Walk into any supermarket and you’ll be inundated with products boasting loud packaging promising health, nutrition, and great taste all at once. As consumers have become more label-aware, these claims have grown increasingly powerful – shaping not only what we buy, but also what we believe is good for us.
Yet, as our latest Action on Salt and Sugar survey reveals, many of these promises are not as wholesome as they seem. Behind the bold claims and sleek packaging, some of our favourite snack bars conceal higher levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat than consumers realise. But what exactly are these claims, and how are they influencing our dietary habits?
By Natalie Brabben, Communications Officer, Action on Salt and Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London and Dr Kawther Hashem, Head of Research and Impact of Action on Sugar and Senior Lecturer in Public Health Nutrition, based at Queen Mary University of London
The rise of “healthy” snacking
In recent years the demand for foods perceived as healthy – particularly snacks – has surged, reflecting a broader cultural shift. Consumers are increasingly focusing on “clean eating” and “functional nutrition” and are seeking foods that align with these values.1 This is more than a passing trend, with sales of ‘healthy’ snacking reporting an increase of 39% from 2022 to 2023, followed by further 4% the year after.2 For brands, positioning products as ‘all-natural’ and “good for you” has become key to success. The Grocer’s 2025 ‘Focus on Snack Bars’ highlighted how growing concern over ultra-processed foods is fuelling demand for supposedly more “natural” or “health-conscious” alternatives that both taste good and offer health benefits,3 and snack bars have emerged as the perfect solution – or so it seems.
The Snack Bar
Ticking all the right boxes, cereal bars – or rather, the snack bars – have become a solid fixture in many people’s diets, with the UK snack bar market accounting for £404.3 million in sales for 2024,3 and consumption growing worldwide.4
Today, the category has expanded far beyond the classic cereal-based bar; protein, date, nut, and oat-based bars have all found their place on to the shelf and have been assigned (by us!) the more suitable name of “snack bars”. They’re not full meals, but rather quick bites or on-the-go indulgences. At our last count, there were over 400 products available across the UK.
Whilst some of these snack bars may be more nutritious than others, they all come loaded with claims. Many products feature four or five claims on the front of the pack – and even more on the back. On shelves crowded with similar promises, brands compete to shout the loudest, and whilst it may help sales, as the evidence shows such claims directly skew consumers’ overall perceptions of a product’s healthiness, leading to powerful, and often misinformed, perceptions – referred to as the ‘health halo effect’.5
The health halo effect
A ‘health halo effect’ occurs when a food’s healthiness is overestimated because it carries one or more seemingly positive traits, such as being low-fat, organic, or source of fibre. These attributes can create misleading associations, leading consumers to believe that the entire product is healthier than it really is.6 This perception often stems from focusing on specific nutrients or health promises – for example, “high in protein” or “contains whole grains”, while overlooking less desirable aspects like high levels of sugar, salt, or saturated fats. As a result, the “halo” of health can mask an otherwise unbalanced or unhealthy product composition, and influences not just what consumers buy, but how much they eat.5
Our recent nutritional survey (in honour of this year’s Sugar Awareness Week) reflected exactly this. Take the ‘Nakd Peanut Butter Protein Bar’ for example, which contained upwards of 6 claims across its packaging, including “100% natural ingredients, “no added sugar”, and “plant-based protein”. Upon closer look however, it contained 13g of sugars in one single bar – over a third of an adult’s maximum sugar intake in a day. Although the sugars in this bar are naturally occurring from the date paste, they still contribute to our free sugar intake.
Another interesting example was ‘KIND Chocolate Chip Cashew’, which amongst many other claims on pack, featured the peculiar claim “ingredients you can see & pronounce”. Despite this promise, in the ingredients list it contained “Fructo-Oligosaccharide, Glucose Syrup, Emulsifier Soya Lecithin” – arguably not ingredients you can pronounce or ‘see’ regularly in the kitchen cupboard.
Of course, these are just two examples. But when you consider the sheer volume and variety of claims found on product packaging – let alone the marketing messages we encounter across TV, outdoor advertising, and online spaces – the idea of a fully informed and independent consumer choice becomes increasingly difficult to achieve.
The result is confusion, and a marketplace where perception too often outweighs reality.
Understanding nutritional claims
Of course, it’s not to say the nutrition claims we read are untrue, in fact by law these claims must be backed up by science. However, when claims are used by companies, perception and behaviour are both influenced – one study for example found that low-fat claims can increase consumption by up to 28%.7
Now let’s unpack those claims…
High in fibre vs source of fibre
To claim a product is a “source of fibre” it must contain at least 3g of fibre per 100g. To claim “high fibre” this requirement doubles to be 6g per 100g.8
This high fibre claim carries a lot of weight – as 2021 study revealed, when labelled as “wholegrain” or “high in fibre”, positive product ratings directly increased.9 When companies make these claims, consumers often infer (consciously or subconsciously) that the overall product is better for them, even if the rest of its nutritional profile suggests otherwise.
No added sugars vs contains naturally occurring sugars vs low sugar
One of the most common – and often misleading – claims we encountered in our research was “no added sugar.” On the surface, this phrase sounds simple and reassuring. However, its meaning is more complex than many consumers realise.
Under current regulations, a “no added sugar” claim can only be made when a product does not contain any added monosaccharides or disaccharides – also known as ‘free sugars’ – or other ingredients used specifically for their sweetening properties. But importantly, “no added sugar” does not mean sugar-free, as a product can still contain significant amounts of naturally occurring sugars (for example, from fruit purées and dates) which contribute to its overall sugar content and energy value. In some cases, the total sugar content in “no added sugar” products can be comparable to those that do contain added sugars.
In contrast, the claim “contains naturally occurring sugars” is used when the sugars in a product come only from ingredients that naturally contain them (such as fruits or milk), and no additional sweeteners have been added. When sugars are naturally present in the food, the label must also include the statement: “contains naturally occurring sugars”.
While both claims are legally defined, they can still be confusing for consumers. When you factor in the additional claim of “low sugar” – which can only be made when a product contains no more than 5g of sugar per 100g (or 2.5g of sugar per 100ml if it’s a liquid)10 – this becomes even more confusing.
The distinction between added and naturally occurring sugars often gets lost on the shelf, where “no added sugar” can create a powerful but misleading impression of healthfulness – another example of how marketing language can blur the line between perception and reality.
Protein vs source of protein vs high in protein
Protein is undeniably having its moment – customers and food companies can’t seem to get enough, with sales of high-protein products having risen by more than 21% in recent years.11 To legally market a product as a “source of protein”, at least 12% of its energy value must come from protein, while a “high in protein” claim requires at least 20%.8
While protein is essential for the growth, repair and maintenance of cells and muscles, many people in high income countries already consume more than enough.12 Instead of promoting unnecessary and needlessly excessive protein products that are often loaded with added sugars, salt, and saturated fat, consumers should be encouraged to eat well-balanced diets and whole foods.
As health consciousness grows, consumers are becoming more aware of labels and ingredients,6 and the packaging and promotions we see around us have come to reflect this. But when such claims are used on products high in salt and sugar, consumers are simply less informed of what they’re eating and more likely to eat such products in excess, lending to an increased risk of diet-related diseases.
So, what can we do?
As health consciousness grows, consumers are becoming more aware of labels and ingredients,6 and the packaging and promotions we see around us have come to reflect this. But when such claims are used on products high in salt and sugar, consumers are simply less informed of what they’re eating and more likely to eat such products in excess, assuming they are healthier for them compared with other snack products. Whilst some of them are healthier, fundamentally these are still snack products and should be eaten in infrequent and small amounts.
Individually, as healthcare and nutrition professionals one of the key things we can do is support this awareness. This can be as simple as advocating for a whole-diet approach. Whilst it’s vital to understand claims, it’s equally as important to consider foods within the context of the whole diet and debunk incorrect associations to promote varied diets that are rich in whole foods, fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, legumes, nuts and minimally processed ingredients.
Importantly, one of the key things that needs to happen is a policy shift. Just because a product claims to be a good source of a specific nutrient, doesn’t mean it is healthy overall or free from high levels of sugar. We need better policy measures to ensure this, including:
- Mandatory front-of-pack labelling that provides clear, consistent colour-coded or warning labels on all food and drink, allowing shoppers to spot unhealthy options at a glance.
- Restrictions on misleading health and nutrition claims, ending the ‘health halo’ that misleads shoppers. Instead, such claims should be exclusively applied to products that are genuinely low in salt, free sugars, and saturated fat.
- Introduce enforceable policies that drive healthier food – mandate specific reduction targets for less healthy foods to push businesses to improve the nutrition profile of their products and shift consumers towards healthier choices.
As shoppers, our knowledge and awareness of healthy eating is growing, but we shouldn’t require a degree in nutrition to be able to make informed dietary decisions. The food industry owes it to us, the consumer, to be open and transparent about the full spectrum of what’s in our foods – not just highlighting the good bits – and it’s about time they pulled back the wrapper and started being honest with us.
References
- Pione A, Medalsy J, Weaver K. The $2 trillion global wellness market gets a millennial and Gen Z glow-up. McKinsey & Company. Published May 29, 2025. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/future-of-wellness-trends#/
- Ridler G. Consumer demand for healthy snacks on the rise. Food Manufacture. Published March 14, 2024. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2024/03/14/consumer-demand-for-healthy-snacks-on-the-rise/
- Tatum M. Going, going, gone? Trends in snack bars 2025. The Grocer. Published March 18, 2025. https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/analysis-and-features/going-going-gone-trends-in-snack-bars-2025/702331.article
- Kosicka-Gebska, M, Sajdakowska, M, Jezewska-Zychowicz, M, Gebski, J, Gutkowska, K. Consumer Perception of Innovative Fruit and Cereal Bars – Current and Future Perspective. Nutrients. 2024;16(1606). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11175122/
- Fernan C, Schuldt J. P, Niederdeppe J. Health Halo Effects from Product Titles and Nutrient Content Claims in the Context of “Protein” Bars. Health Communication. 2018;33(12):1425-1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1358240
- Sundar A, Kardes F. The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption. Psychology & Marketing. 2015;32(5):512-521. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.20796?saml_referrer=
- Wansink B, Chandon P. Can “low-fat” nutrition labels to lead obesity?. American Marketing Association. 2006;43(4):605-617. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.605
- European Union. Nutrition claims. European Union. Accessed October 22, 2025. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/labelling-and-nutrition/nutrition-and-health-claims/nutrition-claims_en
- Stoltze F M, Busey E, Smith Taillie L, Dillman Carpentier F. Impact of warning labels on reducing health halo effects of nutrient content claims on breakfast cereal packages: A mixed-measures experiment. Appetite. 2021;163(105229). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105229
- UK Government. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Legislation.gov.uk. Published December 31, 2020. Accessed October 31, 2025. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1924/annex/adopted?utm
- Vaccaro CM, Guarino G, Danza F, Fraulino A, Bracale R. Changing food choices: the option for high-protein foods and the move away from the Mediterranean diet. Eat Weight Disord. 2024;29(1):39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11147913/
- Ro C. Food firms scramble to meet the high-protein craze. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20zk35ypxno. Published 2025. Accessed October 27, 2025.
