How can we understand people's perceptions of ultra-processed foods?

advertisement

What does the term “ultra-processed foods” mean to you? Is it a long list of ingredients, a guilty pleasure, or just junk food?

How food is classified has a huge impact on consumer decision-making and, by extension, the food industry as a whole.

In recent years, food processing has become a subject of active debate throughout the food and health industries. But where do consumers fit into the discussion?

The Consumer Observatory, supported by EIT Food, conducted a survey of around 10,000 consumers in 17 European countries to find out whether consumers care about the level of processing and to what extent it affects them. We pulled back the curtain and gathered consumer insights on the ultra-processed food debate to find out. their consumption habits.

Consumer watchdog discovered The majority of consumers actually care Although we know a lot about ultra-processed foods and believe that these foods are harmful to our health and the environment, many people do not feel they know enough about the issue to make changes to their lifestyle. I am.

What did the research reveal?

conflicting concerns

Two-thirds of European consumers believe that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy and are likely to cause health problems in the future.

These health issues that consumers associate with ultra-processed foods (UPFs) include obesity, diabetes, and other lifestyle-related issues.

So, did these concerns lead consumers to oppose ultra-processed foods en masse? The answer is no.

Despite these growing concerns, only 56% of consumers try to avoid purchasing products.

So why do consumers still want to eat foods that contain ingredients they don't understand and whose health effects are unknown?

The three drivers of UPF consumption found in this study were convenience, price, and taste.

Ultra-processed foods require little or no preparation. They are filled with ingredients designed to be delicious and are recognized as a cheaper alternative to minimally processed foods.

This trend was particularly evident among consumers with fewer means (time and money) and more restricted food decision-making. This means that the level of processing is not a priority when choosing food to buy at the store.

get into chaos

The survey also revealed that consumers find the UPF discussion confusing. For example, 6 in 10 (61%) consumers identify energy drinks as ultra-processed, while only 34% each consider vegan cheese and chocolate bars to be ultra-processed. and only 22%.

This is likely due to a lack of sector-wide consensus when classifying foods based on their level of processing.

This has led to a saturation of information provided to consumers, some of which is useful, some of which is contradictory or simply incorrect.

It is also unclear how the level of processing affects the health and nutritional value of foods, and consumers who have been led to believe that 0% fat fruit yoghurts are healthy desserts or snacks are now unable to accept them. is said to be a super-processed product. .

advertisement

The study found that consumers lack the right to make healthy choices due to a lack of clear guidance.

When classifying foods based on their level of processing, controversy arises over plant-based alternatives.

For example, in the NOVA system, plant-based alternatives fall into the category of ultra-processed products. However, plant-based alternatives are positioned as healthier for humans and the planet compared to meat.

This has led to a lack of consumer trust, with research finding that more than half of European consumers do not eat plant-based alternatives due to fear of processing. This has huge implications for plant-based industries and the green transition.

How does this study fit into the broader discussion?

advertisement

Consensus, clarity and accountability

Currently, food scientists, manufacturers, and authorities have no consensus on what constitutes ultra-processed foods and their health effects.

Agreeing on a definition is the first step to closing these knowledge gaps. Introducing a universal classification system would eliminate the need for speculation and misinformation and help consumers understand his UPF arguments more clearly.

The agreement allows further steps to be taken regarding health guidance, labeling and regulation.

The industry is losing out to the consumer when it comes to communication. Consumers are being provided with conflicting information, preventing them from making informed and sound decisions.

Rather, the food industry needs to be proactive across the board, recognizing that consumer perceptions of UPF may be holding back growth.

advertisement

Labeling is one of the most effective ways of communicating from producers to consumers. Manufacturers may consider other ways to inform consumers about the advantages and disadvantages of different types of food processing.

Retailers also have a role to play in gaining consumer trust and communicating a clearer message about the UPF debate.

This may be done by promoting minimally processed products on discount sales or marking them as less processed on the shelf, but there are many ways in which different forms of food processing and their health and sustainability can be achieved. It is also done by providing information on the effects on sexuality.

Is there a way to strike a balance?

40% of European consumers do not trust their governments to do enough to regulate ultra-processed foods and ensure they are safe for consumption.

It is clear that the government has a role to play in clarifying the debate. This clarity is achieved through education on the basic principles of food processing, allowing consumers to feel empowered when faced with conflicting information.

advertisement

National food advisories should also clarify whether plant-based alternatives are ultra-processed foods and whether they are important to overall health. This approach needs to be consistent and agreed upon to convey a clear message.

So, is UPF bad for you? It is clear that increased exposure to some types of her UPF can lead to a variety of health problems. However, the role of processing compared to the role of the ingredients contained in these products is still unclear to both consumers and scientists alike.

Scientists and medical institutions need to participate in this discussion. Healthcare organizations must provide conclusive, evidence-supported statements about the long-term health effects and short-term nutritional effects of UPF.

Provide consumers with information about how UPF can be incorporated into a balanced diet and whether processing levels correlate with health.

Consumers are at the heart of our food systems and gaining insights from them on these important topics and debates is a key element for the transformation of food systems in Europe and the world.

advertisement

Ultimately, all available information must be summarized so that consumers have the information they need and can make healthy, informed choices.

Klaus Grunnert is a professor at Aarhus University in Denmark and director of the EIT Food and Consumer Observatory.

At Euronews we believe every opinion matters.Contact information [email protected] Submit suggestions and submissions, and join the conversation.