At a Glance
Natural claims show up unevenly across the grocery aisle.
The USDA ERS EB-35 dataset shows that some categories have natural labels on a large share of spending, units, and UPCs, while others barely register at all. That spread makes the phrase “natural food statistics” more useful as a comparison lens than as a single number.
Table of Contents
- What the dataset measures
- The broad market picture
- Which categories lead
- Where natural claims are rare
- Comparing dollars, units, and UPCs
- What the category spread suggests
- Fast reference table
What the dataset measures
These natural food statistics come from USDA ERS EB-35 and describe the share of food items or purchases that carried a natural claim in 2018.
The dataset reports three different lenses for the same market:
- Dollar expenditures labeled natural.
- Units purchased labeled natural.
- UPC count labeled natural.
That structure matters because a category can look more “natural” when measured by spending than when measured by item count, or the other way around. The gap between those views is part of the story in USDA ERS EB-35.
The broad market picture
Across all foods, 16.3% of retail food expenditures were for natural-labeled foods in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Across all foods, 16.9% of units purchased were for natural-labeled foods in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Across all foods, 11.0% of UPCs sold across IRI stores in 2018 carried a natural claim (USDA ERS EB-35).
Those three figures give a clean starting point. In broad terms, natural claims were not a niche blip, but they were also far from universal. The UPC share is lower than both the dollar and unit shares, which suggests that natural claims were concentrated in a subset of product codes rather than spread evenly across every item on the shelf.
A useful way to read the all-foods figures is this: consumers encountered natural labels often enough to matter, but the market still had plenty of inventory without those claims. The data does not flatten that difference. It highlights it.
Which categories lead
Some categories stand out immediately.
Chicken, turkey, and game birds had 31.1% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Chicken, turkey, and game birds had 20.1% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Chicken, turkey, and game birds had 29.5% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Cheese also ranked high in the dataset.
Cheese had 30.2% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Cheese had 34.4% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Cheese had 21.7% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt were another strong performer.
Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt had 26.2% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt had 33.4% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt had 24.6% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole milk, yogurt, and cream also showed a substantial natural share.
Whole milk, yogurt, and cream had 23.3% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole milk, yogurt, and cream had 25.7% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole milk, yogurt, and cream had 12.6% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
The leading categories share a pattern: dairy and poultry are among the clearest places where natural claims were especially visible in 2018. That does not mean every item in those groups carried a natural label. It means the probability was meaningfully higher than the all-food average.
Where natural claims are rare
At the opposite end of the scale, potatoes were a striking outlier.
Potatoes had 0.5% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Potatoes had 0.4% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Potatoes had 0.5% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other red and orange vegetables were also low compared with the broad market.
Other red and orange vegetables had 3.8% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other red and orange vegetables had 2.6% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other red and orange vegetables had 2.6% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Beans, lentils, peas, and legumes remained well below the all-food average.
Beans, lentils, peas, and legumes had 3.3% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Beans, lentils, peas, and legumes had 2.1% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Beans, lentils, peas, and legumes had 4.2% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole fruit also stayed below the all-food level.
Whole fruit had 4.0% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole fruit had 2.4% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole fruit had 6.8% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
These low figures are useful because they show that natural claims were not simply attached to “healthy-sounding” foods across the board. Some categories with strong freshness or nutrition associations still had relatively limited natural-label presence in the data.
Comparing dollars, units, and UPCs
The most interesting part of the dataset is not just the ranking of categories. It is the mismatch between measurement types.
A category can have a higher share of natural-labeled dollars than natural-labeled UPCs, which suggests that the products with the claim may account for a larger share of spending than the number of distinct codes might imply. Or it can have a stronger UPC share than dollar share, which implies a wider assortment of natural-labeled products that do not necessarily dominate revenue.
The table below makes those differences easier to scan.
| Category | Dollars labeled natural | Units labeled natural | UPCs labeled natural |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken, turkey, and game birds | 31.1% | 20.1% | 29.5% |
| Cheese | 30.2% | 34.4% | 21.7% |
| Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt | 26.2% | 33.4% | 24.6% |
| Whole milk, yogurt, and cream | 23.3% | 25.7% | 12.6% |
| Whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours | 18.7% | 17.9% | 16.3% |
| 100% fruit and vegetable juices | 16.1% | 15.6% | 15.8% |
| Fish and seafood | 13.7% | 21.4% | 11.8% |
| Tomatoes | 9.6% | 14.8% | 11.9% |
| Non-whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours | 7.3% | 6.5% | 6.4% |
| Potatoes | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.5% |
One immediate observation is that cheese and reduced-fat dairy categories look stronger on unit share than on UPC share. In contrast, chicken, turkey, and game birds show a very high dollar share with a similarly high UPC share, but a lower unit share. That mix suggests that how the natural claim sits in the category structure matters as much as the claim itself.
Another useful comparison is fish and seafood. Its unit share, 21.4%, is much higher than its dollar share of 13.7% and its UPC share of 11.8% (USDA ERS EB-35). That combination points to a category where labeled items account for a notable number of units even if they do not dominate the entire assortment or spending mix.
A closer look at middle-tier categories
The dataset is not just a story of leaders and laggards. Several middle-tier groups cluster near or slightly above the overall all-food average.
Whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours had 18.7% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours had 17.9% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours had 16.3% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
100% fruit and vegetable juices also sat in that middle zone.
100% fruit and vegetable juices had 16.1% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
100% fruit and vegetable juices had 15.6% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
100% fruit and vegetable juices had 15.8% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other starchy vegetables were above the all-food average in dollar share, but less so in the other two measures.
Other starchy vegetables had 16.6% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other starchy vegetables had 13.6% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Other starchy vegetables had 9.4% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Tomatoes show another notable middle result.
Tomatoes had 9.6% of dollar expenditures labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Tomatoes had 14.8% of units purchased labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
Tomatoes had 11.9% of UPC count labeled natural in 2018 (USDA ERS EB-35).
That pattern is worth noticing because tomatoes sit below the all-food average in dollars but above the all-food average in units, which implies the claim may have been appearing on lower-priced or more frequently purchased items in the category.
What the category spread suggests
The category spread in USDA ERS EB-35 is wide enough to matter for interpretation.
At the high end, natural labeling reached more than 30% of dollars in chicken, turkey, and game birds, and nearly that level in cheese (USDA ERS EB-35).
At the low end, potatoes barely cleared one-half of one percent across all three measures (USDA ERS EB-35).
Between those extremes sit categories that are easy to overlook if you focus only on the biggest winners. Whole-grain products, juices, seafood, and tomatoes all show different combinations of dollar, unit, and UPC shares. Those combinations tell you whether the claim was broad across product codes, concentrated in a few expensive items, or common in purchase volume without being dominant in shelf assortment.
A few practical reading rules emerge from the dataset:
- If dollar share is high but UPC share is lower, the category may be driven by a limited set of natural-labeled items that carry more spending weight.
- If UPC share is relatively high, the natural claim may be spread across more distinct products.
- If unit share is much higher than dollar share, the claim may be common in lower-priced or high-frequency purchase patterns.
The USDA ERS EB-35 figures do not explain why these differences exist, but they do make the market structure visible. That is the value of this dataset: it turns a vague label into a set of comparable measurements.
Fast Reference Table
| Category | Natural share snapshot |
|---|---|
| All foods | 16.3% of retail food expenditures, 16.9% of units purchased, 11.0% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Chicken, turkey, and game birds | 31.1% of dollars, 20.1% of units, 29.5% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Cheese | 30.2% of dollars, 34.4% of units, 21.7% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Reduced-fat, low-fat, and skim milk, cream, and yogurt | 26.2% of dollars, 33.4% of units, 24.6% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Whole milk, yogurt, and cream | 23.3% of dollars, 25.7% of units, 12.6% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Whole-grain breads, cereal, rice, pasta, and flours | 18.7% of dollars, 17.9% of units, 16.3% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| 100% fruit and vegetable juices | 16.1% of dollars, 15.6% of units, 15.8% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Fish and seafood | 13.7% of dollars, 21.4% of units, 11.8% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Tomatoes | 9.6% of dollars, 14.8% of units, 11.9% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |
| Potatoes | 0.5% of dollars, 0.4% of units, 0.5% of UPCs (USDA ERS EB-35) |