DESPITE advantages of convenience, value, safety and maintaining freshness, the category of "processed foods" has, in the minds of consumers and the media, become the poster child for everything "unhealthy," a study conducted for The International Food Information Council has indicated.
At the Worldwide Food Expo in Chicago, Tom Nagle of Statler Nagle explained that in an environment increasingly attuned to "healthy eating" messages, the implications for processed foods seem to be only going in one direction, and essentially, that is a negative perception across the entire population.
Still, Nagle said opportunities for the industry exist, particularly among those who hold soft views toward processed food.
That sector, he noted, represents nearly one-third of the population, or more than 35 million households.
Taking the greatest toll on the processed food industry is the fact that it has been pulled into the obesity discussion and essentially directly associated with such terms as "fattening" or "nutrient void".
By far, obesity has been the primary driver of the national food and nutrition discussion - and for good reason, Nagle said.
Recent statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of adults and one-third of children in America are obese or at risk of becoming obese.
Adding to the obesity dilemma are issues related to the organic movement and concerns about bioengineering.
"The negative consequences of these forces outweigh the smattering of positive issues that influence perceptions of and actions toward the processed foods industry," said Nagle, and the result is that consumers have been left with a negative perception of processed foods.
Americans, in general, are feeling the "need" to make dietary changes, with weight being a strong factor influencing this decision, he said.
Indications are that 67 per cent of adults are making an effort to improve the healthfulness of their diet, he said, and for 71pc, that change involves reducing the consumption of foods and beverages containing high levels of sugars and high-fructose corn syrup, while for 35pc, it involves consuming more whole grains and fibre.
Another challenge for the processed food industry is how it is perceived among legislators, which is that processed foods may not be free of undisclosed genetically modified ingredients and may not be free of man-made chemical residues and ingredients such as pesticides, herbicides, food and color additives, trans fats, fat and sugar substitutes.
Processed foods also are not considered "natural" or "fresh" by legislators and those influencing policy, Nagle said.
In regard to the media's perception, a review of coverage from July 2007 through July 2008 produced a total of 2551 articles that referenced processed food.
A more specific look at nearly 400 of those articles that mentioned the term at least twice showed that the motivations for the coverage were, in order, obesity and health concerns, risk to children, regulatory and advocacy activities, new studies, economic issues, environmental impact, ethical debates and authors promoting books such as In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan and The End of Food by Paul Roberts.
The majority of the media coverage was found to position processed food unfavorably, with varying degrees of drawbacks, including a relation to nutrient void, being unhealthy, having chemicals and being high in sodium.
That positioning was then translated in the articles to processed foods being dangerous, toxic, bad for the planet and morally wrong.
For consumers, safety and contamination were identified as the top concerns when it comes to all foods, followed by concerns about ingredients and obesity contributors.
Nutritional value and a food's impact on the environment were actually at the lower end of consumer concerns.
Concerns consumers most associated directly with only processed foods were sodium content, artificial flavours or colours, chemicals with long names, and contributing to obesity.
Safety was not a big concern, nor was harm to the environment.
Those consumers who felt most unfavorably toward processed foods were most likely to be married, have children living at home, have achieved a higher educational status, female, Caucasian and have a higher household income, said Nagle.
Taking a specific look at dietary changes consumers say they have made in the past six months and those they plan to make in the next six months, it was found that consumers were most inclined to indicate a desire to consume less junk food, fast food and processed foods (Figure).
No specific category of processed food was or is projected to be deselected by consumers at the same pace as "processed foods" overall, Nagle said.
Even so, he pointed out that virtually all specific processed foods fall more or less heavily on the side of being deselected.
Consumers indicated that their reasons for making dietary changes were aimed at staying healthier or for achieving better health.
Essentially, today's consumers have the impression that they can improve their health with the removal of processed foods from their diet, Nagle explained.
The good news, however, is that a shift in perception is possible if the processed foods industry stops talking about "ingredients", starts using the "right words" and then fixes the messaging associated with its products, Nagle said.
One strong anchor issue the industry must untie itself from is obesity, he said.
Aligning with anti-obesity groups is essential, said Nagle.
Regarding specific word choices, research has shown that consumers make the following positive associations with processed foods: convenience, taste, value, safety, shelf life and consistency.
The industry needs to build on these words and then bring in soft associations with such terms as "nutrition" and "health", Nagle said.
The processed food industry can change the perception of its products, and those efforts can produce results and reassure consumers. Without question, Nagle said "no response would be the wrong response".
Email a friend