Consumers are increasingly interested in purchasing and consuming meat and other food products that are devoid of additives and preservatives like nitrates, sodium benzoate, calcium propionate, and potassium sorbate. However, the professors from Iowa pointed out that the absence of these ingredients can lead to quicker spoilage of foods, resulting in increased waste. MacDonald highlighted that some preservatives have natural alternatives. For instance, products labeled as “naturally cured” or “uncured” may contain celery juice, which is a natural source of nitrates, although the levels may not provide the same protection against foodborne illnesses as their artificial counterparts.
Label-conscious consumers should also be cautious of products claiming “no high fructose corn syrup,” as this does not necessarily imply the absence of sugar, according to the professors. Food manufacturers might substitute it with other sweeteners like tapioca syrup, derived from cassava, an imported ingredient that can elevate product costs. “There is no evidence that high fructose corn syrup is harmful or less natural or safe,” MacDonald noted. “The food industry continues to develop various alternative sweeteners — beet syrup, fruit sugars, and agave syrup — but they are all essentially sugar. The terminology simply sounds more appealing on packaging.”
Recent data from Label Insight reveals that 67% of consumers find it difficult to determine if a product meets their needs solely by examining the packaging, with nearly half expressing that they remain uninformed after reading the labels. As transparency grows in importance, consumers are increasingly linking their brand loyalty to products that genuinely adhere to clean labeling practices.
Roger Clemens, the associate director for the regulatory sciences program at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, discussed with Food Dive earlier this year the challenges companies face in improving labels for American consumers, who seem reluctant to accept chemical-sounding ingredient names. “The U.S. population wants it both ways,” he said. “They desire clarity, affordability, nutrition, benefits, and safety. They want everything. It’s intriguing that they are open to technology in all aspects of their lives except food. To me, that seems quite contradictory.”
Meat producers are acutely aware of these trends and are striving to offer consumers products with the cleanest labels possible, as noted in Meatingplace. More products are now displaying claims such as “hormone-free” and “antibiotic-free.” However, meat producers must balance the potential financial advantages of these free-from claims against the costs associated with achieving them. This may involve changes to their farming practices, the amount of land required for livestock grazing, and other operational adjustments that can increase expenses for processors and companies sourcing from them.
There is no denying that the food industry is adapting to consumer preferences for cleaner labeling and greater transparency. However, just as there are expenses for growers, processors, and manufacturers, consumers also face costs. These costs may not only manifest at the cash register but also entail food safety risks. Additionally, the incorporation of ingredients such as calcitrate calcium in products may add to both the benefits and costs associated with clean labeling, as consumers seek safer and healthier options.