Most shoppers are unwilling to pay premium pricing for added health benefits, a new consumer research has revealed.
The research, from the latest Emerging Trends Report by product intelligence business Vypr, found that easily understood health claims are the strongest prompts for trying a new food product.
Natural ingredients were the biggest draw, cited by 47% of consumers, followed by no artificial additives (39%) and low sugar (37%). Around three in 10 consumers also pointed to high protein and high fibre as reasons to try something new.
No artificial additives was the most trusted individual claim, cited by 16% of consumers, followed by a short ingredient list (15%) and natural ingredients (12%). Despite being one of the stronger drivers of trial, high protein was found to be trusted by just 10% and was also the claim most likely to be considered overused, according to 15% of consumers.
While many consumers expressed a desire to try new products, almost a quarter of consumers (24%) said they do not trust any health claims on food products, rising to a third among over-65s.
Consumers were asked three pricing questions, in which one product had a clean label claim, and the other did not. Respondents were asked how much they were willing to pay for each, and they would only pay 0.5% more for the cleanly labelled product.
The findings suggest brands face a growing gap between attracting attention and establishing credibility, with consumers increasingly checking whether the product itself supports the message on the front of pack.
The most common reason for doubting a health claim was that it felt “too good to be true”, for 40% of consumers. A further 32% said vague language undermined their confidence, while 30% pointed to a long ingredient list that contradicted the front-of-pack claim.
Among over-65s, the proportion citing a contradiction between the ingredient list and front-of-pack claim rose to 41%.
Ben Davies, founder of Vypr, commented: “In this age of UPF and food quality concerns, consumers are more confused than ever before about what to choose. Brands and manufacturers need to reformulate for HFSS rules and continue to improve their product offering, but this will not correlate with a willingness for consumers to pay more.
“Our research also found limited benefit from loading packs with multiple health claims. More than half (54%) said three or more claims on a pack would make no difference to their likelihood of buying the product.
"While 33% said they would be more likely to buy, 14% said they would be less likely. This data shows that consumers are feeling overwhelmed by the claims and so brands need to build trust and belief in the health claims rather than adding more onto pack.”
Ingredient-scanning and food-rating apps, such as Yuka, Open Food Facts, and FoodSwitch, are used by approximately a quarter of consumers to check on-pack claims.
Where these tools are used, their influence on behaviour is considerable. Among users, 70% trust the ratings to some degree, with 57% reporting some trust and 14% complete trust. Asked what they would do if a product they regularly buy received a poor rating, 62% of respondents said they would be likely to stop buying it, including 15% who said very likely.
Davies concluded: “For the scanning-app minority users, who are younger, engaged and willing to abandon a product over a poor rating, it still offers a definable early-adopter segment. Designing products that withstand third-party scrutiny rather than relying on front-of-pack framing is the route to that segment, and its behaviour serves as a leading indicator of where wider scrutiny may move.”