Yes, a previously nonexistent TRAIT. No new genetic information. It's a loss of information. It's like this:
Suppose my neighbors car alarm goes off all the time and is extremely annoying to the whole neighborhood. Due to time and entropy, eventually the car alarm breaks to the relief of everyone. This is beneficial but is a loss to the car. It once had a fully functioning car alarm and now it doesn't. But it is a great benefit.
That is basically what happened to Lenski's E.coli. Genetic mutations wrecked the regulation of a control operation so that when the bacteria produces citrate transporter regardless of whether it is in an oxidative state environment or not. In other words this is used to be able to be switched on and off but the mutation caused it to be stuck permanently in the "on" position. Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene that normally takes up tartrate 3 which does not normally transport citrate mutated so it lost its specificity to discern and now erroneously transport citrate in the cell as well. This is a LOSS of specificity and a loss of information.
Loss mean you no longer have something or having less of something. Loss is bad. Get it?
This means that you have excellent evidence that evolution never happened because in order to have macroevolution or vertical evolution or speciation or whatever you want to call the microbes-to-man type of evolution or Last Universal Common Ancestor type of evolution (I think you got it by now), you HAVE TO HAVE MUTATIONS THAT CREATE NEW INFORMATION AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT. Let Lenski go on for 100,000 generations, 100 billion generations, and you still won't have any.
Defining all change as a loss is philosophy, not science. There is no standard, perfect human (or horse or snake or any living thing) to measure against the changes that happen to every generation. The only guarantee is that each following generation will be ever so slightly changed.