Perceptions of processed foods as unhealthy: Heuristic strength, prevalence, and potential implications for the protein shift

IF 7.2 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Elizabeth S. Collier , Kathryn L. Harris , Marcus Bendtsen , Hanieh Moshtaghian , Susanne Bryngelsson , Jun Niimi
{"title":"Perceptions of processed foods as unhealthy: Heuristic strength, prevalence, and potential implications for the protein shift","authors":"Elizabeth S. Collier ,&nbsp;Kathryn L. Harris ,&nbsp;Marcus Bendtsen ,&nbsp;Hanieh Moshtaghian ,&nbsp;Susanne Bryngelsson ,&nbsp;Jun Niimi","doi":"10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Plant-based analogues (PBAs) for meat and dairy are typically categorised as ultra-processed foods. However, current evidence that PBA consumption negatively impacts health is controversial. As such, these products may be inappropriately negatively coloured by the “processed foods are unhealthy” heuristic. We investigated the strength of this heuristic among Swedish consumers and explored its impact on perceived healthiness within different food categories (meat, dairy, seafood, vegetables/legumes, and PBAs). In an online experiment, participants (N=563) rated the healthiness and level of processing of 24 food products (presented as images), completed the food technology neophobia (FTN) scale, and reported consumption frequency of different foods. The results indicated that this heuristic, measured as Pearson's <em>r</em> between perceived healthiness and level of processing<em>,</em> was prevalent and robust (posterior mean = -0.58, probability of association&gt;99 %) as well as stronger among women and individuals with higher FTN. Moreover, the impact of the heuristic differed across food categories: healthiness ratings for vegetable/legume and seafood products perceived as processed were more negatively impacted compared to those for meat products (probability of association&gt;99 %). The potential implications of this for the protein shift and encouraging substituting red meat with products based on raw materials associated with health (i.e., plants and seafood) are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34474,"journal":{"name":"Future Foods","volume":"10 ","pages":"Article 100445"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001515/pdfft?md5=2eb422e0bf446542b5538cf237f718c8&pid=1-s2.0-S2666833524001515-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Foods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Plant-based analogues (PBAs) for meat and dairy are typically categorised as ultra-processed foods. However, current evidence that PBA consumption negatively impacts health is controversial. As such, these products may be inappropriately negatively coloured by the “processed foods are unhealthy” heuristic. We investigated the strength of this heuristic among Swedish consumers and explored its impact on perceived healthiness within different food categories (meat, dairy, seafood, vegetables/legumes, and PBAs). In an online experiment, participants (N=563) rated the healthiness and level of processing of 24 food products (presented as images), completed the food technology neophobia (FTN) scale, and reported consumption frequency of different foods. The results indicated that this heuristic, measured as Pearson's r between perceived healthiness and level of processing, was prevalent and robust (posterior mean = -0.58, probability of association>99 %) as well as stronger among women and individuals with higher FTN. Moreover, the impact of the heuristic differed across food categories: healthiness ratings for vegetable/legume and seafood products perceived as processed were more negatively impacted compared to those for meat products (probability of association>99 %). The potential implications of this for the protein shift and encouraging substituting red meat with products based on raw materials associated with health (i.e., plants and seafood) are discussed.

认为加工食品不健康:启发式的力量、普遍性以及对蛋白质转变的潜在影响
肉类和乳制品的植物类似物(PBA)通常被归类为超加工食品。然而,目前关于食用植物性类似物会对健康产生负面影响的证据还存在争议。因此,这些产品可能会被 "加工食品不健康 "的启发式观点不适当地负面化。我们在瑞典消费者中调查了这种启发式的强度,并探讨了它对不同食品类别(肉类、乳制品、海鲜、蔬菜/豆类和加工食品)的健康感知的影响。在一项在线实验中,参与者(563 人)对 24 种食品(以图片形式呈现)的健康度和加工程度进行了评分,填写了食品新技术恐惧症(FTN)量表,并报告了不同食品的消费频率。结果表明,这种启发式(以感知的健康程度和加工程度之间的皮尔森 r 值来衡量)在女性和 FTN 较高的人群中普遍存在,而且很稳健(后均值 = -0.58,关联概率>99 %)。此外,启发式对不同食品类别的影响也不尽相同:与肉类产品相比,蔬菜/豆类和海鲜产品被认为是经过加工的,其健康评分受到的负面影响更大(关联概率为 99%)。本文讨论了这对蛋白质转变的潜在影响,以及鼓励用与健康相关的原材料(即植物和海鲜)产品替代红肉的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Future Foods
Future Foods Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
97
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Foods is a specialized journal that is dedicated to tackling the challenges posed by climate change and the need for sustainability in the realm of food production. The journal recognizes the imperative to transform current food manufacturing and consumption practices to meet the dietary needs of a burgeoning global population while simultaneously curbing environmental degradation. The mission of Future Foods is to disseminate research that aligns with the goal of fostering the development of innovative technologies and alternative food sources to establish more sustainable food systems. The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed articles that contribute to the advancement of sustainable food practices. Abstracting and indexing: Scopus Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) SNIP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信