600 "health-conscious" shoppers who said they'd be willing to spend more on food that is (in order from most- to least-effective) "locally sourced," "certified organic," "organic," "preservative free," or "certified non-GMO."
• Those claims that proved to be the least valuable included consumer claims, "gluten free," "vitamin fortified," scientific claims, and "sugar free."

Dive Insight:

The people surveyed were of the type who spend at least 40% of their grocery budgets on health and wellness-related food items, so if anyone is willing to pay extra, it's these folks. Basically, even if it stacks up to the quality of your product, the marketing language used on the label might not be worth printing to begin with. 

Certification tended to raise the likelihood consumers would willingly spend more on an item, particularly when it comes to foods with "certified organic" and "GMO-free food" seals of approval. Despite reports that there's little evidence for the superior safety or nutritional value for some of those foods, AlixPartners Managing Director David Garfield says style and trendiness can be more important than scientific reality in consumers' minds.

That said, "gluten-free" claims have become popular among consumers who don't have Celiac disease, but that labeling still doesn't command the same premium price as organic and non-GMO claims. Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind when determining what claims to add or remove is that labeling can make or break consumer trust in your products, especially if those claims are ultimately disputed, so it may be best to tread lightly in some instances.