Wikipedia

Search results

Showing posts with label labelling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labelling. Show all posts

Tuesday, 5 August 2025

When Food Was Simple: Can We Convince Big Brands to Return to Their Roots?

Why did I write this blogpost? Years ago there was a delicious propriety make of fruit cake which was delicious. It didn't taste home baked but it was pretty close. 

The last time I tried this cake it was oily and had a rather unpleasant and somewhat fake taste, for want of a better word. Which set me to thinking about what had changed over the past 30 years.

There was a time, not too long ago, when even the biggest food companies created their products with the same simple ingredients we used at home. 

Bread was made with flour, water, salt, and yeast. Yoghurt was milk and cultures. Soup was vegetables, stock, and herbs. You could pick up a tin or a frozen meal and recognise every single ingredient on the label.

Fast forward to today, and many of these same products have been reformulated with ultra-processed food (UPF) ingredients: emulsifiers, thickeners, preservatives, artificial flavourings, and industrial sweeteners. 

These additives are often there to extend shelf life, reduce manufacturing costs, or enhance texture and appearance. But what has been lost is flavour, nutrition, and trust.

What Changed?

Starting in the late 20th century, a quiet revolution began in food manufacturing. Driven by profit margins, globalisation, and advances in food technology, large food companies began adopting UPF-heavy recipes. The chef in his or her research kitchen was replaced with a food scientist in a laboratory. 

Rather than making a biscuit with butter and sugar, they could use palm oil and high-fructose corn syrup. 

Instead of cooking a proper tomato sauce, they could simulate the flavour with tomato powder, acidity regulators and “natural flavours” or "nature identical flavours."

These shifts didn’t happen overnight, and they weren’t always malicious, but the result has been a slow erosion of real food from our shelves. 

The side effect? A rise in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other health issues, many of which are now linked to high UPF diets.

The Case for Simpler Recipes

There is now a growing public awareness about ultra-processed foods. Consumers are reading labels, watching documentaries, and asking questions. 

Movements like real food eating, the clean label initiative, and farm-to-fork campaigns have reignited demand for transparency and simplicity.

Many of us remember when food tasted better, not because of nostalgia, but because the ingredients were better.

So how do we encourage large companies to return to their simpler roots?

1. Use Your Wallet as a Vote

One of the most powerful tools consumers have is where they spend their money. When shoppers consistently choose brands that prioritise real ingredients and minimal processing, big food manufacturers take notice. 

Many smaller brands have built successful businesses on this principle – and their rapid growth puts pressure on larger competitors to follow suit.

2. Demand Transparency

Consumers can email, message, or tag brands on social media asking why they use certain additives or asking if they’ll ever consider returning to their older, simpler recipes. A polite but firm question can go a long way. Brands listen when they see a trend forming.

3. Celebrate Brands Doing It Right

There are big food companies beginning to respond to the UPF backlash. Some have released “legacy” products with heritage recipes. 

Others have reformulated popular lines to remove artificial ingredients and simplify labels. When these moves are made, it’s worth celebrating them – publicly and loudly.

4. Push for Clearer Labelling

Governments and regulatory bodies have the power to enforce clearer labelling and restrict misleading claims. Campaigns calling for mandatory UPF labelling, or stricter definitions of terms like “natural” and “wholegrain”, could shift the market. Public pressure, petitions, and writing to your MP can support these policy changes.

5. Create a Movement

Much like the organic food boom or the plastic-free movement, the fight against UPFs can grow with grassroots energy. Food bloggers, influencers, dietitians, parents, and chefs can all amplify the message: we want real food back. Creating shareable content, organising food swaps, or reviewing “old recipe” products helps keep momentum going.

Final Thoughts

Food doesn’t have to be complicated to be delicious or shelf-stable. The old recipes worked. They nourished generations and built the reputations of some of the world’s biggest brands.

It’s time for food giants to look back, not just forward. To revisit the recipes that made them beloved in the first place. And to realise that in today’s health-conscious, label-savvy world. Simple might just be the smartest choice they could make.

Perhaps they need to learn the old business adage of KIS. Keep It Simple, Stupid!

That's Food and Drink would be very pleased if you could forward this post to as many people as you can.

Tuesday, 11 March 2025

50% of Belgians think food labelling should be improved

A comprehensive study undertaken by NSF, a global force in food safety and quality, shows has only 50% of Belgian consumers believe current food labels provide sufficient information to make informed food choices. 

This finding comes as part of a broader research initiative that questioned 1,000 Belgian adults, shedding light on the critical role of food labelling in shaping consumer decisions and promoting public health in Belgium.

Katie Glover, EMEA Manager, Regulatory Affairs and Trading Law at NSF, commented on the findings: “This research underscores a major gap between consumer expectations and current labelling practices. It’s clear to us that the food industry must take decisive action to enhance transparency and comprehensiveness in food labeling to meet the evolving needs of Belgian consumers.”

Key findings from the NSF study include:

73% of Belgian adults read food labels before making a purchase decision, with this figure rising to 83% among 18-34-year-olds.

75% of respondents consider more detailed allergen information the most valuable addition to food labels, followed by comprehensive processing information (72%).

47% of Belgian consumers are willing to pay more for products with comprehensive, transparent labelling, with an average premium of 10-12%.

Only 38% of respondents believe current labels adequately address sustainability concerns, highlighting a significant gap in consumer expectations.

65% of consumers consider environmental impact scores a useful addition to food labelling, reflecting growing sustainability concerns.

While these gaps present several challenges to the food industry, they also offer significant opportunities for innovation, relevance, and growth. 

As the Belgian food landscape continues to evolve to cater to consumers who are increasingly motivated by personal health concerns and broader environmental considerations, food manufacturers must address this call for greater transparency.

Glover went on to say: “The fact half of Belgian consumers feel they are inadequately informed by current food labels is a clear call to action for the industry. 

"By prioritising clarity, standardisation, and transparency in food labelling, we can empower consumers to make more informed decisions about their food choices. This not only contributes to better public health outcomes but also fosters a more sustainable food system and builds greater trust between food manufacturers and the Belgian public.”

NSF remains committed to working with the food industry to develop innovative solutions that meet evolving consumer expectations and regulatory requirements. The full whitepaper, offering detailed insights and recommendations, is available on the NSF website.

For more information about food labelling requirements and NSF's services, visit nsf.org.