Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We defined clean labels in a broad (front-of-pack) and strict (back-of-pack) sense.

  • We focused on organic, natural and free-from artificial additives and ingredients

  • Intrinsic, extrinsic and socio-cultural factors affect consumers' preferences for clean-labeled foods.

  • Implications for food manufacturers and policy makers were discussed.

  • Future research directions were suggested.

Abstract

Consumers in industrialized countries are nowadays much more interested in information about the production methods and components of the food products that they eat, than they had been 50 years ago. Some production methods are perceived as less “natural” (i.e. conventional agriculture) while some food components are seen as “unhealthy” and “unfamiliar” (i.e. artificial additives). This phenomenon, often referred to as the “clean label” trend, has driven the food industry to communicate whether a certain ingredient or additive is not present or if the food has been produced using a more “natural” production method (i.e. organic agriculture). However, so far there is no common and objective definition of clean label. This review paper aims to fill the gap via three main objectives, which are to a) develop and suggest a definition that integrates various understandings of clean label into one single definition, b) identify the factors that drive consumers' choices through a review of recent studies on consumer perception of various food categories understood as clean label with the focus on organic, natural and ‘free from’ artificial additives/ingredients food products and c) discuss implications of the consumer demand for clean label food products for food manufacturers as well as policy makers. We suggest to define clean label, both in a broad sense, where consumers evaluate the cleanliness of product by assumption and through inference looking at the front-of-pack label and in a strict sense, where consumers evaluate the cleanliness of product by inspection and through inference looking at the back-of-pack label. Results show that while ‘health’ is a major consumer motive, a broad diversity of drivers influence the clean label trend with particular relevance of intrinsic or extrinsic product characteristics and socio-cultural factors. However, ‘free from’ artificial additives/ingredients food products tend to differ from organic and natural products. Food manufacturers should take the diversity of these drivers into account in developing new products and communication about the latter. For policy makers, it is important to work towards a more homogenous understanding and application of the term of clean label and identify a uniform definition or regulation for ‘free from’ artificial additives/ingredients food products, as well as work towards decreasing consumer misconceptions. Finally, multiple future research avenues are discussed.

Introduction

During the last century, industrialized countries have overcome lack of food security with the key contribution of agrifood industrialization (Lusk, 2016, Meneses et al., 2014). Food processing has played a crucial role as it allowed extending the shelf life of food products, reduced food losses and waste, as well as improved nutrient availability and optimization (Augustin et al., 2016, Fellows, 2004, Weaver et al., 2014). However, day-to-day consumer perception focuses on other aspects than these achievements. In modern societies, the increasingly globalized markets and greater processing in the food chain has contributed to a perceived distance and knowledge gap between people and food manufacturers (e.g. how food is produced, where is it produced, etc.) (Princen, 1997, Weis, 2007).

Industrialization and globalisation go hand in hand with a higher and more man-made risk, which increases citizens' perception of risks of modernity (Beck, 1992). For instance, food contamination accidents have affected Europe in the last decades, such as BSE1 and dioxin (Bánáti, 2011, Knowles et al., 2007). Consumers are concerned about the heavy use of pesticides in the conventional and intensive agricultural practices (Aktar, Sengupta, & Chowdhury, 2009), the use of artificial ingredients, additives or colourants such as E133 (Lucová, Hojerová, Pažoureková, & Klimová, 2013), and the adoption of controversial food technologies like GMOs2 (Grunert, Bredahl, & Scholderer, 2003). This has prompted consumers to become skeptical or worried about adverse health effects entailed in this food system (Meneses et al., 2014). Moreover, the growing public concern about the contribution of the food system to climate change and its overall negative effects on sustainability (Godfray et al., 2010) have led consumers to question the environmental and social consequences of food production (Asioli et al., 2014, Caputo et al., 2013).

Consumer's choose foods to be satiated and fed with nutrients, other important drivers are flavor and price (Lynn Jayne Frewer and van Trijp, 2007, MacFie, 2007). However, it is often proposed that today's food consumption in industrialized societies is particularly affected by three major trends: health concerns, sustainability, and convenience (Grunert, 2013). Health concerns are driven by consumers' affluence, but also explained by the increasing number of food and lifestyle related diseases (i.e. diabetes, obesity, etc.) (Kearney, 2010, Weis, 2007) and allergies and intolerances towards some specific food products or components such as gluten. These factors have encouraged consumers to be more interested in healthy food products that support healthy lifestyles into older ages and reduce the risk of certain diseases. Sustainability interest is explained by the growing awareness of environmental pollution caused by conventional agricultural practices. This has resulted most prominently in an increased expansion of organic agriculture and markets (Aschemann, Hamm, Naspetti, & Zanoli, 2007) and might also explain why consumers are looking for e.g. ‘local food’ products (food miles) (Adams & Salois, 2010) and are willing to pay higher prices for water-saving products (Krovetz, 2016). Convenience relates to the number of meals that are eaten out-of-home or home-delivered compared to home-made. This number has dramatically increased during the last decades (Lachat et al., 2012), which signifies that consumers are interested in added characteristics of food products that save time (e.g. frozen food, ready meals, microwavable, etc.).

The trends of healthiness and sustainability have triggered consumers into considering which components are used in the food products that they eat in everyday life (Euromonitor International, 2016). A new trend in food products has emerged, which is often summarized under the umbrella of the so-called “clean label” (Cheung et al., 2016, Joppen, 2006, Varela and Fiszman, 2013, Zink, 1997) and has been taken up by a multitude of food industry stakeholders (Osborne, 2015). The term clean label itself appeared for the first time during the 1980s when consumers started to avoid the E-numbers3 listed on food labels because they were allegedly associated with negative health effects (Joppen, 2006). However, the use of the term clean label dramatically exploded ten years ago. One of the leading food science journals, “Food Technology Magazine,” cited the term “clean label” twice in 2000, 18 times in 2011 and 77 times in 2016 in their articles, clearly indicating a growing importance of the term (Swientik, 2017).

The food industry has started to respond to the increasing consumer demand of such clean label products by supplying food products that are perceived as ‘cleaner’ (Katz & Williams, 2011). For example, in 2010 Heinz tomato ketchup was reformulated to remove high fructose corn syrup from the ingredient list and was renamed as Simply Heinz (Katz & Williams, 2011). Recent data shows that during 2013, almost 27% of the new packaged food products launched in Europe had some sort of clean label (Ingredion, 2014).

Despite the increasing market shift towards clean label food products and a large number of different studies that have investigated goods carrying clean label, it is not yet clear what a clean label exactly means. So far, a jointly agreed upon definition or specific regulations/legislations does not exist (Busken, 2013, Joppen, 2006, Varela and Fiszman, 2013), leaving the interpretation as rather subjective for consumers and food practitioners. A clear definition of clean label that can improve understanding of consumer perception and behavior, guide manufacturers in food development and communication, and support policymakers' efforts in providing a targeted regulatory framework is needed (Katz & Williams, 2011). Moreover, to the best knowledge of the authors, a coherent overview of the factors that affect consumers' perception of food products that are related to the clean label trend does not exist (Cheung et al., 2016, Zink, 1997).

This paper reviews the literature from the last six years on consumers' perceptions and preferences of selected food categories understood as clean label products, aiming to (i) provide a holistic definition that integrates various understandings of clean label into one single definition; (ii) identify the main drivers that motivate consumers to choose clean label products, and (iii) derive implications for food manufacturers, policy makers and future research avenues. The overall goal of this paper is to advance the understanding of how the clean label trend is viewed by both consumers and food industry professionals and to advance research into this trend based on a common definition.

In Section 2, we briefly describe some important theoretical issues related to consumer behavior as background for understanding the basic processes of consumer decision making. Then, we suggest a definition of clean label based on consumption trends observed in various food markets and the underlying consumer behavior theory. We then outline the literature review methodology and present the results of the review on the factors that affect consumers' choice behavior for such products. The paper concludes with a discussion of industrial and policymakers' challenges, the implications of the findings, and future research needs and directions.

Section snippets

Consumer behavior theoretical background

Looking at related theories or theoretical terms can help understanding why consumers show an increasing interest in clean label, and it can help to understand the role that consumer perception plays in explaining this trend. We regard two distinctions as particularly relevant for explaining the consumer behavior driving the clean label trend. Firstly, we consider dual-processing theories which differentiate between two modes of processing called central and peripheral processing. Secondly, we

What is a “clean label”?

To date there is no an established, objective and common definition of what a clean label is, but rather several definitions or interpretations, often provided by market trend reports but not backed up by consumer behavior research or theory (Osborne, 2015). To give an example of how clean label appears conceptualized in media, one can cite Michael Pollan. He suggested in his famous recent book In Defence of Food that consumers should not: “…eat anything with more than five ingredients, or

Methodology

A literature search has been conducted by investigating the following four online catalogues: Scopus, Science Direct, AgEcon Search, and Web of Science. We used the following keywords or keyword combinations: “label”, “organic”, “natural”, “free from”, “artificial”, “additives”, “colourants”, “ingredients”, “clean label”, “consumers”, “perception”, “behavior”, “preference”, “choice”, and “food” in the title or the abstract. The review was restricted to English-language, peer-reviewed empirical

Clean label definition and consumer understanding

Across the three categories of food products pertaining to the clean label trend – organic, ‘natural’, and ‘free from’ artificial additives/ingredients – we found all the six categories of factors represented of the Mojet model (Köster, 2009), such as intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics, biological and physiological, as well as psychological, situational and socio-cultural factors. Thus, as a first point, we can conclude that a broad diversity of drivers has been found to influence

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the European Commission (329761) through the Marie Curie Actions Intra European Fellowship (IEF), call FP/-PEOPLE-I2012-IEF – project title “Innovative Methodologies for New Food Product Development: combining Sensory Science and Experimental Economics – NEFOMET”. Nofima's authors also would like to thank the support of the Norwegian Foundation for Research Levy on Agricultural Products through the research program “FoodSMaCK, Spectroscopy, Modelling and Consumer

Author contributions

The authors' contributions were as follows: Daniele Asioli was the responsible for the overall manuscript, contributed to the introduction, design and literature review. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel contributed to the consumer behavior theory, clean label definition and discussion as well as the critical review of the manuscript. Vincenzina Caputo contributed to the discussion and the critical review of the manuscript. Azzurra Annunziata and Riccardo Vecchio contributed to the literature review and

References (174)

  • P. Bryła

    Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • M. Carocho et al.

    Natural food additives: Quo vadis?

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2015)
  • M.-F. Chen

    Modeling an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict intention to take precautions to avoid consuming food with additives

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2017)
  • T.T.L. Cheung et al.

    Consumers' choice-blindness to ingredient information

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • J. de Boer et al.

    Food and value motivation: Linking consumer affinities to different types of food products

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • T. De Magistris et al.

    Consumers' willingness-to-pay for sustainable food products: The case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2016)
  • D.A. Devcich et al.

    You eat what you are: Modern health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in functional foods

    Appetite

    (2007)
  • U.M. Dholakia et al.

    Consumer behavior in a multichannel, multimedia retailing environment

    Journal of Interactive Marketing

    (2010)
  • M. Dickson-Spillmann et al.

    Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2011)
  • A. Eertmans et al.

    Food-related personality traits, food choice motives and food intake: Mediator and moderator relationships

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2005)
  • B. Ellison et al.

    Putting the organic label in context: Examining the interactions between the organic label, product type, and retail outlet

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2016)
  • Evans et al.

    Consumers' ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods

    Appetite

    (2010)
  • J.S.B.T. Evans

    In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2003)
  • L.J. Frewer et al.

    Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2011)
  • K.G. Grunert et al.

    Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production

    Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies

    (2003)
  • H. Hasimu et al.

    A concept mapping study on organic food consumers in Shanghai, China

    Appetite

    (2017)
  • M. Hauser et al.

    Measuring salient food attitudes and food-related values. An elaborated, conflicting and interdependent system

    Appetite

    (2011)
  • M. Janssen et al.

    Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2012)
  • H.-J. Kang et al.

    Perception gaps on food additives among various groups in Korea: Food experts, teachers, nutrition teachers, nongovernmental organization members, and general consumers

    Journal of Food Protection

    (2017)
  • E.P. Köster

    Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2009)
  • J.L. Aaker et al.

    “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (2001)
  • D.C. Adams et al.

    Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay

    Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems

    (2010)
  • J. Aertsens et al.

    Differences in retail strategies on the emerging organic market

    British Food Journal

    (2009)
  • J. Aertsens et al.

    Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review

    British Food Journal

    (2009)
  • M. Aktar et al.

    Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards

    Interdisciplinary Toxicology

    (2009)
  • C. Amos et al.

    “Natural” labeling and consumers' sentimental pastoral notion

    Journal of Product and Brand Management

    (2014)
  • J. Aschemann et al.

    The organic market

  • J. Aschemann-Witzel et al.

    Elaborating on the attitude–behaviour gap regarding organic products: Young Danish consumers and in-store food choice

    International Journal of Consumer Studies

    (2014)
  • J. Aschemann-Witzel et al.

    Can't buy me green? A review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food

    Journal of Consumer Affairs

    (2017)
  • D. Asioli et al.

    Sensory experiences and expectations of Italian and German organic consumers

    Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing

    (2014)
  • S. Bastian et al.

    Australian wine consumers' acceptance of and attitudes toward the use of additives in wine and food production

    International Journal of Wine Research

    (2015)
  • U. Beck

    Risk society: Towards a new modernity

    (1992)
  • B. Beharrell et al.

    Involvement in a routine food shopping context

    British Food Journal

    (1995)
  • C. Berry et al.

    It's only natural: The mediating impact of consumers' attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions

    Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

    (2017)
  • X. Bi et al.

    Tradeoffs between sensory attributes and organic labels: The case of orange juice

    International Journal of Consumer Studies

    (2015)
  • A.-S. Binninger

    Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation

    Journal of Food Products Marketing

    (2015)
  • C.P. Bravo et al.

    Assessing determinants of organic food consumption using data from the German National Nutrition Survey {II}

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2013)
  • K. Brunsø et al.

    Development and testing of a cross-culturally valid instrument: Food-related lifestyle

    Advances in Consumer Research

    (1995)
  • V. Bruschi et al.

    Consumer perception of organic food in emerging markets: Evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Agribusiness

    (2015)
  • D.F. Busken

    Cleaning it up—What is a clean label ingredient?

    Cereal Foods World

    (2013)
  • Cited by (621)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text