No gluten. No trans fats. No BPA. No GMOs. No sesquipedalians …

Once the purview of food allergy sufferers, vegans, dieters and people with celiac disease, the active avoidance of certain common food constituents has become mainstream.

Whether out of concern for their health, the environment or animal welfare, more and more American consumers eschew products that contain an ever-growing list of ingredients and additives or are produced in a particular way. These “dietary demons,” depending on the individual, may include gluten, bisphenol A (BPA), artificial food coloring and preservatives, GMOs, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats, monosodium glutamate (MSG), soy, corn-fed beef, eggs that are not cage-free and even sometimes the entire dairy category, to name just a few.

In addition, many people are heeding the advice of journalist and activist Michael Pollan, author of the 2008 book In Defense of Food: Avoid food products containing ingredients that are unfamiliar, unpronounceable or more than five in number.

When deciding what to eat today, consumers don’t just consider the organoleptic qualities of food or its cost, notes Jim Wisner, the founder of Libertyville, Ill.-based Wisner Marketing Group. Although taste, aroma, appearance and texture — as well as price — remain important, “how that food product fits with an individual’s cultural values” can be pivotal, he says.

Julie Quick, a Plano, Texas-based senior vice president for Shoptology, draws a distinction between particular health-driven dietary restrictions such as avoiding lactose and the embrace of a more holistic view of food.

“Only about 7 percent of Americans follow a lactose-free diet and actively purchase lactose-free products, so that’s still pretty ‘niche,’” Quick offers as an example. “But what’s becoming more universal is the desire to eliminate some of the things that got added to the food supply chain that don’t need to be there such as antibiotics, hormones and pesticides.”

Concerns about food content have created a fertile landscape for new product development. Some industry experts, however, take issue with vendors and retailers that exacerbate fears about the country’s food supply.

Need for education, candor

Consumers nowadays have easy online access to the latest “scientific” food-related studies, as well as to the opinions of all manner of vocal celebrities, from the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz to gluten-free champion Miley Cyrus. As a result, misconceptions abound, yet people today are genuinely more knowledgeable about what they consume, says Heather Mangieri, RDN, a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The public’s perception of a better-for-you diet has completely changed, Mangieri observes. While applauding the penchant of consumers to read product labels and eat more healthfully today, she worries that many individuals view good nutrition in terms of what they believe they shouldn’t eat, as opposed to what they need to eat to have a balanced diet.

“I do think it’s great that consumers are paying more attention to what they eat and what’s in their food,” says Mangieri, the founder of Pittsburgh-based Nutrition CheckUp. “But as with anything else, it can be taken too far.”

One problem is that consumers tend to be afraid unnecessarily of polysyllabic chemical names, and food manufacturers have started to capitulate to the pressure of these misperceptions.

“I’ve seen manufacturers of products that have vitamin and mineral enrichment actually take those vitamins and minerals back out of the products because consumers are fearful of chemicals and want a short ingredient list,” Mangieri shares.

Most shoppers would not recognize, for example, that d-alpha-tocopherol is a form of vitamin E. Rather than removing difficult-to-pronounce but beneficial chemicals from food products, manufacturers and grocery retailers — including developers of private brands — need to do more to educate consumers about the purpose of various substances, according to Mangieri.

Although taking traditional preservatives out of processed food products isn’t necessarily a bad decision, consumers need to be made aware of potential consequences such as shorter shelf life and higher prices, she adds.

“Most consumers are not food scientists, so things that may be perfectly fine may not look that way to them,” Wisner agrees. “This is a huge challenge for the industry right now. But, clearly, consumers are voting with their wallets, and there is a definite trend toward wanting a comprehensible and shorter ingredient list.”

Mangieri, moreover, is particularly concerned that people with life-threatening food allergies and serious medical conditions such as celiac disease could have their health compromised by manufacturers that are too quick to jump on the free-from bandwagon without understanding the rigor that goes into ensuring that a facility’s manufacturing processes and supply chain are entirely free of the allergens in question or other excluded substances.

“I find that the free-from trend has resulted in some confusion and minimization of the seriousness of true food allergies,” she says.

Both Mangieri and Wisner also oppose the propensity of some manufacturers and retailers to place “gluten-free” and other free-from claims such as “no GMOs” on products that do not normally contain those substances.

“This is disingenuous,” says Wisner. “And it also heightens attention to what people perceive as the risk of these things.”

“Oftentimes, food companies will use consumer fear of certain ingredients to their advantage and increase the cost of products even if a particular ingredient was never included in those items,” Mangieri adds.

Retailers need to take the high road with their private brands and be selective with their free-from claims, limiting them to attributes that are truly meaningful and distinguishing, Wisner suggests.

Proceed with enthusiasm and caution

Still, retailers and private label manufacturers would be foolish not to embrace the opportunities created by the free-from food movement. This is an exciting time, with product innovation flourishing, and private brands have the chance to establish strong bonds with socially conscious and health-conscious shoppers, notes Phil Lempert, the Santa Monica, Calif.-based editor of SupermarketGuru.com.

Private label vendors are already responding to the trend. The Official Program Guide of the Private Label Manufacturers Association’s 2016 Private Label Trade Show listed more than 110 exhibitors under the index heading “Gluten-free, Health & Dietetic Food.”

Indeed, a number of retailers, cooperatives and organizations such as the Independent Grocers Alliance have developed organic lines, which by definition are “pesticide free.”

But the grocery industry needs to be careful, Lempert warns.

“As a marketing effort, the free-from food movement is a powerful way to connect with consumers,” he says. “My fear is that from a retail standpoint as well as a branding standpoint, we get carried away.”

Take cage-free eggs, for example. A number of retailers have already introduced cage-free private brand eggs, while some supermarket chains have vowed to carry only cage-free eggs by 2020, Lempert notes.

“The problem is that cage-free eggs cost a lot more,” he says. “While the average cost of a dozen eggs is about $1.30 today, that cost will double by 2020” if the pledge to ban standard eggs from stores is carried out.

What’s more, consumers don’t understand the definition of “cage free,” according to Lempert. The term just means that the hens can “get up, flap their wings, turn around and lay their eggs on hay,” he says, noting that cage-free henhouses can still be very crowded.

Many consumers erroneously believe that “cage free” means “free range,” Lempert continues. “People think that cage-free hens are happy-go-lucky and running around on pasture, which would actually quadruple the cost of eggs,” he estimates.

To prevent the dire scenario of people not being able to afford staple food products, the food industry needs to do a much better job of explaining to consumers the potential impact of their demands du jour — rather than blindly giving consumers what they believe they want but don’t fully understand, Lempert maintains.

“What we don’t want to do is kill the golden goose,” he emphasizes.

Be that as it may, Lempert respects manufacturers and retailers that pay close attention to changing consumer preferences. For example, he applauds the efforts of Kellogg’s and General Mills to remove artificial food coloring from their cereals. Although studies have not shown a causal link between food dyes and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there is some evidence that certain artificial dyes can increase hyperactivity in susceptible children. This is a situation in which the potential gains outweigh the investment costs in Lempert’s opinion.

Assessing what ingredients and additives to eliminate from their private brand products and what new SKUs to roll out is a massive and complex undertaking for retailers.

“When it comes to a store brand, you’ve got so much skin in the game,” Lempert observes. “What you really want to do is make sure that not only does the consumer get a great price and great quality, but also you are building trust.

“Retailers need to be listening to consumers to make sure that their store brand products are as closely aligned as possible to what consumers desire. Otherwise, nobody is going to buy them.”