Content uploaded by Fred Kuchler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fred Kuchler on Jul 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Economic
Research
Service
Ilya Rahkovsky, Steve Martinez, and Fred Kuchler
New Food Choices Free of Trans
Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With
Health Recommendations
Economic
Information
Bulletin
Number 95
April 2012
w
w
w
w
w
.
e
r
s
.
u
s
d
a
.
g
o
v
o
o
Visit Our Website To Learn More!
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental
status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal,
or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public
assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons
with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s
TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil
Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer.
Cover photo credit: Shutterstock.
http://www.ers.usda.gov
Find additional information on this topic:
Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute
endorsement by USDA.
Recommended citation format for this publication:
Rahkovsky, Ilya, Steve Martinez, and Fred Kuchler. New Food Choices
Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations,
EIB-95, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April
2012.
United States
Department
of Agriculture
www.ers.usda.gov
A Report from the Economic Research Service
Abstract
Federal agencies that are charged with giving dietary advice to consumers—the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—
recommend that consumers keep their intake of trans fatty acids as low as possible. To that
end, Federal regulations now require food labels to say how many grams of trans fats are
in each serving. In this report, we examine recent changes in the trans fats content of new
food products and the use of “no trans fats” package claims. We fi nd a marked decline in
the trans fats content of new food products from 2005 to 2010, along with an increase in the
use of “no trans fats” claims on product packages. We also fi nd that only a small minority
of foods that contain no trans fats make such claims even though the use of a “no trans
fats” claim is associated with higher rates of successful market penetration in a majority
of product categories. In addition, new products without trans fats generally contain less
saturated fat, sodium, and calories, which suggests that the reduction of trans fats was not
compensated by increases in these other nutrients.
Keywords: trans fats, new products, nutrition, claims, labels, information
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank our USDA, Economic Research Service, Food Economics Division
colleagues Laurian Unnevehr, Ephraim Leibtag, and Jay Variyam, as well as three anony-
mous reviewers for their comments. We also benefi tted from advice from Jordan Lin, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and from Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, USDA, Food Safety and
Inspection Service. Priscilla Smith provided editorial expertise and Curtia Taylor provided
graphic design expertise.
Ilya Rahkovsky, irahkovsky@ers.usda.gov
Steve Martinez, martinez@ers.usda.gov
Fred Kuchler, fkuchler@ers.usda.gov
New Food Choices Free of Trans
Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With
Health Recommendations
Economic
Information
Bulletin
Number 95
April 2012
ii
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Contents
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Trans Fats Coverage in the News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Data for Tracking Reformulation, Nutrition Claims,
and Retail Sales in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nutritional Content of New Products Introduced
in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Average Trans Fats Content of New Food
Product Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recent Trends in Trans Fats Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What Have Food Manufacturers Done To Inform
Consumers About Trans Fats Content? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Is There a Relationship Between Trans Fats Content
and “No Trans Fats” Claims?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Does a “No Trans Fats” Claim Infl uence New
Product Success in the Marketplace?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Are New Products With a “No Trans Fats”
Claim Less Healthy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix 1—Mintel’s Data Collection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix 2—New Food Product Introductions
With a “No Trans Fats” Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
iii
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Summary
What Is the Issue?
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Federal Government’s quinquen-
nial assessment of the linkage between diet and health, provides science-
based advice on diet and physical activity to promote health and reduce the
risk of major chronic diseases. In 2005 and 2010, that advice included the
recommendation that Americans minimize their intake of trans fatty acids.
While it is technically feasible to meet this goal, meeting the goal depends
on consumers’ willingness to make dietary changes to restrict intake of
trans fats. As long as consumers are not averse to consuming food products
containing trans fats, there are fi nancial incentives for food manufacturers to
continue using trans fats. Trans fats extend product shelf life and are cheaper
than alternative fats.
The Federal Government has tried to create incentives for food manufacturers
to reduce their use of trans fats. Federal dietary guidance provides consumers
with information about the hazards of trans fats, and Federal food labeling
regulations began requiring the identifi cation of trans fats on Nutrition Facts
panels in 2006. In this report, we examine whether food manufacturers are:
• reducing trans fats in foods in response to these changes.
• using trans fats-free claims on package labels as an advertising vehicle to
inform consumers and increase sales.
• producing healthier foods.
What Did the Study Find?
Most new food products contain no trans fats or do not contain enough to
require reporting trans fats on the Nutrition Facts panel (together described
here as products free of trans fats). Further, trends over recent years show that
trans fats content in food products has been falling.
• In addition to labeling trans fats content on the Nutrition Facts panel of
newly introduced foods, manufacturers have voluntarily highlighted the
absence of trans fats on the front of food packages.
- Food product introductions displaying package claims about the
absence of trans fats began appearing in substantial numbers in
2004 and increased every year through 2009.
- The two categories of foods where front-of-package statements
appear most frequently are foods that had substantial trans fats in
the past (bakery products, prepared meals, and desserts) and in
foods that are nearly free of trans fats (baby food and cereals).
- Most new foods that contain no trans fats do not make package
claims about the absence of trans fats.
• To calculate success rates of new products, products were deemed
successful if available in at least 1 percent of the stores in our sample.
iv
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Success rates for new products that contain trans fats have been about
the same as for products that do not contain trans fats. However, success
rates for products that are free of trans fats and that also carry the “no
trans fats” front-of-package statement have been higher than for trans
fats-free products that lack the “no trans fats” statement.
• New products without trans fats, including those that have front-of-
package statements and those that do not have them, are likely to be lower
in calories, sodium, and saturated fats than those containing trans fats.
This suggests that food companies, when reformulating products to avoid
trans fats, are generally substituting healthier ingredients for trans fats.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Using the Mintel Global New Products Database, we compared the average
trans fats content of new food product introductions across 18 general food
categories from 2006 to 2010. For fi ve categories displaying the highest trans
fats content, the average annual trans fats content from 2005 to 2010 was
also tracked, where data from 2005 were lower bound estimates. Growth in
all new food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim from 2000 to
2010 was examined. Researchers also compared the extent to which “no trans
fats” claims were used on product packages for the 18 food categories and
several subcategories from 2004—the fi rst year when a sizeable number of
new food product introductions contained “no trans fats” claims—to 2010.
Mintel data were also aligned with data from SymphonyIRI Group (formerly
Information Resources, Inc.), which tracks monthly retail sales. The combined
data set allowed comparisons between success rates of new products with
and without trans fats from 2006 to 2010. Among products free of trans fats,
success rates for those that had a “no trans fats” claim were compared with
those that did not. Information from each new product’s Nutrition Facts panel
was used to compare the per-serving nutrient content (sodium, sugar, satu-
rated fat, and calories) of products containing trans fats with those that did not
contain trans fats. For new products that were eligible to make “no trans fats”
claims, nutritional comparisons were also made between products that made
the claim versus those that did not make the claim.
1
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Introduction
In recent years, the public health community has agreed that consumers
ought to eat as little trans fats as possible without compromising dietary
quality. That message has been repeatedly conveyed to consumers from many
different sources. Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have worked together
to develop and disseminate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which
provides information and advice based on a review of the most recent scien-
tifi c evidence to help consumers choose a healthy eating pattern (Public Law
101-445, Title III, 7 U.S. Code 5301 et seq.). Federal nutrition education
guides, such as MyPlate (replacing MyPyramid), are used to translate nutri-
tion recommendations into recommendations that consumers can use to guide
their daily food choices. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines (released in January
2011) offers clear-cut advice on trans fatty acid consumption:
Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible, especially by
limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as
partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting other solid fats.
The recommendation to minimize intake of trans fatty acids began with
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. At that time, the Food Guide
Pyramid emphasized the benefi ts of reducing foods high in trans fatty acids.
The 2005 Dietary Guidelines contain a recommendation similar to that in the
2010 Dietary Guidelines, but without the advice on how to minimize intake
of trans fats:
Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids
and less than 300 mg/day of cholesterol, and keep trans fatty acid
consumption as low as possible.
The reasoning behind the recommendations was articulated by the Institute
of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences):
Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefi t to
human health. Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. As with saturated
fatty acids, there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid
intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased
risk of CHD. A UL is not set for trans fatty acids because any incre-
mental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases CHD risk.1
Because trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan
diets, consuming 0 percent of energy would require signifi cant
changes in patterns of dietary intake. As with saturated fatty acids,
such adjustments may introduce undesirable effects (e.g., elimina-
tion of commercially prepared foods, dairy products, and meats that
contain trans fatty acids may result in inadequate intakes of protein
and certain micronutrients) and unknown and unquantifi able health
risks. Nevertheless, it is recommended that trans fatty acid consump-
tion be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate
diet. (Institute of Medicine, 2005, pp. 423-24)
1AI, Adequate Intake, is defi ned as
the recommended average daily intake
level. RDA, Recommended Dietary
Allowance, is defi ned as the average
daily dietary nutrient intake level suffi -
cient to meet nutrient requirements. UL,
Tolerable Upper Intake Level, is defi ned
as the highest average daily nutrient
intake level that is likely to pose no risk
of adverse health effects to almost all
individuals in the general population.
Coronary heart disease is abbreviated
as CHD.
2
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
The recommendations pose a challenge for some food manufacturers. For
many years, there were strong fi nancial incentives for food manufacturers to
make products containing trans fats. Trans fats were commonly used in food
processing because food processors could employ a process called hydroge-
nation to raise the melting point of relatively inexpensive products containing
polyunsaturated fatty acids, making the products solid at room temperature.2
Foods that are higher in saturated fatty acids are more resistant to spoilage.
The twin attractions of these synthetic trans fatty acids, found in partially
hydrogenated oils, are reduced costs of food production and longer shelf life
of products. Partially hydrogenated oils have been frequently used in marga-
rines, snack foods, and prepared desserts, replacing saturated fatty acids.
The diffi culty in solving the public health problem trans fats pose is that food
manufacturers could reformulate their products to nearly eliminate trans fats
from the food supply, but reformulation might require using alternative and
more expensive oils and those alternative oils might compromise product
quality. Production costs would rise and demand would fall as consumers
reject the less tasty product. Thus, as long as consumers are not averse to
eating trans fats, food manufacturers have a fi nancial incentive to continue
using trans fats in their recipes and are likely to be unwilling to reformulate
foods to eliminate trans fats.
If consumers were aware of the health problems caused by trans fats—they
might be healthier without trans fats—they might be willing to pay a price
premium for foods that did not contain trans fats, compensating manufac-
turers for reformulating. In that case, suppliers might even compete among
themselves to reformulate, and inform consumers that they have removed
trans fats from their products. Food manufacturers could earn higher prices
and net returns by eliminating trans fats if consumers valued avoiding trans
fats, and if willingness to pay for reduced trans fats exceeded reformula-
tion costs. In effect, social goals of having a healthier population and private
fi nancial incentives would be aligned to benefi t consumers and food manu-
facturers. Of course, this outcome only occurs if consumers are aware of the
health issue, demand trans fat-free products, and manufacturers can reformu-
late and inform consumers that the products they are offering are superior (no
trans fats) either to what had been offered previously or to what the competi-
tion is offering. Otherwise, removing trans fats would not offer a manufac-
turer a competitive advantage and would not offer the possibility of receiving
a positive return on reformulation.
The Federal Government has pursued two activities intended to reduce
Americans’ dietary intake of trans fats by:
1. informing consumers that they can reduce health risks they face by
choosing fats other than trans fats.
2. requiring food manufacturers to label the trans fats content of foods.
That is, two types of Federal actions have been directed at reducing the
consumption of trans fats. If consumers are aware that they ought to choose
foods that do not include trans fats and know which foods to avoid, their diets
might improve. If consumers have an incentive and the ability to avoid trans
fats, food manufacturers’ fi nancial incentive to incorporate trans fats in foods
might be reduced.3
2Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
2010, Part D Section 3: Fatty Acids and
Cholesterol, p. D3-7.
3While consumers’ use of food labels
has been studied extensively, there are
research gaps in understanding deter-
minants of nutritional label use and
the effect of label use on purchase and
consumption behavior. See Drichoutis,
Lazaridis, and Nayga (2006) for a
review of empirical studies and an
assessment of research needs.
3
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
In November 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed
a rule that would require the amount of trans fatty acids present in foods
to be included in the product’s Nutrition Facts panel. In 2001, the Offi ce of
Management and Budget (OMB) took the then-unique action of sending
FDA a “prompt” letter asking the agency to give greater priority to the
issue.4 The letter, from OMB’s Offi ce of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Administrator John D. Graham, urged the acceleration of ongoing rule-
making. A second letter followed in 2003 (OMB, 2003). In 2003, the rule
became fi nal with requirements for labeling in 2006.
These actions—label regulations and dietary advice—were clearly intended
to improve the quality of Americans’ diets. Ultimately, success or failure
rests on whether consumers demand foods without trans fats and reject foods
that contain trans fats. Success was not guaranteed by the actions. Nothing
required consumers to avoid trans fats. The actions did not ban trans fats
from supermarkets. Unless consumers are aware of the health issues raised by
consuming trans fats, consumer demands might not change, and food manu-
facturers might not see any reason to reformulate their products. To do so,
consumers have to be informed that there is a reason to avoid trans fats.
Currently, it is not clear how much the trans fats content of foods has
changed. Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) considered the incentives for
reducing trans fats in the food supply and examined outcomes through 2006.
Today we have access to additional years of data and can retrospectively
examine a more complete set of adjustments that occurred in the food supply
following changes to the Nutrition Facts panel requirements.
In addition, why consumer and industry behavior changed in response to
Government actions to reduce trans fats intake is only partially understood.
Previous studies of similar, but not identical issues, found that new infor-
mation, either through news media or through the Nutrition Facts panel,
infl uenced consumers’ food choices (Chern, Loehman, and Yen, 1995; Kim,
Nayga, and Capps, 2000). Extrapolating, one might conclude that the public
health goal of reducing consumers’ intake of trans fats could have been met
in either of two ways. The Federal Government could have required disclo-
sure of trans fats on the Nutrition Facts panel or it could have conducted
an education campaign that would inform consumers through news media
outlets. However, Kozup, Burton, and Creyer (2006) conducted a consumer
knowledge experiment to ask whether an education effort would increase
the salience of trans fats information that is provided to consumers. They
concluded that, by itself, requiring food suppliers to disclose trans fats on
the Nutrition Facts panel might not be very effective at changing consumer
behavior. Their research highlighted the importance of information and
education that would accompany and complement the new disclosure rules:
A comprehensive media campaign that serves to educate consumers
about trans fats, the changes to the label, and the importance of the
nutrition information contained within the Facts panel may have
benefi cial results.
4The “prompt” letter was the fi rst
time that OMB publicly encouraged
a new regulatory action rather than
reviewing decisions initiated by agen-
cies (OMB, 2001).
4
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Following the Kozup, Burton, and Creyer suggestion about the importance of
a media campaign, the next section examines the timing and volume of news
in major news media about trans fats.
5
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Trans Fats Coverage in the News Media
The release of the Dietary Guidelines has been designed so that recommenda-
tions could be easily conveyed through the news media. To gauge whether and
when consumers might have become aware of reasons to minimize intake of
trans fats, this section examines the time pattern of news consumers received
about trans fats. News might not compel consumers to make different food
choices, but without trans fats recommendations making their way into main-
stream news media, the possibility of changing food choices seems remote.5
Two news sources were examined. The fi rst source was the Vanderbilt
Television News Archive, which provides access to the news broadcasts from
the U.S. national television networks.6 The archive is a searchable database
of news abstracts and broadcast descriptions. The Vanderbilt Television News
Archive has been recording, preserving, and providing access to television
news broadcasts of the national networks since August 5, 1968. The archive
began with three networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—and added coverage of
CNN in 1995 and FoxNews in 2004.
We searched the Vanderbilt Television News Archive for reports discussing
trans fats during evening news broadcasts.7 The search returned 37 reports
beginning with an NBC evening news report in 1978. The trans fats issue
was not discussed again on an evening news broadcast until 1992. One report
aired on ABC in 1992, one on CBS on 1993, and another on CBS in 1994.
Four reports aired in 2003, with ABC, CBS, and NBC reporting on July 9,
2003 on the trans fats label requirement. Four reports aired in 2005, with
three networks reporting in August on the New York City government request
for restaurants to stop using trans fats. The peak for coverage occurred in
2006, with 15 reports. Total minutes of coverage follow closely the pattern
shown for the annual count of reports (fi g. 1).
5Media attention may also infl uence
food suppliers’ incentives, thereby
reducing the size of the public health
problem posed by trans fats. Unnevehr
and Jagmanaite (2008) argued that media
attention to the trans fats issue spurred
lawsuits against major food industry
fi rms by public interest groups and the
New York City attempt to phase out
synthetic trans fats in restaurant foods.
6See http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/.
7The keyword search was conducted
using various spellings of trans fats and
hydrogenation.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Vanderbilt Television
News Archive data.
Figure 1
Number of reports and minutes of television evening news
coverage of trans fats, 1978-2010
Number of reports Minutes of broadcast time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010
Reports
Minutes
6
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Year-to-year comparisons, along with identifi cation of peaks in the series,
have to be made cautiously. That is, as CNN and FoxNews reports were
added to the archive many years after the archive began, one can ask whether
the larger number of reports in later years might be the result of counting
reports from more sources. Were consumers given more information about
trans fats in more recent years? Or, are the greater numbers of reports in
recent years the result of reports mirroring each other, simply splitting
coverage among fi ve instead of three sources?
The answer to the latter question is largely no, that more sources imply more
distinct news reports. There were fi ve reports in 2007, all from FoxNews. The
2006 peak for coverage would have been identifi ed as a peak even without
CNN and FoxNews, as the other three reported on trans fats 10 times.
Even in 2006—the peak year of trans fats coverage—the range of issues raised
was not wide. One of the most frequently reported stories was the attempt by
the New York City Board of Health to phase out synthetic trans fats in all New
York City restaurants and other foodservice establishments. On September 27,
ABC, CBS, NBC, and FoxNews all reported on the proposal. NBC, FoxNews,
and CNN all reported that on December 5, 2006, the New York City Board
of Health approved the amendment to the city’s Health Code. Five of the
reports discussed the lawsuit by the Center for Science in the Public Interest
demanding that KFC Corporation, a restaurant chain, stop using trans fats in
oil used to fry chicken. Two reports discussed the new requirements for food
labels: the Nutrition Facts Panel has to specify the per-serving quantity of trans
fats. One report discussed Wendy’s new fry oil that eliminated trans fats.
Clearly consumers do not get all their news and information from televi-
sion evening news broadcasts. Despite their shrinking readership, consumers
have used newspapers for many years as a news source. The second source
we examined, NewsBank, inc.’s searchable database, is populated with the
complete electronic editions of more than 2,000 newspapers from around
the world. The oldest reports in the database come from The Washington
Post, which has been included since January 1, 1977. Other newspapers were
included in the NewsBank database in years following that date.
To count consistently, the newspapers selected for search were those in the
NewsBank database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2010. Without
imposing this condition, the year-by-year expanding number of newspapers
included in the NewsBank database would lead to an annual count that would be
biased toward concluding that news coverage of trans fats was increasing over
time. That is, the count of newspaper articles examining the trans fats issue might
appear to rise just because there were more newspapers from which to draw
articles. The starting date of January 1, 1992, is meant to be comparable with the
Vanderbilt Television News Archive data. In that archive, the pre-1992 period
shows only one television news report on trans fats. A few newspapers dropped
out over time, leaving 109 U.S. newspapers from major cities across the United
States with complete coverage 1992-2010 (fi g. 2).
The observed peak in newspaper coverage of trans fats issues occurred in
2007 with 3,703 reports, higher than the 2006 total of 3,123. The volume of
news was not uniform across 2006-07. Like the television news, one of the
most frequently reported stories was the New York City Board of Health’s
7
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
approval of an amendment to the city Health Code. On a monthly basis, the
peak in news reports discussing trans fats occurred in January 2007 with 599
news reports (5.5 stories per newspaper, on average) as newspapers reported
that several State and municipal governments considered following the lead
of New York City. At that time, newspapers reported that Girl Scout cookies
had been reformulated to eliminate trans fats, McDonald’s had adopted
a fry oil blended to eliminate trans fats, the J.M. Smucker Company had
introduced a trans fats-free version of its Crisco shortening, Starbucks was
reducing trans fats in its baked goods, and doughnut makers were searching
for a way to reduce trans fats.
Across the 19-year period, there were 19,801 reports discussing trans fats
(through December 31, 2010). The issue never disappeared from the newspa-
pers. There were some reports every month (minimum of six).
Reporting on trans fats has been persistent over many years, but sharply
peaked about the same time as Federal regulations made it mandatory to label
the trans fats content of foods. Tallying trans fats reports in newspapers and
television news broadcasts demonstrates that issues raised by trans fats in
Americans’ diets were given signifi cant coverage and attention. Although this
is not a comprehensive list of news sources, it does suggest that there were
multiple avenues through which consumers might become informed about the
hazards of consuming trans fats. Further, with trans fats labeled on every food
product, consumers had the means to avoid trans fats. These conditions raise
the question whether consumers made use of the information and whether
their food choices changed, altering the fi nancial incentives for food manufac-
turers to reformulate and introduce new food products free of trans fats.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on NewsBank, inc., data
from 109 newspapers.
Figure 2
U.S. newspaper reports mentioning trans fats, annually, 1992-2010
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1992
Number of reports
949698 2000 02 04 06 08 10
8
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Data for Tracking Reformulation,
Nutrition Claims, and Retail Sales
in the United States
Consumer demand for trans fats-free food could have increased due to
increased awareness of the health issues and due to consumers' increased
ability to differentiate between products with and without trans fats. Some
food suppliers could have benefi tted from this increased demand by refor-
mulating products and by bringing greater attention to reformulated foods.
To track these two possible effects, we used Mintel’s Global New Product
Database (GNPD).8 This database allows users to track new products
carrying specifi c product claims across 19 food and beverage product catego-
ries and associated subcategories from June 1996 to present (see Appendix 1,
“Mintel’s Data Collection Procedure”). Mintel GNPD data contain detailed
information on new consumer packaged goods introduced in the United
States and 47 other countries, including new products, new variety exten-
sions, new formulations, new packaging, and relaunches. GNPD is updated
with new product information each business day.
Mintel has also partnered with SymphonyIRI Group (formerly Information
Resources, Inc., and denoted here as IRI) to provide sales information on
some products in Mintel's GNPD. IRI tracks in 34,000 grocery stores, drug
stores, and supermarkets, with the important exception of Walmart stores.
Sales data are available beginning in January 2005. New products are tracked
when they reach 1-percent distribution (percent of stores selling products).
Each record contains sales data for weeks 1 through 13, and then ongoing
sales data for a maximum of 104 weeks. GNPD reports sales for 24 percent
of the products introduced in 2005-10.
8Mintel is a privately owned, London-
based market research fi rm with
corporate offi ces in Chicago, New York,
Belfast, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Sydney.
9
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Nutritional Content of New Products
Introduced in the United States
In 2006, Federal regulation required food manufacturers to identify the trans
fats content in each food in the Nutrition Facts panel. Before 2006, such
identifi cation was voluntary. Here, we categorize the entire set of new food
product introductions in the Mintel database for 2006-10. Each new food
product introduction is included in one of 18 general food product catego-
ries. We use the classifi cation scheme developed by Mintel, but exclude the
Alcoholic Beverages category. Each product was categorized as containing
trans fats or not, based on whether the Nutrition Facts panel reported positive
or no trans fats.9 Products that did not report positive levels of trans fats on
the Nutrition Facts panel are denoted here as free of trans fats. Among those
products containing trans fats, the trans fats content was tallied. As most new
product introductions did not contain trans fats, there are two distinct ways to
characterize typical trans fats content of these foods: a simple average across
all new product introductions and averages for those foods that contain posi-
tive quantities of trans fats.
Average Trans Fats Content of New Food
Product Introductions
Table 1 shows that among new product introductions, trans fats are relatively
small components of foods, and it is unusual to have any trans fats in foods.
The left numerical column—average trans fats content—is a simple average
of grams per serving across all new product introductions in each of 18
broad categories of foods. Calculated averages are relatively small for two
reasons. First, as the second column shows, it is relatively rare for any new
product introduction to contain trans fats. The category denoted Meals and
Meal Centers (which include sandwiches/wraps and prepared meals) showed
the lowest rate at which new product introductions were free of trans fats,
85.3 percent (14.7 percent contained trans fats). That is, among 2,607 new
product introductions in this category, 2,224 did not contain trans fats and
383 contained trans fats. Most other categories showed higher rates of new
product introductions free of trans fats. Among the 231 new product introduc-
tions of Baby Food, there was not one that contained trans fats.
Second, average trans fats content is a relatively small share of recommended
fat intake. That is, when we compare the average trans fats content of foods
with the recommended fat intake, each serving appears to be a very small
share of daily fat intake. For example, the Bakery category has the largest
amount of trans fats per serving, equaling 0.22 grams. For an adult on a
2,000-calorie daily diet, recommended daily fat intake is 20 to 35 percent
of calorie intake,10 equivalent to 400-700 calories. At 9 calories per gram of
fat, a serving randomly drawn from all new products introductions of Bakery
category items11 would contain 2 calories from trans fats. That is, an average
serving contains trans fats that amount to no more than half of 1 percent of
the recommended daily fat intake.
Even if a person chose only Bakery category items that contained trans fats,
the results would still suggest that a serving contributes small amounts to
9Some products contain trans fats,
but in smaller quantities than reporting
requirements (see box, “New Product
Introductions That Qualify for a ‘No
Trans Fat’ Claim on the Package”). We
could account for this uncertainty in
trans fats content by calculating a range
for average trans fats content, with
imputations of 0 leading to the lower
end and imputations of 0.49 grams/
serving (just under reporting require-
ments) leading to the upper end. Here,
we only report averages with imputa-
tions of 0. Doing so may underestimate
the average, but the 0.49 grams/serving
imputation would certainly overesti-
mate average trans fats levels. The latter
imputation would imply that products
that never had trans fats do contain
trans fats and would imply that products
that were reformulated to eliminate
trans fats contain trans fats.
10See “Table 2-4, Recommended
Macronutrient Proportions by Age,”
in Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
2010, p. 15.
11Note that this argument is about
averages and typical fat consumption.
As such, the depth of the American
food supply makes the argument about
entirely hypothetical choices; it would
be physically impossible for a consumer
to face such choices. Only a small frac-
tion of new product introductions are
successful in the marketplace, and no
store stocks all items that are available.
10
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
daily fat intake. If a random draw were made among the subset of foods in
the Bakery category that contain trans fats, a serving would be expected
to contain 1.67 grams of trans fats, equivalent to 15 calories or less than 4
percent of daily fat intake.
The question these statistics raise is how fast new product introductions
are replacing older products, possibly containing larger shares of trans fats.
Assuming that new product introductions have or will soon replace older
products, trans fats intake per serving appears to be small.
Recent Trends in Trans Fats Content
The simple average trans fats content in new product introductions may seem
relatively small. The same might be said for averages conditional on having
Table 1
Average trans fats content for all new product introductions and for those containing positive levels of
trans fats, by product category, 2006-10
Category
Average trans fats
content
Share of products
with no trans fats
Average trans fats
content for products
containing trans fats
Total new product
introductions
Grams per serving Percentage Grams per serving Count
Baby food 0.00 100.0 0.00 231
Bakery 0.22 86.3 1.67 5,289
Breakfast cereals 0.00 99.7 0.88 1,169
Chocolate confectionery 0.05 96.2 1.40 2,169
Dairy 0.04 96.3 1.32 2,349
Desserts and ice cream 0.12 91.7 1.43 1,908
Fruits and vegetables 0.00 99.7 0.50 1,288
Meals and meal centers 0.21 85.3 1.41 2,607
Nonalcoholic beverages 0.01 99.2 1.06 3,684
Processed fi sh, meat, and egg products 0.08 92.9 1.17 2,945
Sauces, seasonings 0.01 99.4 1.70 4,023
Savory spreads 0.03 97.0 1.07 462
Side dishes 0.05 97.2 1.76 1,469
Snacks 0.08 96.2 2.06 4,294
Soup 0.05 94.8 1.03 638
Sugar, gum confectionery 0.02 98.2 1.14 2,138
Sweet spreads 0.01 99.5 1.13 806
Sweeteners and sugar 0.00 100.0 0.00 159
All new food product introductions 0.08 94.7 1.52 37,628
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.
11
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
positive trans fats content. Examining the averages over time reveals that
levels have been generally diminishing.
While inclusion of trans fats levels on the Nutrition Facts panel was made
mandatory in 2006, many food manufacturers voluntarily included the infor-
mation in 2005. Calculating an average trans fats content from 2005 to 2010
using the voluntarily reported trans fats content would have underestimated
the average for that time period. That is, many products containing positive
quantities of trans fats would not report their trans fats contents, and calcula-
tions would inappropriately posit zero trans fats for these products.
However, data from 2005 is useful in looking at trends exactly because it
underestimates typical trans fats content. The underestimated average trans
fats content in 2005 is substantially higher than succeeding annual averages.
While the trend lines—including averages from 2005—decline, the under-
estimate for 2005 implies that the actual decline was steeper still. Time plots
of average trans fats content thus highlight the relatively large reductions in
trans fats content that occurred over 2005 to 2010.
Figure 3 shows 2005-10 trends for the fi ve product categories displaying
the highest average trans fats content: Bakery; Meals and Meal Centers;
Desserts; Processed Fish, Meat, Egg Products; and Snacks. The under-
estimated average trans fats content for the Bakery category in 2005 was
0.49 grams per serving. The unbiased average for 2010 was 0.13 grams per
serving, a decline of at least 73 percent. For the other categories, the underes-
timated decline was approximately 50 percent. We can conclude that by 2010
there was a signifi cant decline in amounts of trans fats in new products.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New
Product Database data.
Figure 3
Trends in trans fats content for product categories with the
highest trans fats content, 2005-10
Average trans fats content (grams) per serving
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
2005 2006 2007 2008 20092010
Bakery
Meals
Desserts
Processed meat and fish
Snacks
12
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
What Have Food Manufacturers Done To
Inform Consumers About Trans Fats Content?
FDA regulates the statements that food companies may make on product
packages that characterize the level of particular nutrients in the food. So far,
FDA has no regulation defi ning nutrient content claims that describe trans
fats levels, such as “free” or “low” (Brandt, Moss, and Ferguson, 2009).
However, a package may contain a claim about the amount, such as “0 g trans
fats per serving,” since it is a statement of fact that can be verifi ed by the
Nutrition Facts panel. FDA allows manufacturers to put 0 grams of trans fats
on a Nutritional Facts panel if the product has less than 0.5 grams of trans
fats per recommended serving.
Trends in Trans Fats Package Claims
Mintel tracks new products that make claims about trans fats content much
as it has tracked claims about other fats. Mintel set up its system to tally
product claims about trans fats when on-pack terms highlight a decreased
amount of trans fats content, including terms such as low trans fats, reduced
trans fats, or trans fats-free. It would also count a product as making a low/
no/reduced trans fats claim if the product claims to have reduced its hydro-
genated oil content or claims to be free of hydrogenated fat. Data reveal that
manufacturers have adopted terms such as “trans fats free,” “0 g trans fats
per serving,” “no trans fats,” and “no trans fatty acids.” Here, we assume that
consumers interpret all these claims as if they were the same.12
Prior to 2004, such claims were rarely made, but food and beverage prod-
ucts with a “no trans fats” claim showed a marked upward trend beginning
in 2004. FDA issued the regulation requiring disclosure of trans fats on the
nutrition label in 2003 (to be implemented in 2006). While companies were
not required to eliminate trans fats, many reformulated products to meet the
FDA’s per-serving standard for zero grams of trans fats prior to the 2006
disclosure deadline. Some replaced trans fats with more healthy unsaturated
fats, while others replaced trans fats with saturated fats. These reformula-
tions allowed companies to introduce a wave of new products with claims of
zero trans fats in response to consumers’ demand for products free of trans
fats. Expressed as a percentage of all food and beverage products introduced,
those with a “no trans fats” claim became an increasingly important compo-
nent of all product introductions, peaking at 10.9 percent in 2009 (fi g. 4).13
Compared with the number of other commonly used nutrient claims made on
food packages, “no trans fats” claims surpassed low/no/reduced cholesterol
claims in 2004 and low/no/reduced sugar claims in 2005. Moreover, in 2008,
the percentage of new products with a “no trans fats” claims exceeded those
with no/low/reduced fat claims for the fi rst time.
Clearly, the growing number of new products with a “no trans fats” claim
suggests that the returns to marketing products with this claim were high.
However, after 2006—the fi rst year that the regulation was implemented—
the upward trend in new products with a “no trans fats” claim began to slow.
Any answer to the question why the rate of growth in the percentage of new
products with “no trans fats” claims declined after 2006 has to be specula-
tive. Perhaps as more and more products became free of trans fats, consumers
12Our assumptions are convenient for
identifying and tallying new product
introductions that highlight the absence
of trans fats for consumers. Note,
however, that the assumption that all
such claims have identical impacts is in
dispute. Some argue that a “0 trans fats”
statement is misleading to consumers
(Covington & Burling LLP, 2010).
13This compares with 12 percent of
products with a statement about trans
fats on the label that were purchased
at retail stores throughout the United
States, 2006 to 2007 (Brandt, Moss, and
Ferguson, 2009).
13
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
lowered their expectations of fi nding trans fats in food products. If that were
the case, producers’ returns from differentiating products by using the “no
trans fats” claims would be smaller than when consumers more frequently
expected trans fats in foods. In addition, the decrease could be the result of
increasing diffi culty of fi nding suitable alternative oils. For example, early
adoption of some oils pushed up prices, which made it diffi cult for other
companies to follow suit (Pressler, 2004). Since 2008, the trendline has fl at-
tened, and the percentage of products with “no trans fats” claims fell for the
fi rst time in 2010 since the rise began.
In appendix 2 table 1, a tally of new products introduced from 2004 to 2010
that bear a statement suggesting that the product contains “no trans fats” are
broken down by the 18 product categories defi ned by Mintel. The tally is
further broken into several leading subcategories. Most categories showed
continual increases in the percentage of new products with a “no trans fats”
claim before declining either in 2008 or 2009, which is refl ected in the
overall pattern of food product introductions. Snacks (snack bars, potato-,
corn-, and grain-based snacks; popcorn; hors d’oeuvres/canapés; nuts; and
other snacks) and bakery products (cookies, bread products, crackers, cakes,
and baking ingredients) led the way in percentage of new products with “no
trans fats” claims, equaling 27.4 percent and 18.6 percent of all new products
in 2010, respectively (fi g. 5). This is consistent with results from an earlier
study of products purchased at retail stores throughout the United States.
(Brandt, Moss, and Ferguson, 2009). The percentage peaked in 2008 for
snacks and in 2009 for bakery products. In 2010, meals and meal centers14
and soup accounted for the third- and fourth-highest percentage of products
with a “no trans fats” claim at 12.1 and 11.8 percent, respectively. Meals and
meal centers also peaked in 2009, while the percentage of new soup prod-
ucts increased over 2008 to 2010, reaching its highest level in 2010. Products
14Meals and meal centers include
instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits,
pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals,
salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product
Database data.
Figure 4
Percentage of new products with a "no trans fats" claim
compared with other leading nutrient claims, annually, 2000-10
Percent
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0910
No trans fats Low/no/reduced fat
Low/no/reduced sugar Low/no/reduced cholesterol
14
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
with a “no trans fats” claim were relatively less important for sweeteners and
sugar, fruit and vegetables, nonalcoholic beverages, and chocolate confec-
tionery products, accounting for less than 3 percent of all new products intro-
duced in these categories in 2010.
Several of the leading subcategories showed a higher propensity to make
a “no trans fats” claim in 2004-10 (see appendix 2 table 1). For example,
margarine and other blends with a “no trans fats” claim accounted for 53.1
percent of all products introduced in the category. Other subcategories with
a high percentage of new products carrying a “no trans fats” claim included
potato (46.1) and corn (40.3) snacks, nut spreads (e.g., peanut butter) (33.2),
wheat snacks (31.2), crackers (27.1), bread (25.5), and popcorn (24.4). Most
of these categories were important sources of trans fatty acids in the U.S.
diet (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008), which suggests that incentives may
have been greater for making a “no trans fats” claim for these products. For
the remaining subcategories, the percentage of products making a “no trans
fats” claim varied from 1.3 percent for Other sweet spreads to 17.1 percent for
sandwiches/wraps. Cakes and pastries, which are more diffi cult to reformu-
late by substituting for partially hydrogenated oils, showed larger percentage
point increases in “no trans fats” claims after the nutrition labeling deadline
in 2006 (Unnevehr and Jagmanaite, 2008).
Appendix 2 table 2 shows the percentage of all new “no trans fats” claims
accounted for by the various food and beverage categories from 2004 to
2010. Snacks and bakery products were by far the leading product categories,
accounting for nearly 55 percent of all “no trans fats” claims in 2010 (fi g.
6). These results are consistent with fi ndings of Unnevehr and Jagmanaite
(2008). Meals and meal centers and processed fi sh, meat, and egg products
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas,
prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product
D
atabase
data
.
Figure 5
Percentage of new products with a "no trans fats" claim,
by product category, 2004-10
Percent
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20092010
Snacks Bakery Meals and meal ce nters Soup
15
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
ranked third and fourth, accounting for 7.5 percent and 7.4 percent of “no
trans fats” claims, respectively.
Five of the 18 categories accounted for a smaller percentage of new “no trans
fats” claims in 2010 compared with 2004. The reduction in the percentage of
“no trans fats” claims accounted for by bakery products is especially notable,
falling from 41.3 percent to 25.5 percent, with most of the reduction coming
in 2005.15 Product categories that accounted for a larger share over time
included meals and meal centers, sauces and seasonings, and side dishes.
15For food and beverage products
introduced in the United States, there
were 208 total trans fats claims in 2004
and 1,069 in 2010.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and
sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.
Figure 6
Percentage of all new food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim accounted for by select
product categories, 2004 and 2010
2004 2010
30.3
41.3
7.7
2.4
3.4
1.913.0
Snacks Bakery Fish, meat, and egg
Sauces and seasonings Side dishes
Meals and meal centers
All other
28.8
25.5
7.4
7.5
6.4
4.8
19.6
16
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Is There a Relationship Between Trans Fats
Content and “No Trans Fats” Claims?
As long as consumers want to avoid trans fats, the best situation for a food
manufacturer would be one in which the manufacturer has a food that is
free of trans fats and all competitive products are high in trans fats. When
a manufacturer can offer consumers relatively large reductions in trans fats
intake, consumers will have more diffi culty trading off health concerns
against taste; the demand for the trans fats-free product is more likely to
rise than in the case of less difference in trans fats content. Then, we would
expect the trans fats-free food to be advertised as such; the “no trans fats”
claim might offer a manufacturer the ability to differentiate a product from
all others, taking market share from competitors. Generally, one might
expect to see a greater frequency of “no trans fats” claims among qualifying
products when product categories are generally higher in trans fats (see box,
“New Product Introductions That Qualify for a “No Trans Fats” Claim on the
Package”).
As part of their analysis of food company efforts to reduce trans fats,
Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) matched new food product introduc-
tion categories claiming “no trans fats” to product categories that are major
dietary sources of trans fats. They found that most of the “no trans fats”
claims were concentrated in foods that are components of Mintel’s snacks
New Product Introductions That Qualify
for a “No Trans Fats” Claim on the Package
To quantify the number of new product introductions that are considered to
qualify for a “no trans fats” claim on the product package, we include three
categories of new products:
• products that declare 0 trans fats in the Nutrition Facts panel.
• those that declare less than 0.5 grams per serving of trans fats in the
Nutrition Facts panel.
• products that do not make a declaration about trans fats in the Nutrition
Facts panel (FDA, 2010a).
In 1990, Congress amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 by enacting
the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which authorized the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate nutrition labeling and disclosure state-
ments on product packaging. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
established nutrition labeling regulations for processed meat products consistent
with those issued by FDA. Thus, the mechanical way we are fi ltering data may
not in every case yield answers equivalent to results of FDA’s or FSIS’s judgment.
That is, the agencies may consider “no trans fats” claims on some products that
we consider to qualify for the claim to be in violation of these regulations. Thus
far, FDA challenges to claims about trans fats have been limited to warning let-
ters distributed to fi ve food manufacturers. In each case, FDA ruled that the front
panel showed that the product had no trans fat, but failed to disclose to consumers
that the product had signifi cant levels of saturated fat and total fat (FDA, 2010b).
17
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
and bakery product categories. While most of the trans fats consumed come
from bakery products and margarine, they found a smaller percentage of
products with “no trans fats” claims in these categories. In comparison, this
study covers data from more recent years, and covers a wider array of foods.
No clear relationship between trans fats content and “no trans fats” claims
emerges from the Mintel data (fi g. 7). For example, products in the meals
and meal centers category contain 0.21 grams per serving of trans fats on
average, while snacks contain 0.08 grams per serving. Yet, 28 percent of
foods in the snacks category that are eligible for a “no trans fats” claim made
the claim, while 13 percent of qualifi ed meals and meal centers items made a
“no trans fats” claim. In only two categories, snacks and bakery items, did the
percentage of qualifi ed products that made a “no trans fats” claim exceed 13
percent.
Most categories contain less than 0.05 grams per serving of trans fats on
average, so a “no trans fats” claim may not be an important selling point for
these products. However, three categories, baby food, breakfast cereal, and
sweet spreads, are almost free of trans fats, yet at least 10 percent of new
qualifi ed products are labeled as containing no trans fats. A common feature
of these three categories is that they are popular among children. Baby food
is particularly striking because, from 2005 to 2010, there was not a single
product introduced containing trans fats. The media attention given to trans
fats may have provided food companies in these categories with a marketing
opportunity for informing concerned parents.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas,
prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product
Database data.
Fi
gure 7
Average trans fats content and percentage of qualified products
with a "no trans fats" claim, by product category, 2005-10
Percent
Grams per serving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Snacks
Meals and meal centers
Bakery
Cereal
Baby food
Sweet spreads
18
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Does a “No Trans Fats” Claim Infl uence New
Product Success in the Marketplace?
For new products with a “no trans fats” claim to lead to improvements
in consumers’ diets, the new products must be purchased and consumed,
replacing older products that contain large quantities of trans fats. Two prob-
lems make it diffi cult to measure the extent of these improvements. First, data
are currently available for new product introductions, but not for old products
that exit the market. Second, most new product introductions fail. Most do
not reach many stores, and most are only offered for sale for a short time.
Further, data offers only a limited view of sales of new product introduc-
tions. SymphonyIRI Group tracks the sales of a new product if the product is
present in at least 1 percent of the stores in its sample.16
We use the fact that the data is censored in this way to indicate whether
a product is being purchased and consumed. If a new product passes the
1-percent threshold, we will term the product to be “successful.” Here, the
“1 percent of stores” threshold is treated as an indicator that can be used to
gauge whether diets are improving or not. With such an indicator, we can
examine whether new products that are free of trans fats are more likely to be
successful in the market than products containing trans fats. We can examine
whether a “no trans fats” label is associated with market success. Of course,
the indicator is not perfect as it excludes from consideration products that exit
the market as well as the numerous products that do not cross the threshold.
Table 2 shows the percentage of successful new products with and without
trans fats. For example, 29 percent of new products in the snack category
without trans fats were successful, while 17 percent of new products in the
snack category with trans fats were successful. The trans fats-free products
were more successful in 9 of the 16 categories in which comparisons are
possible.17 Products with trans fats were more successful in fruits and vege-
tables, meals and meal centers, side dishes, sweet spreads, gum and confec-
tionary. In the categories bakery and savory spreads, the products with and
without trans fats had the same success rates.
Table 3 compares the success rates of trans fats-free products that advertise
this fact on the front of the package (“claimers”) and trans fats-free products
that do not advertise this fact (“nonclaimers”). For example, 32 percent of
“claimers” in the bakery category were successful, while only 22 percent
of “nonclaimers” were successful. “Claimers” were more successful than
“nonclaimers” in all but four categories: dairy; fruits, vegetables; nonalco-
holic beverages; and sweeteners, sugar. Except for dairy, in these categories
only a relatively small percentage of new products made “no trans fats”
claims. The degree to which the success rate of “claimers” exceeds that of
“nonclaimers” is especially notable in the baby food and breakfast cereal
categories. One possible explanation for the greater success of products in
these two categories is that when it comes to foods consumed by children,
parents make distinctly different food choices. Parents’ concerns about their
children’s nutrition might make them especially sensitive to health claims
for these categories (see fi gure 7). Other evidence supports this claim,
for example, Schor et al. (2010) fi nd that parents are more likely to use
front-of-the-package claims when shopping for their children. In general,
16SymphonyIRI tracks sales from
34,000 stores on a weekly basis across
the grocery, drug, mass merchandiser,
and convenience channels in the United
States. If a product is present in 1,000
stores (1,000/34,000 = 2.9 percent of
stores), then it is considered successful.
If a product is present in only 200 stores
(200/34,000 = 0.6 percent of stores),
then it is considered unsuccessful.
17There were no new product intro-
ductions in the categories baby food
and sweeteners, making the comparison
impossible for these categories.
19
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
these fi ndings indicate that the “no trans fats” claim could be a successful
marketing strategy for highlighting the absence of this unhealthy nutrient.
Note that the comparison of population means should not imply causality, as
doing so ignores the possibility that many other factors that we do not observe
could be responsible for observed relative magnitudes. Unfortunately, without
observing sales and prices consumers face for new product introductions,
we cannot estimate regression demand models that would measure the effect
of trans fats content and claims on sales. Thus, we report comparison of the
means, and any associations found should be treated as only suggestive.
Table 2
Success rates of the products with and without trans fats, 2006-10
Products
with trans
fats
Products
without trans
fats
Share of
products with
trans fats
Category Success rates1
--------------------Percent---------------------
Baby food na 39.0 0.0
Bakery 23.9 24.3 15.0
Breakfast cereals 0.0 22.2 0.6
Chocolate confectionery 24.4 29.7 3.2
Dairy 12.5 19.8 3.4
Desserts, ice cream 21.9 30.3 8.9
Fruits, vegetables 50.0 15.5 0.3
Meals and meal centers 31.8 26.0 15.1
Nonalcoholic beverages 0.0 27.2 0.9
Processed fi sh, meat, and egg
products 18.6 20.8 7.5
Sauces, seasonings 15.4 18.0 0.6
Savory spreads 20.0 19.6 3.0
Side dishes 26.2 17.8 3.7
Snacks 16.7 29.3 4.1
Soup 15.2 18.9 4.7
Sugar, gum confectionery 31.7 31.1 1.8
Sweet spreads 25.0 12.8 0.5
Sweeteners and sugar na 14.6 0.0
1We defi ne the product to be successful if it is sold in at least 1 percent of the stores tracked
by IRI.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, pre-
pared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
na = Shares cannot be calculated due to the absence of products with trans fats.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New
Products Database data and SymphonyIRI Group data.
20
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 3
Percentage of new products containing no trans fats that are
successful, with and without “no trans fats” labels, 2006-10
“No trans fats”
claimers
“No trans fats”
nonclaimers
Share of qualifi ed
products with “no
trans fats” claim
Category Success rates1
--------------------Percent---------------------
Baby food 60.9 36.7 9.5
Bakery 32.4 21.9 23.1
Breakfast cereals 38.2 20.0 11.9
Chocolate confectionery 41.8 29.4 2.4
Dairy 18.5 19.9 7.9
Desserts, ice cream 35.7 30.0 4.9
Fruits, vegetables 6.1 15.7 2.3
Meals and meal centers 33.6 24.8 13.4
Nonalcoholic beverages 12.5 27.4 1.5
Processed fi sh, meat, and egg
products 31.7 19.3 12.0
Sauces, seasonings 25.6 17.6 4.8
Savory spreads 43.2 17.6 7.6
Side dishes 23.6 17.2 10.2
Snacks 37.1 26.4 27.5
Soup 30.4 17.9 8.4
Sugar, gum confectionery 35.7 31.0 1.9
Sweet spreads 26.3 11.4 9.6
Sweeteners, sugar 0.0 15.0 2.4
1We defi ne the product to be successful if it is sold in at least 1 percent of the stores tracked
by IRI.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, pre-
pared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New
Products Database data and SymphonyIRI Group data.
21
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Are New Products With a “No Trans Fats”
Claim Less Healthy?
It is conceivable that consumers are purchasing new products with lower
levels of trans fats at the expense of benefi cial nutrients or with higher
levels of other undesired nutrients. Some have suggested that products refor-
mulated to reduce trans fats content to qualify for a claim would include
higher levels of unhealthy nutrients such as sugar, saturated fat, or sodium
(Nestle and Ludwig, 2010; Colby et al., 2010; Silverglade and Heller, 2010).
Unnevehr and Jagmanaite (2008) demonstrate that the substitution of trans
fats with saturated fats in product reformulations varies by product category,
depending on the technical capability of using healthier oil alternatives.
In table 4, we examine the nutritional profi les of products with and without
trans fats. Products reformulated to reduce trans fats content may be compen-
sated by an increase in saturated fat to preserve the taste of the product.
However, we fi nd that in all categories except sweet spreads, the products
with trans fats have more saturated fats and more calories than the prod-
ucts without trans fats. This fi nding is consistent with that of Mozaffarian,
Jacobson, and Greenstein (2010) who found that among major brand-name
U.S. supermarket products reformulated to reduce their trans fats content,
52 of 58 ended up with lower levels of both trans fats and saturated fats.
Producers could compensate for the reduction in trans fats with increases in
sodium and sugar. We fi nd that in all categories in which comparisons are
possible, new products with trans fats have more sodium per serving size,
while no clear pattern appears in the amount of sugar. This suggests that if
the labeling regulations led companies to reformulate products to reduce trans
fats, they did not compensate with higher levels of saturated fats, sodium, or
calories.
In table 5 we compare the nutritional profi le of “claimers” and “nonclaimers.”
Differences between claimers and nonclaimers vary by nutrient. Nonclaimers
in 11 of the 18 product categories have fewer calories and less sodium than
claimers. On the other hand, claimers have less sugar in 13 categories.
Categories with less saturated fat were roughly evenly split between claimers
with nine categories and nonclaimers with eight categories. So, we cannot
generalize about the healthfulness of new “no trans fats” products that make
the claim versus those that do not, since it depends on the nutrient.
22
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 4
Nutritional profi le of new products containing no trans fats compared with those containing trans fats,
2006-101
With trans fats Without trans fats
Category Calories Sugar Sodium
Saturated
fat Calories Sugar Sodium
Saturated
fat
Grams Milligrams Grams Grams Milligrams Grams
Baby food na na na na 77 6.3 48.9 0.5
Bakery 193.5 13.9 192.2 3.0 149.6 9.2 171.2 2.0
Breakfast cereals 245.0 17.3 213.8 1.1 148.9 9.5 142.0 0.3
Chocolate confectionery 215.0 22.1 44.6 6.8 192.8 18.0 40.6 6.5
Dairy 105.6 4.0 170.6 3.9 101.3 7.5 146.3 3.1
Desserts, ice cream 316.2 24.7 174.0 9.9 144.8 15.8 68.8 3.8
Fruit, vegetables 160.0 8.8 402.5 3.1 72.0 6.9 147.0 0.2
Meals and meal centers 354.9 4.6 839.5 6.6 278.0 5.1 673.8 3.7
Nonalcoholic beverages 131.2 20.0 122.1 1.2 82.9 17.9 54.6 0.7
Processed fi sh, meat, and
egg products 274.4 1.3 516.4 7.7 149.4 1.8 441.2 2.5
Sauces, seasonings 115.8 1.1 305.8 2.4 48.4 3.3 237.2 0.8
Savory spreads 63.9 0.9 176.4 1.4 57.8 1.4 171.7 1.3
Side dishes 210.5 2.5 480.6 3.3 183.3 2.0 268.9 1.0
Snacks 176.8 3.9 331.9 3.0 145.8 6.1 183.1 1.7
Soup 223.9 4.3 795.3 6.7 119.4 3.3 691.4 1.5
Sugar, gum confectionery 145.8 17.9 57.4 1.6 95.4 15.7 22.7 0.9
Sweet spreads 97.5 9.0 67.5 1.2 105.7 13.7 35.6 1.4
Sweeteners, sugar na na na na 14.9 4.4 0.4 0.0
1Table contains average nutrient content per serving size of products containing no trans fats (for both “claimers” and “nonclaimers”) and the
nutrient content of products containing trans fats. For baby food and sweeteners, there were no products with trans fats introduced in the
period studied.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
na = No new products containing trans fats.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Products Database data.
23
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 5
Nutritional profi le of new trans fat-free products with and without front-of-the-package claim about trans
fats, 2006-101
Claimers Nonclaimers
Category Calories Sugar Sodium
Saturated
fat Calories Sugar Sodium
Saturated
fat
Grams Milligrams Grams Grams Milligrams Grams
Baby food 65.9 3.0 50.8 0.2 78.2 6.7 48.7 0.6
Bakery 143.2 7.3 184.6 1.6 151.6 9.8 167.2 2.2
Breakfast cereals 159.0 8.7 124.5 0.5 147.4 9.6 144.5 0.3
Chocolate confectionery 169.6 13.4 39.1 5.0 193.4 18.1 40.6 6.5
Dairy 76.2 4.6 116.5 1.9 103.4 7.7 148.9 3.2
Desserts, ice cream 160.9 14.9 91.5 4.3 144.1 15.9 67.7 3.7
Fruit, vegetables 79.0 7.1 161.9 0.4 71.8 6.9 146.6 0.2
Meals and meal centers 278.8 5.3 644.6 3.7 277.8 5.1 678.8 3.7
Nonalcoholic beverages 126.6 14.3 109.1 1.8 82.3 18.0 53.8 0.6
Processed fi sh, meat, and
egg products 165.4 2.0 458.3 2.0 147.2 1.8 438.8 2.6
Sauces, seasonings 66.3 2.6 166.5 1.1 47.5 3.4 240.9 0.7
Savory spreads 62.8 1.6 147.0 1.0 57.3 1.4 174.0 1.3
Side dishes 179.7 1.9 327.0 1.1 183.7 2.0 261.8 0.9
Snacks 142.8 4.0 193.0 1.5 147.1 6.9 179.4 1.8
Soup 131.5 3.4 715.7 1.7 118.2 3.3 689.0 1.4
Sugar, gum confectionery 120.9 20.0 23.1 0.4 94.9 15.7 22.7 0.9
Sweet spreads 175.7 5.0 77.6 2.4 98.6 14.5 31.3 1.2
Sweeteners, sugar 30.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 4.2 0.4 0.0
1Table contains average nutrient content per serving size of products containing no trans fats (for both “claimers” and “nonclaimers”) and the
nutrient content of products containing trans fats. For baby food and sweeteners, there were no products with trans fats introduced in the
period studied.
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Products Database data.
24
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Conclusions
There was a marked reduction in the trans fats content of new products
containing trans fats from 2005 to 2010. In this period, there were still some
food products introduced that contained trans fats, but in the majority of the
food categories, the products with trans fats were generally less successful.
Surprisingly, even among the products free of trans fats, products carrying
a “no trans fats” claim were more successful than products without such a
claim. These results indicate that while consumers are trying to avoid prod-
ucts with trans fats, some consumers cannot fully utilize the information
from the Nutrition Facts panel. These consumers rely on the front-of-the-
package claims. This is supported by previous research that consumers prefer
simple presentation of nutritional information and many consumers fi nd
Nutrition Facts panels too complicated (Borra, 2006).
A policy that would require a front-of-the-package warning about the trans
fats content might benefi t consumers who do not use the Nutrition Facts
panel. However, such a policy may not be necessary because, even in the
absence of this policy, trans fats are gradually disappearing from the new
product introductions and probably from the overall food supply. The tabula-
tions presented here suggest that consumers have responded to the mandated
label changes and to the information the food industry voluntarily supplied.
That is, some dietary improvements were accomplished with a new disclosure
requirement, and without resorting to more coercive policies such as a regula-
tion that would forbid the inclusion of trans fats in food.
Conceivably, the reduction in trans fats could present a new challenge for
public health authorities if this reduction were compensated by increases in
saturated fat, sugar, calories, and sodium. On average, we did not fi nd such
compensation to be the case. From 2006 to 2010, the average amounts of
calories, sodium, and saturated fat found in new products without trans fats
were below amounts contained in new products with trans fats.
The goal of improving the quality of food supply can be approached by
targeting one nutrient such as trans fat or by targeting the whole nutritional
profi le. For example, nutritional rating might be accomplished with the
Guiding StarsTM and NuValTM nutritional information systems adopted by
some U.S. supermarkets. Our results suggest that targeting of one nutrient
may not lead companies to compensate by increasing levels of undesirable
nutrients, resulting in improvements in the overall nutritional profi le.
We found that the nutritional profi le of products free from trans fats that
featured a “no trans fats” claim was similar to the products without such a
claim. The higher market success rates of products making a “no trans fats”
claim could indicate a “halo” effect, that consumers are expecting more from
the labeled product than it delivers. However, even if such an effect exists,
similar nutritional profi les of these two groups of food products indicates that
producers are not (on average) taking advantage of consumers’ confusion by
selling products with large amounts of saturated fat, sodium and sugar under
cover of a “no trans fats” claim.
25
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Our conclusions have to be tempered by the limits imposed by data avail-
ability. One limitation of our study is the focus on products introduced
into the marketplace, rather than the complete set of products available to
consumers on store shelves. Further, new food product introductions point to
ways food prepared and eaten at home is changing, but offer no insight into
changes made to meals eaten in restaurants. Our evidence is consistent with
the hypothesis that producers are trying to reduce the amounts of trans fats in
foods intended for home consumption. They are introducing products largely
free of trans fats. Whether this effort will result in a trans fats-free food
supply depends on how quickly consumers switch to these new products—an
important question that still remains unanswered.
26
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
References
Borra, Susan. 2006. “Consumer Perspectives on Food Labels,” American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 83(5): 1235S.
Brandt, Mary, Julie Moss, and Martine Ferguson. 2009. “The 2006-2007
Food Label and Package Survey (FLAPS): Nutrition Labeling, Trans Fat
Labeling,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22(Supplement,
December): S74-77.
Chern, Wen .S., Edna T. Loehman, and Steven T. Yen. 1995. “Information,
Health-Risk Beliefs, and the Demand for Fats and Oils,” Review of
Economics and Statistics 76(3, August): 555-64.
Colby, Sarah, E., LuAnn Johnson, Angela Scheett, and Bonita Hoverson.
2010. “Nutrition Marketing on Food Labels,” Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior 42(2, March): 92-98.
Covington & Burling LLP. 2010. “FDA Issues 17 Warning Letters As Part of
an Enforcement Sweep Regarding Food Labels,” E-Alert Food & Drug,
March 4.
Drichoutis, Andreas C., Panagiotis Lazaridis, and Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr.
2006. “Consumers’ Use of Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research
Studies and Issues,” Academy of Marketing Science Review 10(9).
Available at: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/drichoutis09-2006.pdf/.
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. 2005. Dietary
Reference Intakes for Energy, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and
Amino Acids (Macronutrients): A Report of the Panel on Macronutrients,
Subcommittees on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients and Interpretation
and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on
the Scientifi c Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences Press.
Kim, Sung-Yong, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., and Oral Capps, Jr. 2000. “The
Effect of Food Label Use on Nutrient Intakes: An Endogenous Switching
Regression Analysis,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
25(1): 215-31.
Kozup, John, Scot Burton, and Elizabeth H. Creyer. 2006. “The Provision
of Trans Fat Information and Its Interaction with Consumer Knowledge,”
Journal of Consumer Affairs 40(1, Summer): 163-76.
Mozaffarian, Dariush, Michael F. Jacobson, and Julie S. Greenstein. 2010.
“Food Reformulations to Reduce Trans Fatty Acids,” The New England
Journal of Medicine 362(May 27): 2037-39.
Nestle, Marion, and David S. Ludwig. 2010. “Front-of-Package Food
Labels: Public Health or Propaganda?” Journal of the American Medical
Association 303(8): 771-72.
27
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Offi ce of Management and Budget. 2001. OMB Encourages Lifesaving
Actions by Regulators, news release 2001-35. Available at: http://www.
reginfo.gov/public/prompt/2001-35.html/.
Offi ce of Management and Budget. 2003. OIRA “prompt” letter. Accessed
May 5, 2011, at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/prompt/prompt_
dietary_052703.pdf/.
Pomeranz, Jennifer L. 2011. “Front-of-Package Food and Beverage Labelling:
New Directions for Research and Regulation,” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 40(3): 382-85.
Pressler, M.W. 2004. Foodmakers Search for a New Fat ... Again,
Washingtonpost.com, August 31, 2004. Accessed May 2011 at: http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47534-2004Aug30.html/.
Schor, Danielle, Shelley Maniscalco, Michele M. Tuttle, Sarah Alligood, and
Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak. 2010. “Nutrition Facts You Can’t Miss: The
Evolution of Front-of-Pack Labeling: Providing Consumers With Tools to
Help Select Foods and Beverages to Encourage More Healthful Diets,”
Nutrition Today 45(1): 22-32.
Silverglade, Bruce, and Ilene Ringel Heller. 2010. Food Labeling Chaos: The
Case for Reform, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington,
DC. Accessed Dec. 12, 2011, at: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food_labeling_
chaos_report.pdf/.
Unnevehr, Laurian J., and Evalina Jagmanaite. 2008. “Getting Rid of Trans
Fats in the U.S. Diet: Policies, Incentives, and Progress,” Food Polic y 33:
497-503.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th Edition.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010a. Trans Fat Now Listed With
Saturated Fat and Cholesterol on the Nutrition Facts Panel. Updated
March 3, 2004. Accessed June 30, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/food/
labellingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm109832.htm/.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010b. Understanding Front-of-
Package Violations: Why Warning Letters Are Sent to Industry. Updated
March 3, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2011, at: http://www.fda.gov/food/
labelingnutrition/ucm202784.htm/.
Wansink, Brian, and Se-Bum Park. 2002. “Sensory Suggestiveness and
Labeling: Do Soy Labels Bias Taste?” Journal of Sensory Studies 17(5):
483-91.
28
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix 1—Mintel’s Data Collection
Procedure
Mintel fi eld associates identify new products and document over 80 product
characteristics, including company, brand, ingredients, nutritional informa-
tion, and claims (e.g., low/no/reduced claims, whole grain, added calcium,
added fi ber). Field associates are provided with a list of stores they are to
target for new products, and they shop on a weekly basis. Distribution chan-
nels monitored include supermarkets, mass market, drug stores, natural food
stores, convenience stores, club stores, specialty stores, mail order/Internet,
and some direct-to-consumer. New products are shipped to the Mintel offi ces.
Mintel also monitors other sources of new product information including
trade publications, trade shows, company websites, press releases, and
online newsletters. A secondary coverage team creates a list of new product
launches found through the other sources and sends them to the fi eld associ-
ates for them to identify the high-priority products.
When a new product is identifi ed, the product is cross-referenced with the
Mintel Shopper Website to limit duplication of products that have already
been identifi ed. The product is then purchased and sent to Mintel’s offi ces.
The fi eld associates enter basic product data into the Mintel Shopper Website,
including company, brand, product, product description, ingredients, and
nutritional information. They also translate any product information on the
front, back, and sides of the package.
The products are then shipped to Mintel’s London offi ce for additional data
entry, package photography, and several levels of quality control. The Mintel
data entry team records pertinent information from the package, including
product claims, barcodes, ingredients, nutritional data, and category informa-
tion. Field associates are contacted about any quality control problems identi-
fi ed from the basic data entry by the fi eld associate. The data entry team then
analyzes all information from the package and enters the data. The products
are then sent to be photographed. Each product record is quality checked
by a team of editors before publication on the website. Other quality checks
are conducted to identify needed reworks and retraining of fi eld associates.
Products appear in the database within approximately a month’s time of
launch or as close to launch as possible, including some products published
before their offi cial launch date. Product records in GNPD include a publica-
tion date (month/year), which indicates when the product was added.
A senior editor reviews, on average, 1,000 records per month as an additional
quality control check. Other quality control concerns raised by the data entry
team, GNPD consultancy teams, and feedback from clients are considered for
possible reworks and retraining where necessary.
Sales information is collected by fi rst matching bar codes in the GNPD and
IRI databases. For most GNPD products that are populated from secondary
sources such as press releases, Internet searches, and trade magazines, infor-
mation on bar codes is not available. For these products, information on cate-
gories, company name, product, and brand name is compared with GNPD
and IRI sources to provide a list of potential matches. Items that match the
record are then manually selected, and the matching barcode is uploaded.
29
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Once the main product record has been matched, product variants are iden-
tifi ed. Product variants that appear in a GNPD record, such as fl avor and
positioning, do not carry a barcode since fi eld associates purchase the main
item and report on any variant that may have been launched at the same time.
After the main product record has been matched, a list of similar products is
generated based on category matching, company matching, similar barcode,
and similar launch date. Items that match the variant list for a record are then
tagged. Finally, any duplication (variants that appear in more than one record)
is removed to ensure that variants are matched to the correct record.
Not all product records in GNPD will have sales data. Sales data are not
included in a product record if the product is:
• classifi ed as new packaging, relaunch, or reformulation.
• private label (store brand), found outside of stores not covered by IRI,
including Walmart, club stores, convenience stores, health food stores,
dollar stores, and Internet/mail order.
• priced over $24.99.
• sold in fewer than 1 percent of stores.
30
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix 2—New Food Product
Introductions With a “No Trans Fats” Claim
Appendix 2 table 1
New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all new food product
introductions, by product category, 2004-10
Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
2004-10
Percent
Snacks 5.7 15.1 22.7 25.6 29.7 27.8 27.4 21.9
Snack/cereal/energy bars 5.6 23.6 25.2 23.5 25.4 19.9 24.3 20.1
Potato snacks 7.0 27.5 44.0 65.5 56.9 72.9 52.3 46.1
Corn-based snacks 14.4 16.2 38.8 47.6 57.6 47.4 56.1 40.3
Wheat and other grain-based
snacks 15.0 23.2 33.7 31.3 45.4 37.8 30.5 31.2
Popcorn 2.4 18.0 24.6 34.2 41.0 18.6 32.3 24.4
Hors d'oeuvres/canapés 0.9 2.2 18.4 17.6 20.4 27.9 27.2 15.4
Nuts 0.9 4.6 7.5 7.9 13.0 10.7 14.5 8.7
Other snacks 4.5 11.4 12.5 11.3 17.8 20.5 13.8 13.8
Bakery 5.3 11.8 15.9 18.0 21.8 22.5 18.6 15.8
Baking ingredients and mixes 2.5 5.2 8.8 11.4 14.0 9.7 10.3 8.8
Sweet biscuits/cookies 5.5 13.6 14.5 15.7 20.8 23.4 20.9 15.6
Bread and bread products 6.9 18.3 33.2 33.2 35.1 35.4 26.6 25.5
Savory biscuits/crackers 9.6 27.3 25.8 31.9 37.4 38.7 22.7 27.1
Cakes, pastries, and sweet goods 5.0 4.5 7.3 12.3 15.6 18.2 19.7 11.4
Processed fi sh, meat, and egg
products 2.2 6.0 10.1 10.1 12.1 11.8 10.0 8.8
Fish products 0.5 9.8 13.2 15.1 20.8 13.1 11.7 11.9
Poultry products 1.7 7.0 13.8 15.5 15.8 21.9 18.2 13.4
Other processed fi sh, meat, and
egg products 3.4 3.4 6.3 4.9 5.8 5.5 5.4 4.9
Meals and meal centers 0.8 1.9 8.5 11.0 12.7 17.6 12.1 9.2
Sandwiches/wraps 0.9 0.0 17.6 19.2 29.9 31.8 18.0 17.1
Prepared meals 1.0 2.1 4.7 9.9 7.9 17.1 9.9 6.8
Other meals and meal centers 0.4 2.6 8.7 8.7 8.5 12.9 11.6 8.1
Sauces and seasonings 0.7 1.8 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.3 5.0 3.3
Dairy 1.9 6.2 6.3 6.1 7.0 8.2 7.7 6.3
Margarine and other blends 17.4 62.5 65.0 63.0 61.5 55.6 50.0 53.1
Other dairy 1.1 3.3 4.1 3.4 5.8 6.1 6.4 4.5
--continued
31
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix 2 table 1
New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all new food product
introductions, by product category, 2004-10--continued
Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
2004-10
Percent
Side dishes 1.2 3.3 7.5 7.7 9.9 14.0 11.5 7.9
Potato products 4.8 9.0 13.8 14.6 17.9 26.3 22.4 15.8
Other side dishes 0.0 1.6 5.2 5.3 6.6 9.5 7.7 5.1
Breakfast cereal 1.2 5.0 6.9 12.9 12.4 14.8 9.6 10.5
Chocolate confectionery 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.7 1.7
Sugar and gum
confectionery 0.1 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.0 3.1 1.4
Desserts and ice cream 0.2 2.3 3.9 5.5 5.8 3.9 4.9 3.6
Sweet spreads 5.3 7.0 8.7 3.8 11.9 5.9 8.4 7.2
Nut spreads 27.8 38.5 29.2 20.0 48.5 25.0 44.9 33.2
Other sweet spreads 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.5 3.5 1.8 0.8 1.3
Nonalcoholic beverages 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.7 0.8 0.8
Soup 0.0 6.1 4.4 8.9 6.0 8.9 11.8 6.5
Savory spreads 0.0 1.0 6.5 7.3 12.6 12.6 6.9 6.7
Fruits, vegetables 0.0 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.8
Baby food 0.0 5.7 1.7 11.8 12.2 7.3 4.3 6.8
Sweeteners and sugar 0.0 2.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4
All new food product
introductions 2.0 5.1 7.9 9.1 10.3 10.9 10.6 5.6
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data.
32
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix 2 table 2
New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all “no trans fats” claims,
by product category, 2004-10
Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
2004-10
Percent
Snacks 30.3 30.9 30.2 30.7 32.5 26.2 28.8 29.9
Snack/cereal/energy bars 8.2 10.8 6.4 5.5 5.4 3.8 4.1 5.7
Potato snacks 3.4 4.3 5.3 8.0 5.5 5.9 4.1 5.5
Corn-based snacks 7.7 2.4 4.8 5.0 5.4 4.2 5.2 4.8
Wheat and other grain-based
snacks 4.3 3.7 3.9 3.2 4.2 2.0 2.5 3.3
Popcorn 1.0 2.2 1.9 2.6 3.1 0.9 2.5 2.2
Hors d'oeuvres/canapés 0.5 0.6 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.8 3.1 2.1
Nuts 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.4
Other snacks 4.8 5.9 4.2 3.5 5.2 5.4 5.3 4.9
Bakery 41.3 30.7 28.3 26.8 26.7 27.3 25.5 27.8
Baking ingredients and mixes 4.3 3.0 3.7 4.2 4.1 2.9 3.7 3.7
Sweet biscuits/cookies 13.0 10.6 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.2 8.2 7.8
Bread and bread products 10.6 8.1 10.6 7.0 7.0 7.3 6.6 7.7
Savory biscuits/crackers 6.3 6.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 5.0 3.0 4.4
Cakes, pastries, and sweet goods 7.2 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.7 5.0 3.9 4.0
Processed fi sh, meat, and egg
products 7.7 7.9 9.2 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.4 7.9
Fish products 0.5 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.6 2.0 2.2 2.7
Poultry products 1.4 2.4 3.6 2.8 2.4 3.9 3.2 3.0
Other processed fi sh, meat, and
egg products 5.8 2.2 2.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.2
Meals and meal centers 2.4 2.2 7.1 7.8 7.9 10.7 7.5 7.4
Sandwiches/wraps 0.5 0.0 2.5 2.4 3.8 3.2 1.9 2.4
Prepared meals 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.7 1.7 3.8 2.0 2.2
Other meals and meal centers 0.5 1.0 2.9 2.8 2.4 3.7 3.6 2.8
Sauces and seasonings 3.4 4.1 4.0 5.0 3.3 4.2 6.4 4.5
Dairy 4.3 6.1 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.0 5.3 4.5
Margarine and other blends 1.9 3.0 1.6 1.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.4
Other dairy 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.1
--continued
33
New Food Choices Free of Trans Fats Better Align U.S. Diets With Health Recommendations / EIB-95
Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix 2 table 2
New food product introductions with a “no trans fats” claim, as a percentage of all “no trans fats” claims,
by product category, 2004-10--continued
Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
2004-10
Percent
Side dishes 1.9 2.2 3.3 2.6 2.6 4.8 4.8 3.4
Potato products 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.8
Other side dishes 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.6
Breakfast cereal 1.4 2.2 2.3 3.7 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.4
Chocolate confectionery 0.5 2.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.4
Sugar and gum
confectionery 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.5 1.2
Desserts and ice cream 0.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.9 2.2
Sweet spreads 4.8 2.6 1.9 0.9 2.0 1.4 2.2 1.9
Nut spreads 4.8 2.0 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.6
Other sweet spreads 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3
Nonalcoholic beverages 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 1.3
Soup 0.0 1.6 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.9 1.3
Savory spreads 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.0
Fruits, vegetables 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7
Baby food 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5
Sweeteners and sugar 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Meals and meal centers = instant noodles, pasta, rice, meal kits, pastry dishes, pizzas, prepared meals, salads, and sandwiches/wraps.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Mintel Global New Product Database data
