Are food labels failing Australians? Ultra-processed foods spark confusion

By Priyanjana Pramanik, MSc.Reviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Jul 8 2025

New research uncovers widespread confusion about ultra-processed foods among Australians, revealing that clear labelling and better education are essential for helping shoppers navigate the modern food landscape.

Study: Concerned but confused: Australian consumers’ awareness, understanding, and recognition of ultra-processed foods. Image Credit: voronaman / Shutterstock

In a recent article published in the journal Appetite, researchers investigated the perceptions and recognition ability of Australian adults regarding ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

Many participants expressed concern about UPFs and supported clearer labelling policies, but also showed confusion about what UPFs are, highlighting the need for public education to support labelling strategies.

Background

UPFs are increasingly associated with poor health outcomes and now account for a large portion of energy intake in many high-income countries, including 56% in Australia.

These foods are industrially produced using processes and ingredients not typically used in home cooking, such as additives and artificial flavourings, making them hyper-palatable and convenient. They are often high in refined starches, salt, and sugar, but research suggests that their health risks extend beyond their nutrient content alone.

Disruption of the food matrix and adverse effects of additives on gut health are among the proposed mechanisms.

Despite a growing global consensus, as evidenced by recent guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO), urging a reduction in the consumption of UPFs, strategies to achieve this goal are still emerging.

One promising approach is front-of-pack labelling (FoPL), which has shown moderate success in guiding healthier consumer choices. However, current labels, such as Australia’s Health Star Rating (HSR) system, are based on nutrient profiles and may conflict with processing-based frameworks, like the Nova classification.

As a result, consumers may receive mixed messages; for example, a product could have a high health star rating despite being ultra-processed. Compounding this issue is the lack of Australian research on how consumers perceive UPFs, which is essential for designing effective and comprehensible labelling strategies that reflect both nutritional and processing concerns.

About the Study

This qualitative study employed an exploratory design to understand how Australian adults perceive and interpret UPFs and their views on FoPL in relation to processing. Across five Australian states, 112 adults participated in 12 online focus groups in 2024.

Participants were recruited by a professional agency using demographic quotas to ensure equal representation across gender and age groups. About 78% lived in metropolitan regions. Eligibility required participants to shop for food at least twice a month.

Each focus group was moderated by an experienced researcher using a semi-structured interview guide. Discussions began with general food selection habits, then explored perceptions of terms like "processed" and "ultra-processed."

Participants were shown images of food products with similar HSR but different Nova classifications to assess recognition of UPFs. Data were analysed inductively by a single coder, before codes and themes emerged through repeated reading and comparative analysis within and across groups.

The moderator reviewed the coding framework to ensure validity. The analysis was supported by matrix searches to explore trends by demographic group. It is essential to note that the recognition findings were based on only two food categories (bread and milk), which may limit generalizability to other products.

Key Findings

Two main themes emerged: concern and confusion about UPFs, and support for labeling UPFs with concerns about the practicality. Participants expressed concerns about health issues related to food additives, unfamiliar ingredients, and preservatives, often using ingredient lists to inform their food choices. However, many people misunderstood or conflated the terms "processed" and "ultra-processed," with most having never heard of the term "ultra-processed" before.

The few familiar with the term had typically encountered it through media or books. Recognition of UPFs based on packaging was limited, and judgments were often based on perceived naturalness and visual packaging cues rather than actual processing level.

For example, in the stimuli task, nearly all participants incorrectly identified a supermarket-brand white bread made in-store (processed) as ultra-processed, rather than an industrially produced packaged bread (also ultra-processed), because the latter had packaging that appeared more 'artisan' and natural. However, most correctly identified oat milk (ultra-processed) as more processed than dairy milk (minimally processed).

Participants generally supported including information on UPFs in food labelling, but were unsure how best to present it. Many suggested clearer, simpler ingredient lists or labels showing the number of ingredients or production steps. However, they emphasized that education was needed to help consumers distinguish between processed and ultra-processed foods.

There was also concern about conflicting signals from existing health ratings, such as the HSR. Some participants expressed strong distrust in the HSR’s credibility when foods with very different processing levels had the same rating, with several proposing to integrate UPF classification directly into the HSR algorithm.

Others feared a UPF label might unfairly stigmatize foods like oat milk. Many proposed integrating information about UPFs into current systems to avoid confusion and make the labels more meaningful and practical for informed decision-making.

Conclusions

This study highlights the confusion Australian consumers have about UPFs, despite growing concerns about their health impacts. While participants supported the idea of FoPL to identify UPFs, unfamiliarity with the term and difficulty distinguishing UPFs from other processed foods could limit the effectiveness of such strategies.

Public education campaigns were deemed necessary to enhance consumer understanding. Some participants suggested using familiar ingredient names or integrating UPF classification into Australia’s existing HSR system to avoid conflicting messages. However, concerns were raised about oversimplifying complex products and misrepresenting the fact that not all UPFs have the same health impact. This includes the potential value of some fortified foods or plant-based alternatives, such as oat milk, in specific dietary contexts, as well as the recognition that UPFs exist on a spectrum of health impacts.

The study’s strength lies in being the first of its kind in Australia; however, its qualitative and exploratory nature, as well as the limited food categories in the stimuli testing, limit its generalisability.

Future research should test specific labelling formats and their influence on consumer choices. Ultimately, FoPLs should be part of a broader policy framework addressing affordability, access, and marketing of UPFs.