In the research report published by EIT Food (European Institute of Innovation and Technology), the data was gathered from the Citizen Engagement Forum, an online community with approximately 300 members from 17 European countries. A total of 89 knowledgeable members, who were interested in discussing food-related topics, participated in the study. The aim of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of consumer awareness and perceptions of ultra-processed foods (UPF), including how healthy and sustainable they are perceived, under what conditions they are consumed, whether consumers are satisfied with their consumption levels, and whether they wish to reduce their intake.
The definition of UPF (Ultra-Processed Foods)
According to the NOVA classification, the UPF category is defined as "a range of industrial processes that require complex equipment and technology, resulting in content formulations primarily intended for industrial use." UPF includes what many people refer to as junk food: packaged snacks, soda, energy drinks... However, UPF can also include other less obvious packaged foods: ready-made sauces, pre-prepared meals, salad dressings, and more. Many plant-based substitutes for animal products (e.g., vegan cheese) are also classified as UPF according to the NOVA system.
However, NOVA has been criticized because its classification of products is based on the level of processing rather than their healthiness. While the term UPF is commonly used today, there are disagreements regarding which products should be classified as UPF and whether a product's processing level is necessarily associated with being "unhealthy." NOVA considers products that are relatively low in saturated fats, sugar, or salt, and that contain protein, fiber, or are fortified, as potentially being part of a healthier category despite their level of processing. It has been criticized for placing plant-based substitutes in the same food category as chocolate bars, despite their differences. This approach has led to concerns that the classification system may not accurately reflect the nutritional quality or health impact of these products, as the level of processing alone does not necessarily determine whether a food is healthy or not. In other words, the definition of UPF is not exactly clear even among experts.
Plant-Based Alternatives and UPF
Plant-based alternatives are often perceived as UPF by those who do not consume them:
About one-third of consumers believe that plant-based alternatives are UPFs.
Plant-based alternatives (such as vegetarian chicken pieces and vegan cheese slices) are seen as UPFs by approximately one-third of European consumers (36% and 34%, respectively). Additionally, the likelihood of these products being perceived as UPFs is higher compared to their animal-based originals.
Vegans are less likely to consider vegetarian chicken pieces as UPFs (28%) compared to vegetarians (39%) and omnivores (36%). However, vegan cheese is seen as UPF by more vegans (30%).
Half of Europeans avoid plant-based alternatives because they consider them to be UPFs.
However, consumers who eat plant-based alternatives are less likely to believe that the fact they are UPFs means they are less healthy.
Compared to consumers who do not follow a plant-based diet (ranging from 53% to 61%), vegans and vegetarians are less likely to avoid plant-based meats because they are considered UPFs (40% and 43%, respectively).
Familiarity with and trust in plant-based alternatives are associated with consumers' skepticism about the idea that UPFs are necessarily unhealthy.
The environmental impact of plant-based meat is not convincing for most people.
Only a quarter of European consumers (27%) are motivated to eat plant-based meat alternatives due to their lower environmental impact.
Vegans and vegetarians (both 60%) are more likely to say they enjoy eating plant-based meat alternatives because they are better for the environment, compared to meat eaters (23%).
Consumers who eat plant-based meat and other plant-based alternatives are generally positive about their environmental impact. For these consumers, the environment serves as a motivation to eat these products.
Knowledge about traditional alternatives influences perception.
Consumers who are more familiar with traditional plant-based alternatives, such as tempeh and tofu, are less likely to classify them as UPFs. However, consumers who are less familiar with these products are more likely to categorize them as UPFs, similar to plant-based meats.
Key Takeaways from the Research
• Overall, the desire and ability to reduce ultra-processed foods is limited. Most consumers do not believe they are reducing the UPFs they eat, but they hope to balance them by consuming less processed and homemade foods. While health-conscious consumers may have already reduced their intake, those with fewer resources (less time, less money) are unlikely to prioritize the level of processing when making food choices. While the long-term health effects of UPFs are considered by consumers, short-term needs for taste and convenience take precedence.
• Consumers are concerned about the long-term health risks of ultra-processed foods. However, they lack the ability and motivation to avoid these foods. The term "ultra-processed" is not yet widely known, and many consumers struggle to differentiate between different levels of processing. The likely reason for this is that the level of processing of a food is not a top priority when making food choices.
• Health-conscious consumers are concerned about the nutritional value of UPFs and the "chemicals" they contain. However, even health-conscious individuals believe that eating UPFs in moderation is not a problem and that UPFs can be part of a balanced diet.
• The main motivations for eating UPFs are convenience, price, and taste. Convenience comes from the ease of preparation (or lack of preparation) and the time saved. UPF prices are generally seen as lower compared to less processed foods. Finally, many consumers find UPFs, such as fast food snacks (hamburgers, pizza, etc.), more delicious than homemade meals. UPFs are also seen as a treat, offering pleasure and convenience, particularly when it comes to snack foods like cookies, chocolates, and chips.
• Consumers often underestimate how much UPF they consume, which is likely linked to a lack of confidence in the definition of UPF. While it is easy to recognize "junk food," other UPFs, such as sugary yogurts or breads containing preservatives and emulsifiers, are not as commonly identified.
SOURCE: EIT Food Consumer Perception of UPF Report
English 
Türkçe