In his latest blog, Richard Lomax explores the growing conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) — what consumers really understand, how perceptions are evolving, and what this means for brands, retailers, and insight teams.
Joe Wicks might be better known for burpees than food politics, but his recent Channel 4 documentary Licensed to Kill has pushed ultra-processed foods (UPFs) further into the mainstream.
The premise?
That even a seemingly “healthy” product, like a high-protein snack bar, can be made using 96 legal but highly engineered ingredients.
It’s a compelling watch that taps into growing public awareness of UPFs, shaped in part by co-host Dr Chris van Tulleken and his wider work on the subject.
But, it also raised some pressing questions for brands and retailers. What do consumers actually think about UPFs? How are perceptions evolving? And most importantly, is there a say-do gap between perceptions and behaviour?
A growing spotlight, but blurred definitions
As visibility grows, so does confusion. “Ultra-processed” is increasingly being used in public discourse but it likely lacks a clear, consistent definition from a consumer point of view. Products from a broad range of categories from sliced bread to protein bars, plant-based chicken to meat snacks are often discussed under this same broad label.
In the absence of clarity it’s easy to imagine people falling back on instinct. Visual cues, perceived naturalness and recognisable ingredients may carry more weight than technical detail or nutritional nuance.
Why it matters for brands and retailers
Brands in categories like functional food, snacking, ready meals and plant-based alternatives are particularly exposed. Many have built positioning around performance, convenience or specific health benefits, all of which could now be undermined if perceptions shift on UPFs amongst the general population.
Even brands that don’t consider themselves “ultra-processed” may find themselves pulled into the debate, simply by association with certain claims or formats.
Where market research plays a role
It’s clear that this space is opening up new questions for brands and insights teams alike. Some of the areas we’re watching and where we think research and insight can offer clarity include:
- How do consumers define UPFs, and where do the boundaries lie? This could be explored through qualitative research with different segments to unpack language and attitudes to the idea of processed ingredients. Paired with semiotics, it can help identify where brand cues align with those expectations!
- What claims and cues build trust, and what triggers concern? Claim testing and even broader pack evaluation can reveal how consumers respond to specific phrases, ingredients and formats. Implicit techniques could help surface gut reactions as well as considered opinions.
- How do people balance health goals with taste, price and convenience? A conjoint study can map out how much weight consumers give to these factors and how it varies by category or demographic.
- Where are the biggest say-do gaps between attitudes and behaviour? Health is aspirational, and people are compelled to give the socially desirable answer. Ethnography or in the moment-diaries can help uncover where values and actions diverge and what this means for messaging and formats for different occasions.
Final thoughts on Ultra-Processed Foods
These aren’t straightforward questions, and let’s face it, this isn’t a straightforward topic area. But the signs are there that shoppers are becoming more informed about what might be in their food – making the emotions around what we eat even more complex. Brands that stay close to these shifting perceptions will be better placed to maintain trust and relevance.
If you’d like to explore how consumer insight can help your brand navigate the UPF debate, get in touch.