Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309038›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2026

What is "healthy" food? A cross-sectional evaluation of foods and beverages consumed by United States adults that satisfy the United States Food and Drug Administration's updated "healthy" claim criteria.

Anna C Tucker, Euridice Martínez-Steele, Laura E Caulfield, Casey M Rebholz, Julia A Wolfson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anna C TuckerDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: atucke31@jh.edu.
Euridice Martínez-SteeleDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health and Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Laura E CaulfieldDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Casey M RebholzWelch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Julia A WolfsonDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY INSTITUTIONAL TRAININGT32HL007024 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Elizabeth Selvin · 1985 to 2026
$17.5M
Clinical Research&Epidemiology in Diabetes&EndocrinologyT32DK062707 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TODD T BROWN, Wendy Lynet Bennett · 2002 to 2026
$7.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007024NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK062707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently updated criteria for the "healthy" claim displayed on foods and beverages in the United States. However, it is unknown how updated criteria compare with existing methods for evaluating the healthfulness of foods and beverages.

objectivesTo evaluate correlation between "healthy" criteria and 3 nutrient profiling models used to evaluate food and beverage healthfulness, and with Nova food processing classification. Exploratory analyses compare the nutritional profile of "healthy" items and items not meeting "healthy" criteria.

methodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we identified individual "healthy" items reported in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We used descriptive statistics to characterize "healthy" items across food categories, nutrient profiling models (Food Compass 2.0, Nutri-Score, and Health Star Rating), and Nova. We used point-biserial correlation to evaluate correlation between FDA criteria and nutrient profiling models, and rank point-biserial correlation to evaluate correlation with Nova. We used t-tests to compare nutrient content of "healthy" items and items not meeting "healthy" criteria across food categories and Nova categories.

resultsOverall, 14.9% of items qualified for the "healthy" claim. Although the majority of fruits (60.9%), vegetables (59.6%), and nuts and seeds (68.8%) qualified, few meat, poultry, and eggs (3.0%), grains (4.8%), or savory snacks and desserts (1.3%) met criteria. Criteria were moderately correlated with Food Compass 2.0 (r = 0.56), Nutri-Score (r = 0.46), Health Star Rating (r = 0.41), and Nova (0.49). "Healthy" items were lower in saturated fat and sodium and higher in fiber and vitamin C across nearly all food categories and Nova categories.

conclusionsFindings suggest few foods met "healthy" criteria. Moderate correlations between "healthy" criteria, Nova, and validated nutrient profiling models provide evidence of convergent validity, yet underscore the challenge of classifying foods by healthfulness, and highlight uncertainty about whether discrepancies reflect real differences in model performance and food healthfulness.

Indexed as

BeveragesDiet, HealthyFoodFood LabelingNutritive ValueAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNutrition SurveysUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationfood labeling regulationfood policyfood qualityNovanutrient profilingnutrition labeling

Identifiers

PMID41309038
PMCPMC12842601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.