Decoding Food Marketing Claims

You stand in the grocery aisle, comparing two boxes of granola bars. One shouts “All Natural!” Another promises “No Added Sugar!” A third whispers “Made with Whole Grains.” Which one is truly the healthier choice? This daily dilemma is the direct result of food marketing claims—carefully crafted phrases designed to catch your eye and convince you to buy. Understanding these claims isn’t just about being a savvy shopper; it’s about reclaiming control over what you feed yourself and your family.

This guide will decode the language of food packaging, separating regulated terms from marketing fluff. We’ll explore what common claims actually mean (and what they don’t), provide tools to read beyond the front label, and empower you to make informed choices that align with your health and wellness goals.

The Psychology Behind the Packaging

Food marketing is a multi-billion dollar industry built on deep consumer psychology. Packaging is a product’s billboard, and every color, image, and word is chosen for maximum impact. Terms like “natural” or “wholesome” tap into our desire for purity and simplicity. Images of sun-drenched farms or happy families evoke feelings of trust and nostalgia.

This strategy creates a “health halo” effect. When one positive attribute is highlighted (e.g., “gluten-free”), we unconsciously assume the entire product is healthier, often overlooking the actual nutritional content. A cookie labeled “organic” may still be high in sugar and fat, but the health halo can bias our perception. Recognizing this psychological pull is the first step in making a conscious, rather than an impulsive, choice.

Deciphering Common Nutrition Content Claims

These claims describe the level of a nutrient in the food (e.g., “low fat,” “high in fiber”). In many regions, these terms are strictly defined by food regulatory bodies.

• Low/Reduced/Light: “Low fat” means 3 grams of fat or less per serving. “Reduced fat” means at least 25% less fat than the regular product. “Light” can refer to fat, calories, or even color, so check the context.
• Free (Fat-Free, Sugar-Free): “Fat-free” means less than 0.5g of fat per serving. “Sugar-free” means less than 0.5g of sugar per serving. However, “sugar-free” products often contain artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols.
• High/Source of: “High in fiber” typically means 5g or more per serving. “A source of vitamin C” means it contains a significant percentage (usually 15% or more) of the recommended daily value.

Actionable Tip: When you see a “free” or “low” claim, immediately check what it might be high in instead. A “low-fat” salad dressing is often high in sugar and sodium to compensate for flavor.

The Murky World of “Natural” and “Clean”

This is where marketing reigns supreme. The term “natural” is one of the most powerful—and least regulated—claims on packaging.

In many jurisdictions, there is no official legal definition for “natural” on food labels. It generally implies nothing artificial or synthetic has been added, but this doesn’t address pesticides, processing methods, or nutritional quality. A “all-natural” fruit snack can still be primarily fruit concentrate (sugar) with natural flavors.

“Clean” is a purely marketing term with no regulatory definition. It’s part of the “clean eating” trend and suggests minimal processing and recognizable ingredients. While the intent may be good, it’s a subjective claim. Always verify by reading the ingredient list.

Understanding Health Claims

These are more serious claims that suggest a relationship between a food and a health condition (e.g., “Calcium helps build strong bones”). These are heavily regulated. An authorized health claim must be backed by significant scientific agreement. A structure/function claim describes how a nutrient affects the body’s structure or function (“Fiber supports digestive health”) but cannot mention a disease.

Be wary of vague, unauthorized health language on mainstream foods, such as “boosts immunity” or “supports brain health.” These often ride the line of regulation and should be treated as marketing, not medical advice.

The Ingredient List: The Ultimate Truth-Teller

The front of the package sells; the ingredient list tells. By law, ingredients are listed in descending order by weight. The first three ingredients make up the bulk of what you’re eating.

How to read it:

1. Look at the first three items. If they are refined grains, sugars, or unhealthy oils, it’s not a whole food-based product.
2. Spot hidden sugars. Sugar has over 60 names: sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, barley malt, dextrose, rice syrup, “organic cane juice,” etc. If multiple sugars appear, they may be listed separately to avoid being first.
3. Note length and pronounceability. A long list of chemical-sounding ingredients often indicates a highly processed food. This isn’t always bad (e.g., fortifying vitamins), but it’s a cue for scrutiny.

The Nutrition Facts Panel: Context is Key

The Nutrition Facts panel provides quantifiable data. The key is context.

• Serving Size: This is the most critical number. All the data below it is for this amount. Compare the serving size to how much you actually eat. A small bag of chips may list “2.5 servings per bag.”
• % Daily Value (%DV): A general guide based on a 2,000-calorie diet. As a rule: 5% DV or less of a nutrient is low; 20% DV or more is high. Aim to be high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and low in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.
• Added Sugars: This newer line separates sugars naturally present in the food (like in milk or fruit) from those added during processing. Limit added sugars.

Spotlight on Specific Buzzword Claims

Let’s apply our decoding skills to some popular buzzwords.

“Made with Whole Grains”: This only means some whole grains are present. The first ingredient might still be “enriched wheat flour.” Look for “100% whole grain” or ensure a whole grain is the first ingredient.

“No Added Hormones” (on poultry or pork): This is misleading because federal regulations already prohibit giving hormones to these animals. It’s like labeling water “fat-free.” It may be true, but it’s not a differentiator.

“Gluten-Free” on foods that are naturally gluten-free: Seeing this on rice, corn, or produce is a marketing tactic to capture the gluten-free market. It doesn’t make the rice any healthier.

“Antibiotic-Free” / “Raised without Antibiotics”: This is a meaningful claim for meat and poultry, indicating the animals were not given antibiotics, which can address concerns about antibiotic resistance.

Building Your Savvy Shopping Strategy

Arm yourself with a practical routine.

1. Shop the Perimeter First: This is where you find whole, minimally processed foods—produce, meat, dairy. Most marketing claims live in the center aisles.
2. Practice the “Flip First” Rule: Before you get drawn in by the front, flip the package and read the ingredient list and Nutrition Facts.
3. Use the “5-Ingredient Guideline” for Packaged Foods: As a general rule for snacks and staples, choose items with five or fewer recognizable ingredients.
4. Embrace Simple Swaps: Instead of “reduced-sugar” fruit yogurt, buy plain yogurt and add fresh fruit. Instead of “multigrain” bread (which just means multiple grains, not necessarily whole), choose 100% whole wheat bread.

The Anatomy of Comparative Claims: Beyond “Better Than” Statements

One of the most sophisticated marketing techniques involves not just stating a product’s qualities, but positioning it as superior to alternatives, often through implicit comparison. Claims like “30% less sugar than our original recipe” or “Now with more protein than Brand X” create a powerful frame of reference that can distract from the product’s absolute nutritional value. The psychology here leverages our tendency toward relative judgment—we’re wired to assess value through comparison, not in isolation. This is particularly effective with reformulated products where a reduction in one undesirable nutrient (sugar, fat) is highlighted while increases in others (artificial sweeteners, sodium, fillers) remain unmentioned in the front-of-package narrative. The phrase “improved recipe” often signals such trade-offs, inviting shoppers to focus on the positive change while overlooking what might have been added to maintain taste or texture after removal of a key component.

Comparative claims operate within specific regulatory guardrails that marketers carefully navigate. For a “less than” claim to be valid, the comparison must be to a clearly identified reference food—either the brand’s own previous formulation or a competitor’s standard product. However, the chosen comparator is strategic. A cereal brand might claim “50% less sugar than the leading kids’ cereal,” which sounds impressive until you realize the leading kids’ cereal contains an extraordinary 12 grams of sugar per serving; the “improved” version still has 6 grams, placing it firmly in the high-sugar category. Similarly, “more fiber than white bread” sets a remarkably low bar, as most whole grain breads naturally exceed it. The legal requirement is truth in the specific comparison, not an overall health endorsement. Savvy shoppers should ask: “Compared to what?” and “What’s the baseline?” A 25% reduction in sodium from an extremely high starting point may still leave the product in the “high sodium” range per nutrition labeling guidelines.

Beyond explicit comparisons, marketers use visual and semantic cues to create implicit superiority. Placing products side-by-side in advertising with green checkmarks on one and red X’s on another, using language like “the smart choice” or “the right way,” all signal comparison without stating it outright. Even package color schemes participate: many “better-for-you” products use white, green, or blue backgrounds with minimalist design to contrast with the bright, busy packaging of conventional counterparts, creating a visual hierarchy on the shelf that suggests purity and intelligence. This implicit messaging is largely unregulated because it doesn’t make a specific nutrient claim, yet it powerfully influences perception. To counteract this, consciously separate the product from its marketed context. Evaluate it on its own nutritional merits using the facts panel, not its position relative to a possibly poor alternative. Ask whether the improved attribute matters to your health goals, and verify what, if anything, was added or changed to achieve that improvement.

Decoding Process Claims: From “Minimally Processed” to “Crafted”

As consumer skepticism toward industrial food production grows, marketers have shifted focus from just nutrients to how food is made. Process claims like “minimally processed,” “slow-cooked,” “small-batch,” “crafted,” “stone-ground,” and “kettle-cooked” evoke artisanal quality and care, suggesting nutritional superiority through method. However, these terms exist in a regulatory gray area with few standardized definitions, allowing significant creative interpretation. “Minimally processed” has no FDA definition, though the agency acknowledges it generally means processing that doesn’t fundamentally alter the raw agricultural product—think washed, peeled, sliced, frozen, dried, pasteurized, or fermented. Yet in practice, a product labeled “minimally processed” could undergo multiple mechanical and thermal treatments while still qualifying under this loose interpretation, provided chemical alterations are limited.

The appeal to traditional methods plays on nostalgia for a perceived simpler, purer food system. “Stone-ground” implies lower temperature milling that preserves nutrients and flavor oils in grains compared to high-speed steel roller mills. While this can be true for certain nutrients like vitamin E and unsaturated fats that are heat-sensitive, the nutritional difference in the final product may be marginal if the flour is then used in a highly refined baked good with added sugars and fats. “Kettle-cooked” potato chips suggest batch frying in smaller vessels for more consistent temperature control and potentially less oil absorption, but the core product remains a fried snack high in fat and sodium. “Slow-cooked” or “simmered for hours” promises developed flavors, potentially allowing reduced use of flavor enhancers like MSG or excessive salt, but doesn’t guarantee it. These process claims often justify premium pricing while delivering uncertain health benefits.

More technical process claims require deeper decoding. “Cold-pressed” for juices means extraction without heat, which may preserve more heat-sensitive vitamins and enzymes, but the juice still lacks fiber and concentrates fruit sugars. “Sprouted” grains or legumes have undergone germination, which can reduce antinutrients like phytic acid and increase certain nutrients, but the magnitude of benefit depends on sprouting conditions and how the sprouted material is subsequently processed (e.g., dried and milled versus used whole). “Fermented” claims—common with yogurts, kombucha, sauerkraut, and some breads—rightly highlight beneficial probiotics and pre-digestion of components, but the specific strains and live culture counts matter greatly; some products are fermented then pasteurized, killing beneficial bacteria. “Air-chilled” poultry, as opposed to water-chilled, may result in less water absorption and potentially lower bacterial cross-contamination, but doesn’t affect the animal’s diet or living conditions. When evaluating process claims, consider whether the method plausibly affects a nutritional attribute you care about, and check if that outcome is verified in the nutrition panel or ingredient list, not just assumed from the marketing poetry.

The Geography of Food Claims: “Local,” “Regional,” and Origin Stories

Place-based claims tap into desires for freshness, community support, and traceability. “Local,” “locally sourced,” “regional,” and “from our neighbors” suggest shorter supply chains, seasonal appropriateness, and reduced environmental impact from transportation. Unlike “organic,” which has a federal certification process, “local” lacks a uniform definition. The USDA considers local food as the direct or intermediated marketing of food to consumers that is produced within a certain distance from where it’s sold, often within 400 miles or within the state. However, marketers may use “local” more loosely, sometimes referring to a company’s headquarters rather than ingredient sources, or defining their own radius. A national brand might feature “local goodness” in its messaging while sourcing ingredients globally, leveraging emotional resonance rather than geographical accuracy.

Specific origin claims like “Made in Vermont” or “Product of California” can carry slightly more weight if they align with known agricultural strengths (Vermont maple syrup, California almonds), but they don’t guarantee all ingredients originate there. For multi-ingredient products, a “Made in [Location]” claim typically means the final assembly or processing occurred there, not that the raw materials are local. More meaningful are single-ingredient claims like “Idaho potatoes” or “Florida oranges,” which are more likely to be true and regulated under marketing orders or federal standards for certain commodities. Yet even here, romanticized imagery of specific farms (“from the sunny slopes of Napa Valley”) may be entirely fictional or refer to a minuscule percentage of ingredients while the bulk comes from industrial sources. The trend toward naming specific farms or farmers—”Joe’s Dairy milk,” “Smith Family Farms tomatoes”—increases accountability and traceability, offering a clearer connection to source when verified.

Beyond freshness implications, local claims intersect with sustainability and ethical considerations that many shoppers value. Reduced food miles can mean lower carbon emissions, though transportation is just one component of a food’s environmental footprint; production methods often matter more. Supporting local economies and knowing where your food comes from provides non-nutritional benefits that are legitimate factors in food choices. The key is to distinguish between meaningful provenance and vague place-based branding. Look for specificity: a named farm, a definable region, or a verifiable distance. Be skeptical of generic pastoral imagery without concrete sourcing information. For processed foods, check if the local claim applies to a signature ingredient that constitutes a small percentage of the product, while the rest is conventional. Ultimately, while local sourcing can align with broader food values, it doesn’t automatically confer nutritional superiority—a local pastry is still a pastry. Evaluate these claims as part of your personal value system, not as a health guarantee.

Temporal Claims and the Illusion of Freshness: “Fresh,” “Never Frozen,” “Made Daily”

Time is a powerful dimension in food marketing, with claims suggesting immediacy, minimal storage, and peak quality. “Fresh” is one of the most potent yet ambiguous terms. For raw produce, meat, and seafood, “fresh” technically means never having been frozen, but it says nothing about how long ago the item was harvested or slaughtered, or under what conditions it was transported and stored. For processed foods, the FDA has defined “fresh” to mean a food in its raw state that has not been frozen, heat-processed, or otherwise preserved, except for approved treatments like waxing fruits, post-harvest pesticides, or mild chlorine rinses for vegetables. However, the term is often used more liberally in brand names (“FreshBrand”) or descriptions (“fresh taste”) that fall outside strict regulation. “Fresh baked” or “fresh made” can mean baked or made from frozen dough or mixes on-site, not from scratch with raw ingredients.

“Never frozen” claims, common with seafood and poultry, appeal to the perception that freezing damages texture or flavor. While freezing can cause ice crystal formation that may affect cell structure in some foods, modern flash-freezing techniques often preserve quality remarkably well, sometimes better than “fresh” products that have spent days in transit. For seafood especially, “never frozen” might indicate it was shipped chilled over long distances, with quality degradation during that time, whereas frozen-at-sea products can be frozen within hours of catch, locking in freshness. The claim also ignores that many “fresh” seafood items in displays were previously frozen and thawed for retail, a practice that is often not disclosed. “Never frozen” thus becomes a premium marker rather than a reliable quality indicator.

“Made daily,” “small batch,” and “kitchen-crafted” imply limited production runs and shorter shelf life, which can correlate with fewer preservatives. However, these claims are rarely verified by third parties. A “made daily” soup at a grocery store might be prepared in a central commissary days earlier and reheated on-site. “Small batch” suggests attention to detail and consistency, but batch size is undefined—what’s small for an industrial producer could be enormous to a home cook. These temporal claims create an aura of artisanal care and freshness that justifies higher prices. To assess real freshness, look beyond these marketing terms to more concrete indicators: actual production or pack dates (not just “best by” dates), shorter ingredient lists without preservatives like sodium benzoate or calcium propionate, and refrigerated rather than shelf-stable storage for products that would normally spoil. For produce, seasonal awareness is more telling than any “fresh” claim—asparagus in December is unlikely to be locally fresh regardless of labeling. Ultimately, temporal claims speak more to perceived quality and production values than to nutrition, though they may correlate with less processing and fewer additives, which some shoppers prioritize.

Animal Welfare and Ethical Raising Claims: Decoding the Pastoral

As concerns about industrial animal agriculture grow, claims about animal treatment have become significant marketing tools, often accompanied by imagery of open pastures and contented animals. Terms like “cage-free,” “free-range,” “pasture-raised,” “humanely raised,” and “animal welfare certified” speak to ethical considerations, but their definitions vary widely in specificity and enforcement. “Cage-free” for eggs means hens are not kept in battery cages, but they may still be confined to crowded indoor barns with limited space per bird. “Free-range” or “free-roaming” requires access to the outdoors, but the duration, quality, and size of that outdoor space are not defined by regulation for all species; for chickens, the USDA requires only “access to the outdoors,” which could be a small concrete porch. “Pasture-raised” suggests animals spend substantial time on pasture eating grasses and insects, but there’s no federal standard; some certifications like “Certified Humane Pasture Raised” require at least 6 hours outdoors daily on pasture with substantial space.

Third-party certifications provide more rigor than standalone claims. The “Animal Welfare Approved” label has among the highest standards, requiring animals be raised on pasture or range for their entire lives. “Global Animal Partnership” (used by Whole Foods) has a 5-step rating system from Step 1 (no cages, no crates) to Step 5+ (animal-centered, entire life on pasture). “Certified Humane” sets specific standards for space, bedding, and management practices. However, these certifications remain voluntary and are used primarily by premium brands. Many products feature generic pastoral imagery or terms like “humanely raised” without certification, relying on consumer assumptions. It’s important to distinguish between marketing language and verified practices.

These claims intersect with nutritional perceptions, though the science is nuanced. Some studies suggest pasture-raised animals may have different fatty acid profiles (e.g., higher omega-3s in eggs from pasture-raised hens) due to diet, and lower stress might affect meat quality, but the differences are often modest compared to the overall nutritional profile of the food. The primary value of these claims is ethical, not nutritional. For shoppers who prioritize animal welfare, looking for specific, meaningful certifications rather than vague terms is key. Understanding the hierarchy of claims—from unverified “natural raising” to specific certified standards—allows alignment of purchases with values. It’s also worth noting that these claims typically apply only to animal products, not to the conditions of farm workers or overall sustainability, which are separate though related concerns. As with all marketing, transparency and specificity separate meaningful information from pastoral window dressing.

Environmental and Sustainability Claims: From “Eco-Friendly” to “Carbon Neutral”

The greening of food marketing responds to growing consumer concern about climate change and ecological impact. Claims like “sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” “good for the planet,” “carbon neutral,” and “water positive” appear with increasing frequency, often accompanied by nature imagery and green color schemes. Unlike nutrition claims, most environmental claims lack standardized definitions or regulatory frameworks, creating a “greenwashing” risk where minor efforts are exaggerated. “Sustainable” is particularly broad, potentially referring to sourcing, packaging, energy use, water management, or waste reduction—or simply serving as an aspirational brand attribute. Without specific metrics or verification, it’s difficult to assess the claim’s substance.

Some environmental claims are more concrete but require context. “Carbon neutral” means the company has calculated its carbon emissions from production and transportation and offset them through projects like reforestation or renewable energy investments. However, the quality and permanence of offsets vary, and the claim doesn’t necessarily mean the product has low emissions, only that they’ve been compensated for. “Made with renewable energy” could mean the manufacturing facility uses solar or wind power, or that the company purchases renewable energy credits for a portion of its electricity use. “Compostable” or “biodegradable” packaging claims depend on specific conditions (industrial composting facilities versus home compost) that may not be available to most consumers. “Recyclable” packaging is meaningful only if local recycling systems actually accept that material—many mixed-material packages (like chip bags with foil lining) are not recyclable in practice despite symbols suggesting otherwise.

Third-party certifications offer more reliability for environmental claims. The “Marine Stewardship Council” (MSC) blue fish label indicates wild-caught seafood from fisheries meeting sustainability standards. “Fair Trade Certified” ensures fair prices for farmers and environmental protections like restricted pesticide use and water conservation. “Rainforest Alliance Certified” (with the green frog seal) addresses biodiversity, soil health, and worker wellbeing. “Regenerative Organic Certified” is an emerging rigorous standard combining soil health, animal welfare, and social fairness. These certifications involve audits and continuous improvement requirements. However, they remain limited to specific product categories and often come with premium pricing. For shoppers prioritizing environmental impact, looking for these specific certifications is more reliable than interpreting vague green claims. Additionally, the most sustainable choice often isn’t labeled at all: minimally processed, plant-based, locally sourced, and seasonally appropriate foods typically have lower environmental footprints than their heavily marketed counterparts, regardless of packaging claims. Evaluating environmental claims thus requires both skepticism of vague language and knowledge of meaningful certifications, while keeping the big picture of dietary patterns in mind.

Functional Food and Nutraceutical Claims: The Blurred Line Between Food and Supplement

A rapidly expanding frontier of food marketing involves products that promise specific physiological benefits beyond basic nutrition—so-called functional foods or nutraceuticals. These sit in a regulatory gray area between conventional foods and dietary supplements, with claims that often push the boundaries of what’s permitted on food labels. Examples include beverages “for immunity” with added vitamins and botanicals, snack bars “for focus” containing caffeine and L-theanine, yogurts “for digestion” with specific probiotic strains, and waters “for relaxation” with melatonin or magnesium. While some of these products make structure/function claims (“supports immune health”) that are permitted for foods, others imply more direct effects that could cross into drug claims, which are prohibited for foods without FDA approval.

The rise of “adaptogens,” “nootropics,” and “superfoods” in mainstream products amplifies this trend. Terms like “ashwagandha-infused,” “with lion’s mane mushroom,” or “turmeric for inflammation” suggest targeted benefits, though the evidence for many of these ingredients in the doses provided is often preliminary or based on supplement studies rather than food matrix contexts. The concentration of active compounds in a functional food may be far lower than in supplement forms, and interactions with other food components can affect bioavailability. Moreover, the health effects of isolated nutrients or botanicals may not translate when consumed as part of a complex food product. A cereal “with added prebiotic fiber” might contain only a gram or two, insufficient for meaningful gut health impact compared to whole food sources like legumes or whole grains.

Regulatory oversight of functional food claims is fragmented. The FDA monitors for unauthorized drug claims but resources are limited, and marketers often use careful wording to stay within bounds while implying benefits. The line between “maintains healthy blood pressure” (a permitted structure/function claim) and “lowers blood pressure” (a drug claim) is fine but significant. Consumers should approach functional food claims with particular caution, recognizing they are often based on emerging science rather than consensus. Check if the beneficial ingredient appears early in the ingredient list (indicating meaningful quantity) and research whether the dose aligns with studied amounts. Be aware that adding functional ingredients doesn’t redeem an otherwise poor nutritional profile—a cookie with added collagen is still a cookie. For specific health concerns, targeted supplements under medical guidance may be more appropriate than relying on fortified foods making broad claims. As this category grows, the savvy shopper’s task is to distinguish genuine innovation from marketing exploiting wellness trends, using the same fundamental tools: scrutinizing ingredient lists, verifying nutrient quantities, and maintaining realistic expectations about what food alone can deliver.

FAQs: Decoding Food Marketing Claims

Q: What is the single most important thing to look at on a food label?
A: The ingredient list. It tells you exactly what is in the product, in order of quantity. The claims on the front can be interpreted, but the ingredient list is the factual foundation.

Q: Does “organic” automatically mean healthier?
A: Not necessarily. “Organic” refers to how ingredients are farmed (without synthetic pesticides, etc.). An organic cookie is still a cookie—it can be high in sugar and calories. Organic is a production claim, not a nutrition claim.

Q: Are “artificial flavors” or “preservatives” always bad?
A: Not always. “Artificial” simply means the flavor compound was created in a lab rather than extracted from nature, but it may be chemically identical. Preservatives prevent spoilage and foodborne illness. The dose and context matter. Some people may choose to avoid them, but their presence doesn’t automatically disqualify a food.

Q: Is “non-GMO” an important label to look for?
A: This is a personal choice based on your values. Scientifically, GMO crops currently on the market are considered safe to eat by major global health organizations. The “Non-GMO Project Verified” label means the product has been tested to avoid genetically modified ingredients. It is not a health or nutrition claim.

Q: How can I avoid being tricked by healthy-looking packaging?
A: Develop a healthy skepticism. Ask yourself: “What is this claim really telling me? What is it not telling me?” Then, verify. Look past the imagery of fields and baskets. Let the standardized, regulated parts of the label—the ingredient list and Nutrition Facts—be your primary guides. With practice, this becomes a quick, empowering habit.

Related posts:

Understanding Sugar Alcohols Getting Reimbursed for Lost Luggage Guilt-Free Cinnamon Roll Recipe Food Revolution: Mark Hyman’s Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System Top Beauty Brands of 2019 Gyms Are Actually Banning Sexy Workout Clothes and Here’s Why Vegan vs Plant-Based: Which is Healthier? How Much Fat Should You Really Eat Per Day?