You pick up a package at the grocery store. It says “fresh,” “natural,” “free-range,” or “artisan,” and immediately your brain says: good choice. That’s exactly what food manufacturers are counting on. The truth behind those cheerful labels is often far messier, far more ambiguous, and sometimes outright misleading.
Food labeling in the United States is a surprisingly patchwork system, governed by agencies that don’t always agree with each other, and riddled with gaps that smart marketing teams exploit daily. Before your next supermarket run, you might want to know what these 12 labels actually mean, legally speaking.
1. “Natural”
Of all the labels in the grocery store, “natural” might be the single most deceptive one. Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term “natural,” it has considered the term to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in or added to a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food. That sounds reasonable, until you realize what it leaves out.
This policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. So a product heavily sprayed with pesticides during growing can still wear a “natural” badge with zero legal problems.
According to a Consumer Reports study, roughly two thirds of consumers thought the “natural” claim pertained to additional areas such as hormones, pesticides, or GMOs – none of which it legally covers. The FDA does not define or regulate use of the label “natural” on food products; instead, the FDA’s official policy is that the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances, an ambiguous policy that leaves interpretation of “natural” largely up to the food industry.
2. “Fresh”
Here’s the thing about “fresh”: it sounds like it was just picked off a vine this morning. In reality, the word carries very limited legal teeth. Without official definitions or constraints around terms like “freshly baked,” “artisan,” “traditional,” or “natural,” brands are freer than ever to use such labels with impunity, regardless of how misleading they may be.
Industrially processed loaves that are re-baked in-store but made days earlier can be sold under “freshly baked” banners, a practice that critics say “does not accurately reflect the truth of when, where and how products were manufactured.” That warm bread smell you encounter near the bakery aisle? It may have started its life in a factory far from your town.
The fact remains that many of the terms consumers rely on – natural, authentic, fresh, real – no longer have an agreed definition in law or government guidance. So when you reach for something “fresh,” you are essentially trusting the brand more than any legal standard.
3. “Healthy”
You’d think “healthy” would have a crystal-clear legal definition by now. Surprisingly, it’s been a mess for decades. The amendments introduced in December 2024 represent the first significant changes to “healthy” labeling requirements in 30 years. Three decades of outdated standards influencing what consumers believed was good for them.
Under the old 1994 regulations, foods now widely considered to be healthy could not be labeled as such. For example, manufacturers were likely unable to include “healthy” on a salmon product’s packaging because of the fish’s high fat content. Similarly, some foods that could previously carry the “healthy” claim, such as white bread and heavily sweetened cereal and yogurt, will no longer qualify.
In December 2024, the FDA published its long-anticipated final rule defining “healthy,” on the heels of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee issuing its Scientific Report recommending updates to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The FDA will begin to enforce these new regulations in February 2028, but manufacturers can start using a “healthy” claim in accordance with the new requirements as soon as the rule entered into effect on February 25, 2025. So there is still a significant window during which the old, outdated definitions remain on shelves.
4. “Organic”
Unlike “natural,” “organic” actually has teeth. Unlike “natural,” which has no clear definition, use of the “organic” food label and seal is strictly regulated by the National Organic Program, administered through the USDA. Foods with an organic seal are certified organic and contain at least 95% organic content. That part is straightforward enough.
The confusion arises when shoppers assume “organic” automatically means healthier, more nutritious, or more sustainable. Even if a product has a “USDA certified organic” or “natural” label, it does not mean that it is a nutritionally healthier alternative. Those labels only indicate how the product was produced. An organic cookie is still a cookie.
Although consumers purchasing “natural” meat, poultry, and eggs can be confident that there are no artificial ingredients or colors added, it’s important to note that “natural” does not necessarily mean hormone-free or antibiotic-free; these are separate labels, also regulated by the USDA. The label system is like a puzzle where every piece covers something different, and most shoppers don’t realize which piece they’re actually holding.
5. “Free-Range”
The image this label conjures is idyllic: chickens roaming sunny fields, living their best lives. The reality is a good bit less cinematic. The USDA’s definition for “free-range” poultry simply requires that animals have “access to the outside,” which in practice can mean a small door to a tiny concrete patch that most birds never actually use.
For the USDA, which regulates meat, poultry, and eggs, “natural” means without artificial ingredients or added color and only minimally processed. Neither agency verifies the claims. That lack of verification also extends to welfare-related labels like “free-range,” meaning companies largely self-report their compliance.
Honestly, this is one of the most emotionally charged label gaps out there. Consumers paying premium prices for “free-range” eggs or chicken often believe they are supporting humane farming practices. The regulatory bar set for that word is so low that it barely represents a meaningful difference in the animals’ lived experience.
6. “Light” or “Lite”
“Light” sounds simple. Less of something bad, right? Not always. The FDA does regulate this term to a degree – a food labeled “light” must contain either one third fewer calories or half the fat of the reference food. That can be useful. However, the loophole is in what replaces the removed fat or calories.
Manufacturers often compensate by adding more sugar, sodium, or artificial thickeners to restore palatability. The product ends up lighter in fat but heavier in sodium and additives. Customers can perceive sourcing and content labels such as “natural” to indicate healthfulness, even on known unhealthy products – and the same cognitive trick applies to “light.”
Certain claims are not explicitly regulated under the FD&C Act; the FDA prohibits them only if they are misleading. These claims do not have a preapproval process, and there are no standards for evaluating whether the claims are misleading. So the bar for enforcement remains reactive, not preventive, leaving consumers to navigate the fine print themselves.
7. “Multigrain”
“Multigrain” sounds wholesome and fiber-rich. The word technically means nothing more than “made with more than one type of grain.” Those grains could all be highly refined, stripped of bran and germ, and essentially nutritionally empty. Multigrain bread with no whole grain content is a real thing, and it’s sold in virtually every grocery store in America.
The only label that actually guarantees intact grain nutrition is “100% whole grain” or “100% whole wheat.” When the public defines “healthy” foods, they consistently emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and limiting sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats – exactly the elements a “multigrain” label doesn’t actually guarantee.
Think of it this way: calling a product “multigrain” is a bit like calling a mixed bag of candy “multicolored” and expecting people to assume it’s nutritious. The number of varieties says nothing about quality. Always flip the package and check whether any of those grains are listed as “whole” in the ingredients.
8. “Artisan”
“Artisan” carries a romantic weight. You picture a skilled craftsman, slow fermentation, small batches, and old world techniques. Without official definitions or constraints around terms like “freshly baked,” “artisan,” “traditional,” or “natural,” brands are now freer than ever to use such labels with impunity, regardless of how misleading they may be.
In the United States, “artisan” has zero formal regulatory definition for most food categories. Large industrial producers freely slap it on machine-made crackers, mass-produced cheese, and factory-line bread. When one company cuts corners but markets itself using the same language as a truly traditional producer, it undermines everyone – both small honest producers and shoppers who think they’re paying for craftsmanship.
For the UK’s bread and bakery sector alone, it’s not just a semantic issue: it’s a structural one. As advocates put it, “This is about the right to know what we’re buying, and the right for honest bakers to compete fairly.” The same structural problem applies on the U.S. side of the Atlantic.
9. “Best By” / “Sell By” / “Use By”
Walk into any grocery store and you’ll find at least three different date label formats on products, often with no consistent meaning. No national uniform system for food date labeling exists in the U.S. In the absence of federal law, states enforce a variety of inconsistent date label regulations. That patchwork creates enormous consumer confusion.
In reality, date labels are often a manufacturer’s estimate of a product’s optimal quality. With almost 60 different labeling terms across the United States, roughly 37 percent of consumers usually or always discard food because of the date and the vast majority do so at least occasionally. Huge amounts of perfectly safe food end up in the trash because of label wording.
The Food Date Labeling Act of 2025 was proposed as a bipartisan bill in July 2025, with the intent of establishing a uniform national system for date labeling that clearly distinguishes between foods bearing a quality label versus those indicating potential safety concerns. The bill would also ensure that food is allowed to be sold or donated after its quality date. Let’s hope it moves forward.
10. “Made in the USA”
Patriotism sells. “Made in the USA” is one of those labels that triggers an immediate emotional response for many shoppers. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service finalized a rule in March 2024 governing voluntary “Product of USA” labeling claims for federally inspected meat, poultry, and egg products, setting a January 1, 2026, compliance date by which existing labels must either meet the new criteria or be changed or removed.
For multi-ingredient products, the bar is higher. All FSIS-regulated components must meet the full domestic-origin definition, while all other ingredients – excluding spices and flavorings – must also be of U.S. origin. That is a tighter standard than what existed before, but it still took regulatory reform to get there.
The old rules were genuinely wild. Before 2024, meat that was born and raised overseas but processed in the U.S. could legally wear a “Product of USA” label. Unlike the USDA, which reviews all labels before allowing them to be published, the FDA is structured on voluntary compliance. It provides a set of guidelines and companies publish labels on their own, without prior review by the agency. The system has long favored the producers over the consumers.
11. “Reduced Fat” / “Low Fat”
These labels have been fixtures of supermarket shelves since the low-fat diet craze of the 1980s and 1990s. Legally, “reduced fat” means the product contains at least 25 percent less fat than the regular version. “Low fat” means 3 grams or less of fat per serving. So the claims are technically defined, unlike many others on this list.
The real problem is the same as with “light”: reducing fat often requires swapping in extra sugar, starch, or sodium to maintain flavor and texture. A reduced-fat peanut butter, for example, often contains more sugar per serving than its full-fat counterpart. Customers can perceive sourcing and content labels to indicate healthfulness, even on known unhealthy products, and “reduced fat” is perhaps the champion example of that phenomenon.
New laws and regulations aim to curb the consumption of ultra-processed foods, introduce front-of-package nutrition labeling, and reduce misleading food marketing tactics. The upcoming front-of-package labeling reform, expected to roll out in the coming years, could at least make those hidden trade-offs more visible at a glance.
12. “No Added Sugar”
“No added sugar” is one of those labels that feels like a green light, especially for parents buying products for children. It does have a regulated meaning: no sugar was added during processing or packaging. However, it says absolutely nothing about the naturally occurring sugar content of the product itself, which can be substantial.
A fruit juice concentrate, for example, can be loaded with naturally occurring fructose that spikes blood sugar just as effectively as table sugar would. “No added sugar” orange juice can still contain the equivalent sugar load of several teaspoons per glass. The label is accurate in the narrowest technical sense and misleading in the broader practical one.
The agency’s moves announced in late 2024 and early 2025 included two major changes: a mandatory front-of-package nutrition label for levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, and an updated definition of the “healthy” label on foods. Experts say the goal is to tackle diet-related chronic diseases and improve health equity by making label information easier for everyone to use. That’s a step in the right direction – though it won’t fully solve the “no added sugar” gap on its own.
