Oral Presentation 49th Nutrition Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2025

Public knowledge of ultra-processed foods in Australia (129966)

Priscila Machado 1 2 , Emily Denniss 1 3 , Georgie Russell 1 2 , Neha Khandpur 4 5 6 , Jennifer Lacy-Nichols 7 , Cherie Russell 8 , Kamila Gabe 5 , Sarah A. McNaughton 2 9
  1. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
  2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
  3. School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
  4. Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
  5. Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  6. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States
  7. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  8. Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
  9. Health and Well-Being Centre for Research Innovation, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

Evidence on the negative impacts of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to health, environmental sustainability, and society more broadly is accumulating(1,2), yet the consumption of these foods continues to grow(3). Despite increased use of the UPF term, evidence on the public knowledge of UPFs remains limited. This study aimed to explore public knowledge of UPFs and their attributes in Australia. A national cross-sectional survey of 1,086 Australian adults aged 20-64 years was conducted between June-July 2024 using a purpose designed questionnaire previously piloted with the target group. Sociodemographic characteristics were collected (e.g., age, gender, education and postcode - used to identify States/territories, rurality, and Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas). UPF knowledge was measured using multiple methods derived from open-ended questions, free-listing tasks, functional knowledge measures (e.g., UPF identification among 20 images of products; Food Processing Knowledge (FoodProK) Score), and triadic sorting techniques (to identify attributes associated with UPFs). Prior awareness about UPFs was collected. Descriptive analyses summarised participant characteristics and correct UPF identification. Associations between the number of items correctly identified as UPFs, and FoodProK scores, with socio-demographic characteristics were examined using linear regression models. Responses to “What comes to your mind when you think of the term 'ultra-processed foods'?” were content analysed, and attributes reported through the triad sorting techniques were thematically analysed. Sixty-four percent of participants reported prior awareness of UPFs. “Ingredients,” “processed,” “fast,” and “unhealthy” were identified as the most to least dominant themes in content analysis. Most participants were able to appropriately describe key characteristics of UPFs related to the extent of processing and the presence industrial ingredients (e.g., flavours, colours). Commonly recognised UPFs included fast food, soft drinks, confectionery, and processed meats. Non-UPFs were correctly identified by most participants (85%), and 45% were able to correctly identify UPFs. A significantly lower number of correctly identified foods was observed for men (β = -0.79; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -1.08, -0.50), those of lower education (β = -0.41; 95%CI: -0.81, -0.02), and without prior awareness about UPFs (β = -0.99; 95%CI: -1.28, -0.70). FoodProK scores (lower score indicating a lower food processing knowledge) were significantly lower for men (β = -4.18; 95%CI: -5.22, -3.13) and those without prior awareness about UPFs (β = -2.24; 95%CI: -3.30, -1.17); and higher in people aged 40-49 vs. 20-29 years (β = 2.32; 95%CI: 0.84, 3.80). Presence of artificial ingredients, low nutritional quality, convenience, and affordability were common attributes associated with UPFs. In this national survey, most Australian adults were aware of the UPF term and its key characteristics, though knowledge varied and some UPFs were frequently misclassified. The questionnaire has not been validated and further research to confirm the findings is needed. These findings can inform strategies to increase UPF knowledge in Australia.

  1. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, et al (2018) Public Health Nutr 21(1):5-17.
  2. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S et al (2024) BMJ 384:e077310.
  3. Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, et al (2020) Obes Rev 21(12):e13126