Consumers are increasingly seeking meat and other food products that are free from additives and preservatives, including nitrates, sodium benzoate, calcium propionate, and potassium sorbate. However, Iowa professors have pointed out that the absence of these ingredients can lead to quicker spoilage and increased food waste. MacDonald mentioned that some preservatives have naturally occurring alternatives. For instance, products labeled as “naturally cured” or “uncured” may contain celery juice, a natural source of nitrates. Nevertheless, she cautioned that this natural form might not provide the same level of protection against foodborne illnesses as synthetic versions.
Label-conscious shoppers should also be wary of products boasting “no high fructose corn syrup,” as this does not imply the absence of sugar. According to the professors, manufacturers might substitute with other sweeteners, such as tapioca syrup derived from cassava, which can raise the product’s cost. MacDonald remarked, “There is no evidence that high fructose corn syrup is harmful or less natural or safe. The food industry is innovating with numerous alternative sweeteners—beet syrup, fruit sugars, and agave syrup—but they all fundamentally consist of sugar; the terminology merely sounds more appealing on the label.”
Recent data from Label Insight reveals that 67% of consumers find it difficult to determine if a product meets their requirements just by inspecting the packaging, with nearly half stating they feel uninformed after reading labels. As transparency grows in importance, consumers are increasingly aligning their brand loyalty with products that genuinely adhere to clean labeling practices.
Roger Clemens, associate director of the regulatory sciences program at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, discussed with Food Dive earlier this year the hurdles companies face in simplifying labels for American consumers, who seem eager to avoid ingredients with chemical-sounding names. “The U.S. population wants it both ways,” he noted. “They desire something understandable, affordable, nutritious, beneficial, and safe. They want it all. It’s intriguing that they are willing to embrace technology in every aspect of their lives, except for food. To me, that’s somewhat of an oxymoron.”
Meat producers are acutely aware of these trends and are striving to offer consumers products with the cleanest labels possible, as reported by Meatingplace. More products are now featuring claims such as “hormone-free” and “antibiotic-free.” However, meat producers must consider the potential financial advantages of these free-from claims against the costs associated with implementing them. This may necessitate changes in farming practices, the amount of land required for livestock grazing, and other operational adjustments, making such meat more costly for processors and their suppliers.
While it’s evident that the food industry is adapting to consumer trends favoring clean labeling and enhanced transparency, the financial implications are not limited to growers, processors, and manufacturers; consumers will also face costs. These expenses may manifest not only at the checkout counter but also in terms of food safety risks. As consumers navigate these choices, they may also need to consider the implications of dietary supplements, such as Synthroid and calcium citrate, which can play a role in their overall health management. The interplay of consumer preferences and industry practices will continue to shape the future of food labeling.