News

Most US consumers still confused about ultra-processed food

Despite growing consumer awareness – and concern – about ultra-processed foods (UPFs), a significant gap persists between knowledge and perceptions of the category. Recent research shows that many US consumers cannot correctly identify UPF products and vastly underestimate their consumption of these foods.

Discrepancies in self-reported consumption

A recent survey by Innova Markets, presented at the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) First in Chicago last month, reveals that nearly 30% of US consumers believe they consume UPFs less than once a week or never, while over half of consumers say they eat UPFs between one and six times a week. However, studies looking at actual UPF intake show that these foods constitute about 58% of the average US diet, which implies a stark discrepancy between perceived and actual intake.

When Innova asked consumers about the kinds of food they considered ultra-processed, the picture that emerged was closer to the traditional notion of ‘junk food’ than the classification of UPFs, as used in scientific literature. Under the NOVA system – created in 2010 when Brazilian researchers classified food and beverages according to their degree of processing – UPFs, considered as ‘category 4’ on the scale, comprise snacks, drinks, ready meals, and other product types largely or entirely formulated by substances extracted from or derived from food constituents.

What even is a hot dog?

There is some overlap between the popular and scientific interpretation of the term; when prompted to suggest types of UPFs, consumers mentioned foods that contain a lot of additives and synthetic artificial ingredients, which do fall under category 4 of the NOVA system. Consumers also pointed to any foods high in sugar, fat, salt, and calories. Examples of frequently cited UPFs included ready meals, cakes, pastries, sweet goods, and sugar confectionery. Fish and seafood and meat and poultry products were not often mentioned – even though many products in those categories on supermarket shelves do fall under the UPF category.

A recent consumer trends survey by Coefficient Capital also sheds light on the public's understanding and misunderstandings about food processing. The survey asked a panel of 2,360 US consumers to classify six products as either processed, unprocessed, or ultra-processed. Results show that consumers often do recognise unprocessed food for what it is but have a hard time distinguishing UPF from processed food. For example, 88% of respondents correctly identified fresh apples as unprocessed, and 77% accurately categorised raw chicken as unprocessed. However, misconceptions were evident with products like baby carrots— where 75% of respondents incorrectly considered them unprocessed, despite the shaping and treatments they undergo, classifying them as processed.

When asked about UPF products, hot dogs were correctly identified by a small majority (52%) as ultra-processed, but 43% misclassified them as merely processed, and 5% thought they were unprocessed. The misperceptions were especially glaring when it came to beverages. Energy drinks and protein shakes were very frequently misidentified. Despite both being ultra-processed, only 40% correctly identified energy drinks as such. And a large majority (63%) mistakenly thought protein shakes were merely processed, while only 16% were aware that these shakes are UPFs – less than 21% of respondents considered them to be entirely unprocessed.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the scientific definition of UPF remains open to discussion and debate. As recently covered on Ingredients Network, this has also complicated the ability of policymakers to implement UPF regulation.

Decision-making at the shelf

Innova’s research shows that most consumers consider the ingredient list first, followed by nutrition information, and finally the product’s appearance to judge whether a food is ultra-processed. When shopping, one in five US consumers actively tries to limit artificial ingredients, associating them with high UPF content. Commonly avoided ingredients include artificial flavours, sweeteners, preservatives, colours, and stabilisers. Health risks are a major concern, with nearly 50% believing that UPFs are detrimental to health, driven by fears of poor nutritional quality and artificial additives.

Innova's research further indicates that many consumers are interested in stricter regulation. More than half (52%) of Baby Boomers and about a third (34%) of Gen Z agree that UPFs have insufficient regulations. Additionally, over 50% of Gen Z and Millennials, and over 60% of Gen X and Baby Boomers, believe a scoring system for classifying UPFs would be useful.

Opportunities for innovation and reformulation

Consumer concerns about UPFs offer opportunities for innovation. Balancing taste and affordability with fresh, natural ingredients can enhance product appeal. For instance, vegetable kebabs emphasising their wholesome content can help build trust. Reformulating products to reduce or eliminate artificial ingredients is also crucial.

Transparent communication about ingredient quality and processing methods is essential. Lu Ann Williams, global insights director at Innova Market Insights, explains: "More than half of consumers only want to consume products where they understand the ingredients list. Reducing or eliminating artificial ingredients can help address concerns about ultra-processed foods."