Are Food Labels Letting Australians Down? Unpacking the Confusion Around Ultra-Processed Foods

New research highlights confusion about ultra-processed foods (UPFs) among Australians. Clearer labels and better education may help shoppers navigate the food landscape.

A study published in the journal Appetite examined how Australian adults understand and recognize UPFs.

Many participants were worried about UPFs and wanted clearer labelling. However, they often didn’t know what UPFs were, pointing to a need for proper education about these foods.

UPFs are linked to poor health and make up about 56% of energy intake in Australia. These foods are made with ingredients and processing methods not typically found in home cooking. They’re often loaded with sugar, salt, and additives that can disrupt gut health.

Despite guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) to reduce UPF consumption, effective strategies are still being explored. One promising method is front-of-pack labelling (FoPL). This approach has shown some success in guiding healthier choices. However, current labels, like Australia’s Health Star Rating system, can send mixed messages. A product might have a high health rating but still be ultra-processed.

In this qualitative study, researchers held focus groups with 112 Australian adults across five states. Participants discussed their food choices, perceptions of “processed” and “ultra-processed,” and the effectiveness of current labelling systems.

Key findings showed two main themes: concern about health issues related to additives and confusion about what constitutes UPFs. Many participants didn’t recognize the term “ultra-processed.” Misunderstanding often led them to judge products based on how “natural” the packaging looked rather than their actual processing. For instance, they mistook supermarket-brand white bread for being more “real” than industrially produced bread just because of its packaging.

Participants supported UPF labelling but weren’t sure how to implement it. They suggested simpler ingredient lists or labels indicating the number of ingredients, along with educational campaigns to clarify the differences between processed and ultra-processed foods.

Some participants also expressed distrust towards the Health Star Rating system, especially when it rated very different products similarly. There were concerns that labelling UPFs might unfairly stigmatize certain foods, like oat milk, which could be beneficial in a balanced diet.

This study reveals significant confusion among Australian consumers about UPFs, despite their increasing health concerns. While there’s a desire for clearer labelling, the current unfamiliarity with the term and difficulties distinguishing between different types of processed foods might limit effectiveness.

There’s a need for public education to raise awareness and understanding of these foods. Results from this study can serve as a foundation for future research. Further investigations should examine how specific labelling formats affect consumer choices and how these labels can fit within broader policies that ensure access to healthy food options.

For more information on the study, check out the detailed findings in the journal Appetite.

Source link

Food, Ultra-Processed Foods, Bread, Education, Research