Nutrition Facts labels are widely consulted, but reading a label does not always mean understanding every number on it. U.S. surveys show high reported use of labels, especially expiration dates, calories, sugars, and serving information, alongside persistent confusion about serving sizes and percent Daily Value. The statistics below cover different surveys, years, and countries, so each measurement period and geography is identified.
Contents
- How many adults use Nutrition Facts labels
- Which label components shoppers read most
- How label use differs across demographic groups
- What consumers understand about label numbers
- What label use is associated with in dietary patterns
- How to read these statistics
How many adults use Nutrition Facts labels
The USDA Economic Research Service analyzed Nutrition Facts label behavior across NHANES cycles from 2005-06 to 2017-20. Across those cycles, 72.3% of U.S. adults said they used Nutrition Facts labels sometimes, most of the time, or always when buying packaged foods. The remaining 27.7% were not regular users because they rarely used, never used, or never saw the labels.
The cycle-specific figures show an increase from the earlier period, followed by a slightly lower result in the latest cycle included in the analysis:
| NHANES cycle | Regular label use among U.S. adults |
|---|---|
| 2005-06 | 62% |
| 2007-08 | 74% |
| 2009-10 | 80% |
| 2017-20 | 79% |
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, “Who Regularly Uses the Nutrition Facts Label?” (NHANES, 2005-06 to 2017-20).
The FDA reported a higher overall measure in its Food Safety and Nutrition Survey conducted in October-November 2019: 87% of U.S. adult respondents said they had looked at the Nutrition Facts label on food packages. At least 76% said they used the label when buying a food product for the first time. These figures are not directly interchangeable with the NHANES estimates because the surveys use different questions and study designs.
Source: FDA, “FDA Releases Food Safety and Nutrition Survey Results” (2019).
Which label components shoppers read most
In the USDA analysis of the 2017-20 NHANES cycle, expiration-date information was the most regularly used item, at 92%. Calorie and sugars information followed closely, at 74% and 73%, respectively. These results suggest that label use is not a single behavior: people may consult a package for freshness, energy, or a particular nutrient rather than review every part of the panel.
The next most-used items were number of servings, sodium, and serving size. Percent Daily Value and health claims were used by smaller majorities, while the footnote and the second whole-package column were used by fewer than four in ten adults.
| Label component | Regular use, U.S. adults, 2017-20 |
|---|---|
| Expiration date | 92% |
| Calories | 74% |
| Sugars | 73% |
| Number of servings | 65% |
| Sodium | 66% |
| Serving size | 63% |
| Health claims | 59% |
| Percent Daily Value | 58% |
| Second, whole-package column when present | 39% |
| Nutrition Facts footnote | 34% |
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, “Who Regularly Uses the Nutrition Facts Label?” (NHANES, 2017-20). The values describe regular use of each item, not necessarily correct interpretation.
The distinction between serving size and number of servings matters when comparing products or estimating how much of a package is being eaten. The data show that 63% regularly used serving-size information and 65% regularly used the number-of-servings information. That leaves a substantial minority who did not regularly consult either detail in the 2017-20 measure.
How label use differs across demographic groups
The 2017-20 NHANES analysis adjusted for other characteristics before comparing groups. In that adjusted analysis, men were 13 percentage points less likely than women to regularly use Nutrition Facts labels when deciding which packaged foods to buy. The gender gap was also present for specific components: men were 17 percentage points less likely to regularly use calorie information, 14 points less likely to use sugars information, 10 points less likely to use sodium information, 15 points less likely to use serving-size information, and 14 points less likely to use number-of-servings information.
The same analysis found differences by race and ethnicity for selected measures. Hispanic adults were 6 percentage points more likely than non-Hispanic White adults to regularly use Nutrition Facts labels. Hispanic adults were also 10 percentage points more likely to regularly use sugars information. Non-Hispanic Black adults were 11 percentage points more likely than non-Hispanic White adults to regularly use sodium information.
Education was associated with regular label use as well. Compared with adults who had less than a high school education, adults with a high school education were 4 percentage points more likely to regularly use labels. Adults with some college were 10 percentage points more likely, and adults with at least four years of college were 21 percentage points more likely.
These are adjusted percentage-point differences from the USDA analysis, not claims that education or demographic identity independently causes label behavior. They describe relationships observed after accounting for other characteristics included in the analysis.
Source for this section: USDA Economic Research Service, “Who Regularly Uses the Nutrition Facts Label?” (NHANES, 2017-20).
What consumers understand about label numbers
Looking at a label and interpreting it correctly are different outcomes. In the FDA’s 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey, 57% of all U.S. adult consumers correctly interpreted the percent Daily Value question. An FDA summary citing the 2017-20 NHANES analysis reported that 60% of respondents understood the meaning of percent Daily Value. Among the 87% of respondents who looked at Nutrition Facts labels, 49% said they looked at percent Daily Value information.
The FDA’s detailed 2019 survey reported a more specific breakdown across two percent Daily Value knowledge questions: 43% answered both correctly, 35% answered one correctly, and 23% answered neither correctly. The separate percentages reflect the survey’s question structure and should not be treated as interchangeable with the single-question result.
Serving size was another source of confusion. In the FDA’s 2019 survey, 67% of U.S. adult consumers thought serving size meant the amount of a food people should eat. FDA defines serving size as a comparison reference rather than a recommendation. This distinction is important when a package contains more than one serving: the label’s reference amount is not automatically a suggested personal portion.
Earlier evidence from the nationally representative 2013 HINTS sample also showed difficulty with multi-step label calculations. Between September and December 2013, 24% of U.S. adults could not determine the calorie content of a full ice-cream container from its Nutrition Facts panel. Another 21% could not estimate how many servings of ice cream equaled 60 grams of carbohydrates, while 42% could not estimate the effect on daily calorie intake of foregoing one serving. In addition, 41% could not calculate the percentage Daily Value of calories in a single serving.
The HINTS results varied by education. Among respondents without a high school diploma, over 33% could not answer any of the four Nutrition Facts label questions correctly. Among respondents with a four-year college degree, 53.9% correctly answered all four. These results come from 2013 and should not be read as a current estimate of label literacy.
Sources: FDA, “Consumer Behaviors, Knowledge, and Perceptions Related to the Nutrition Facts Label” (2019); FDA, “Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information” (2019); CDC Preventing Chronic Disease, “US Consumers’ Understanding of Nutrition Labels in 2013” (HINTS, September-December 2013).
What label use is associated with in dietary patterns
The USDA’s adjusted 2017-20 NHANES analysis found that regular Nutrition Facts label users reported lower daily intake than nonregular users in several categories. Regular users reported 191 fewer calories of daily energy intake, 54 fewer calories from daily fat, 23 fewer calories from daily saturated fat, 26 fewer calories from daily alcohol, and 90 fewer calories from daily sugar. They also reported 112 fewer milligrams of daily sodium intake.
These are adjusted associations from reported dietary intake. They do not establish that reading labels caused the differences, and they should not be interpreted as a guaranteed outcome for every person who uses a label.
The dataset also includes a nationally representative Israeli adult survey conducted from 2014-2016. Among adults aged 21-64, 36.1% were classified as Nutrition Facts label users. In that study, 32.1% of label users met the study’s DASH accordance threshold, compared with 20.6% of nonusers. After adjustment, label users had 1.52 times the odds of meeting the DASH accordance threshold compared with nonusers.
The adjusted Israeli results also reported higher odds of meeting particular DASH targets among label users: 1.30 times the odds for the protein target, 1.46 times for the dietary-fiber target, 1.48 times for the magnesium target, and 1.38 times for the calcium target. The study’s classifications and thresholds apply to that Israeli survey, not automatically to U.S. adults or to other definitions of healthy eating.
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, “Who Regularly Uses the Nutrition Facts Label?” (NHANES, 2017-20); CDC Preventing Chronic Disease, “Nutrition Facts Label Use and Adherence to the DASH Dietary Pattern” (Israeli survey, 2014-2016).
How to read these statistics
Several cautions help put the numbers in context. First, “use” can mean different things: sometimes, regularly, looking at a label at least once, or using it when buying a product for the first time. Survey estimates based on those questions are not direct substitutes for one another.
Second, the measurement periods differ. NHANES results span 2005-06 to 2017-20, the FDA surveys were conducted in 2019, the HINTS label-literacy evidence comes from September-December 2013, and the Israeli DASH analysis covers 2014-2016. A later or higher percentage does not necessarily represent a trend unless the question, sample, and method are comparable.
Third, some statistics describe reported behavior, while others describe correct answers or adjusted associations with dietary intake. Regularly reading calories is not the same as calculating the calories in a whole package, and an association between label use and intake does not prove a causal effect.
Finally, the figures describe surveyed populations and study definitions. They are useful for understanding how label use and label literacy vary, but they are not individualized nutrition advice or a prediction of what any particular shopper will do.