EIT Food calls for improved labels and education to address confusion over ultra-processed foods

14 Feb 2024 --- The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Food Consumer Observatory reveals that consumers are confused and uncertain about what classifies as ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and how it affects health in the short and long term. Meanwhile, 65% of European consumers believe UPFs are unhealthy and will cause health issues later in life.

The findings show that, although 56% of consumers report they try to avoid buying processed foods, they generally underestimate how much UPFs they consume, likely due to a gap in identifying these foods. Moreover, the organization cautions that consumers “lack the ability and motivation to avoid these foods.”

At the same time, even health-conscious consumers believe that, in moderation, “eating UPF is not a problem and that UPF can form part of a balanced diet.”

“The latest findings from the EIT Food Consumer Observatory demonstrate a clear knowledge gap in how consumers identify, understand and engage with how their food is produced,” says Klaus Grunert, professor at Aarhus University, Denmark, and director of the institution.

“Giving consumers clearer labeling, guidance and education could help them better understand and engage with this issue, but it’s also important to consider concerns over processed food in the wider context of people’s diets and well-being. It’s also crucial that we continue to bolster our understanding and agreement of how we classify, evaluate and label foods so that the latest science informs our advice to consumers.”

The report titled, “Consumer Perceptions Unwrapped: Ultra-processed Foods,” combines a survey of almost 10,000 consumers across 17 European countries with a qualitative follow-up study.

What is ultra-processed?
UPF’s definition is based on the NOVA classification scheme, grouping foods into different levels of processing where ultra-processing is characterized by “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology.”

The EIT Food Consumer Observatory report notes that even among experts, the definition of UPF is not entirely clear. For example, while many plant-based substitutes are relatively low in saturated fat, sugar or salt, contain protein and fiber and are fortified, NOVA faces criticism for putting these in the same category as chocolate bars.

To illustrate, a recent WHO-backed study linked ultra-processed plant-based alternatives to a lower risk of multimorbidity.

While consumers recognize energy drinks as ultra-processed (61% of respondents) and eggs as unprocessed (59%), the report highlights some confusion. For example, 39% of consumers correctly assessed cheese as moderately processed, while 16% believed it was a UPF and 9% said it was unprocessed.

UPFs are an invisible part of most consumers’ diets — only 16% claim they eat UPFs at least five times a week.Many consumers define UPF as “more processed” than other foods. The report also notes that processing is seen as “something that happens in factories,” altering food to make it tastier, more convenient and less healthy.

Given this confusion, the report suggests that UPFs are a largely invisible part of most consumers’ diets. Only 16% of survey respondents claim they eat UPFs five times a week or more, which the EIT Consumer Observatory expects is an underestimation.

Choosing ultra-processed
The report reveals that food processing is not top-of-mind for consumers regarding food choices, although consumers who make healthier food choices are much more likely to avoid UPFs (77%) than consumers who rarely choose healthy foods (23%).

While health-conscious consumers are concerned about UPFs’ nutritional values and ingredients, around a third believe UPFs can be healthy.

The main reasons for choosing UPFs are convenience, price and taste, while consumers see UPFs as a treat and “food that offers pleasure and comfort.”

Last year, a study found UPFs no more palatable than unprocessed foods, though experts questioned its methods and results as it was conducted online.

According to the report, most consumers “do not see themselves reducing the UPF they eat but hope to keep them in balance with eating less processed and home-made foods.”

Hindering plant-based growth
Concerns over UPF may also put consumers off choosing plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy products, suggests the report. Over half of consumers state they do not eat plant-based substitutes to avoid UPF, specifically among meat and dairy eaters.

Around a third of consumers see options such as vegetarian chicken pieces and vegan cheese slices as ultra-processed. Moreover, consumers are more likely to see these as ultra-processed than animal-based originals.

The report finds a knowledge gap in how consumers identify, understand and engage with how their food is produced.However, consumers who eat plant-based alternatives are less likely to believe these products are less healthy because they’re UPFs.

Most consumers see UPFs as bad for the environment (60%), and this is even higher among consumers who eat more sustainably (74%). Foods “straight from the ground” are seen as more sustainable, while UPFs require more resources, and processing is seen as polluting.

Closing the knowledge gap
The report provides recommendations for food authorities, manufacturers and retailers to close the knowledge gap on UPFs among consumers so they can make informed decisions.

The EIT Food Consumer Observatory highlights that health institutions and scientists must define UPFs more clearly and make substantiated statements on their long- and short-term healthiness. Moreover, these institutions need to improve communication and education on food processing.

At the level of government, the organization emphasizes the difference between whole foods — the main component of national food recommendations — and UPFs. The report adds: “National food recommendations need to clarify whether plant-based substitutes are UPF and whether this matters for their overall healthiness.”

It urges manufacturers to consider cleaner labels, especially for plant-based substitutes, as their perception of being a UPF hinders growth. Meanwhile, it suggests retailers refrain from promoting UPFs in discounts and bring attention to non-UPF packaged foods.

“Whether it’s a pre-packaged pasta sauce for a quick meal at home or a fast-food treat meal out with the family, UPFs are part of the day-to-day fabric of consumer diets across Europe,” comments Sofia Kuhn, director of public engagement at EIT Food. “However, it’s evident from these findings that people have real concerns about these foods’ health and sustainability aspects.”

She concludes: “As a sector, we need to create an environment that empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their diets and foster a dialogue that educates and inspires positive choices. That way, we can create a healthier and more sustainable food system for all.”

By Jolanda van Hal

This feature is provided by Food Ingredients First’s sister website, Nutrition Insight.

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com