Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123509›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Consumer Awareness, Perceptions and Avoidance of Ultra-Processed Foods: A Study of UK Adults in 2024.

Eric Robinson, Jenna R Cummings, Thomas Gough, Andrew Jones, Rebecca Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Ultra-Processed Foods and Dietetic Practice: Findings From a Survey and Focus Group With UK Dietitians.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eric RobinsonInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool 69 7ZA, UK.
Jenna R CummingsInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool 69 7ZA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8124-2666
Thomas GoughInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool 69 7ZA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0093-9723
Andrew JonesSchool of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 5AH, UK.
Rebecca EvansInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool 69 7ZA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8894-5938

Funding

European Research Council 803194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltra-processed food (UPF) is currently not included in most countries' dietary guidance. However, there may be growing public interest and consumer avoidance of UPF due to media reporting of studies on the negative health outcomes associated with UPFs.

methodsWe surveyed 2386 UK adults (M age = 45 years, 50% female) during February-April 2024. Participants completed measures on awareness of the term UPF, whether the UPF status of foods affects their dietary decision-making, and confidence in identifying UPFs. Participants categorised a list of 10 foods (5 UPFs and 5 non-UPFs) as UPF vs. not, before rating whether information about studies linking UPF to worse health impacts on their negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs.

resultsMost participants (73%) were aware of the term UPF and 58% reported that their food choices are determined by whether they believe a food is ultra-processed or not. Participants with the highest income and education levels were most likely to report both being aware of, and, avoiding consuming UPFs. Most participants could not accurately categorise whether foods were UPFs. Some sociodemographic groups (e.g., higher education levels) were more likely to accurately categorise UPFs but were also more likely to incorrectly believe that non-UPFs were UPFs. Participants tended to report that UPF-health risk information increases negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs.

conclusionsIn this study, a large number of UK adults reported avoiding consuming UPFs. This was particularly pronounced among those with the highest education and income levels.

Indexed as

attitudesconsumersperceptionsultra-processed foodUPF

Identifiers

PMID39123509
PMCPMC11311829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.