THE PUBLIC’S NEEDS AND INTERESTS AROUND FOOD.
In partnership with the Food Standards Agency & Food Standards Scotland
A Bright Harbour Collective effort authored by Caitlin Connors, Laura Malan, Muriel Esposito, Claire Madden, Christian Reynolds, Nefeli Trikka, Mel Cohen, Faun Rothery, Siobhan Canavan, Sammy Saint Warrens, Fan Sissoko, Efun Coker, Sarah Tulej, Rebecca Birch and Claire Sheppard.
With thanks to our brilliant partners at the FSA and FSS for their support and guidance: Elham Mirzahosseinkhan, Sophie Watson and Susan Bond.
To hear more from Brianna and other participants in this research you can find a full copy of the stories document here.
In the lead up to reviewing their 2022-27 strategy the FSA needed up to date information to guide them, working with AndGood and Esposito Research & Strategy we developed a multi method, robust piece of research.
As researchers guiding evidence-based decision-making, it is increasingly clear to our Bright Harbour teams that it is not enough to establish ‘what matters most, to the most people’. We also need to articulate and honour the needs, views and priorities of those most affected — but whom often go unheard by policy makers and decision-makers. The people already under pressure, often increasingly so, under the status quo. Those most likely to be left (more) vulnerable as the winds shift. So while it was important that this research understood the needs of the public as a whole, there is a deliberate focus on the voices of those who are otherwise unheard in policy research.
METHOD
Data were gathered using multiple methods over several stages of research.
A rapid mapping of existing evidence shaped project objectives and materials
A ‘People’s Voice Board’ of 8 UK people guided the project throughout.
75 ‘general public’ participants were engaged in qualitative research via group workshops, remote ethnography tasks, and 1-1 depth interviews 6
20 ‘targeted groups’ participants were engaged via mix of depth interviewing and remote ethnography, boosting understanding of typically ‘less heard’ groups
A nationally representative online survey, reaching 6175 respondents across the four nations of the UK validated and extended qualitative research findings
PARTICIPANT CARE
Current public realities must be taken into account by decision makers seeking to support the public’s interests and needs around food. Several workshops had to be paused for participant safeguarding reasons due to visible distress about the impact of recent food price rises or worries about future food costs. This tension had to be considered in how we conducted this work and in the focus that we put on compassionate participant care through both the qualitative and quantitative stages of the process. This included our work with the People’s Voice Board and their help in guiding and sensitivity testing our research materials as well as a development of our participant care pack for all participants, which can be found here.
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings of this report were wide reaching and multi faceted. The public had interest in many areas of the food system but they didn’t feel like they had the power or control over them. Existing concerns are being amplified by wider contextual uncertainty and pressure — plus low trust in food decision makers. A sense of increased pressure on everyday people was evident across all nations of the UK, equally in rural and urban areas, and across all levels of society. These key findings reflect the context that they were collected in as well as this increased pressure faced by the UK public.
Key finding 1: Socio-demographic factors shape clear inequalities, and food security is under threat.
As mentioned, the future of the price of food was an area of high concern across all participants, and came up spontaneously more than any other topic. There was a sense that the UK public feel they are navigating an increasingly complex, challenging food system that often prioritises profit over people or planet. Their ability to consistently access and choose safe, healthy affordable food was under pressure, as was their ability to shop in line with their wider values.
There was a clear disconnect between the role people wished price played in their choices, and the role it did play. Only 52% said they were able to afford the quality of food they want at all times. Although respondents wished that price and quality were fairly equal drivers in terms of their food choices, followed by health and nutrition, in actuality, food price trumped all other drivers.
Food insecurity was more prevalent among people on lower incomes; with long-term health conditions; younger respondents (Gen Z/Millenial); people in larger households; and for Asian, Black, African and Caribbean people. Whilst people on higher incomes had more agency and were better able to afford food that fit their values and had greater access to wider choice, many had also experienced rising costs, food shortages and/or increasing financial pressure or uncertainty. Access to food seemed less taken for granted than it was a few years ago — becoming for some a source of deep public concern.
Key finding 2: People want everyone to have access to safe, healthy, affordable food. But they worry about the future, and aren’t sure ‘anyone can change anything’...
Ensuring ‘healthy food at affordable prices’ was the top priority for action for food industry, and the second-highest priority action for ‘Government’. 68% saw the cost of healthy food as a major concern for the future. 64% of people cited ‘food poverty and food inequality’ as a concern for the future of food in the UK over the next three years. 76% chose ‘the price of food’ as a concern for the future of food over the next three years. Concern was even higher for those already more likely to be food insecure.
Notably, this was a top priority area even for those who were highly food secure, likely reflecting both concern for others as well as an increasing sense of diminishing affordability even for the more ‘well off.’ Researchers noted that higher income groups were often having the same kinds of conversations we would usually associate with lower-SEG groups around food — for example, switching to ‘bargain’ brands or cheaper supermarkets, or finding ways to ‘stretch’ meals out with cheaper ingredients.
The majority of people in this research felt that everyone in the UK should have access to healthy, good quality nutritious food. People believed that regardless of personal circumstances, people should be able to eat food that keeps them in good health and able to function - and were frustrated that a ‘well off’ nation like the UK was far from realising this ideal.
Key finding 3: Trust in safety and hygiene is high. But it’s lower for people who are on lower income/ less food secure.
Food safety, hygiene and standards were seen as priority public interests that needed to be represented and protected: no one wants food that will make them unwell or is produced to questionable standards. In the minds of the public, ‘high standards’ were also associated with better health impact, and more ethical, sustainable practice. Participants in qualitative groups assumed ‘someone’ was looking after food safety, hygiene and standards for the greater good; reassured by signals of oversight such as on-door food safety ratings for restaurants.
Many expressed a high sense of pride in British food safety standards, but this area, like most others, was marked by current inequity and uncertainty for the future. Overall, those living on lower incomes or with food insecurity had more negative experiences with regard to trusting the food they ate was safe and hygienic. These concerns seemed linked to wider concerns and worries about ‘risky’ practices employed to help make money stretch: for example eating or freezing about-to-expire food; batch cooking; buying ‘lower quality’ foods, etc. Worry might also have been influenced by a general sense of precarity more widely; many had nowhere else to compromise in their food budgets.
Key finding 4: People worry over whether high standards will be maintained in the future. The implications of new trade deals after Brexit were driving concerns higher.
Many worried about the maintenance of our standards in the future (post-Brexit) and about the long-term safety of things ‘added to food’ like hormones, pesticides and additives. The Covid-19 pandemic seemed to have heightened public awareness of safety and hygiene. There was a sense that the pandemic had made many participants more conscious about hygiene in relation to food preparation, packaging and delivery.
Brexit media discussion and lived experience of the impact of Brexit on food transport and availability also seemed to have driven more consideration of topics such as international food standards or global supply chains, with many participants in the qualitative research spontaneously raising examples of ‘lower’ standards elsewhere. For example, participants referenced concerns around ‘chlorinated chicken’ or ‘hormone injected beef’.
Key finding 5: The public also see processed food and animal welfare as safety concerns – if standards are not maintained and monitored, these issues present a risk to safety and health.
In line with previous FSA and wider evidence, a large proportion of the UK public was worried about the safety of things ‘added to’ the food they eat, and/or highly processed foods. In the context of food safety and standards, 47% of respondents stated they would like to see regulatory action in order to ‘reduce things added in the food process for example E-numbers, preservatives’. Many worried that although these might not individually present any detectable short-term harm, they have more long-term and/or collective impact - for example via increased risks of cancer or other health harms.
Animal welfare had a fairly high mention rate amongst participants in the qualitative research as a concern area in food, with 60% of survey respondents selecting the treatment of animals in the food chain as a major concern. It seemed that for most people, this was raised primarily in relation to questions of food trust, safety and transparency than in terms of ethics or animal rights per se. As per the discussion around processed food, above, there was a sense that things ‘done to’ animals used for food production might have a range of negative impacts - including on long-term human health.
Key finding 6: Allergens labelling and management represent a substantial concern area.
In line with recent FSA research in this area, many participants in the qualitative research reported they found it difficult to access the information they needed to make safe, informed decisions about allergenic ingredients and/or cross-contamination risks. Whether eating out, food shopping or preparing food at home, participants often found allergen information hard to access, inconsistent and/or unclear.
These qualitative reports were supported by the survey data. Around 9% of respondents reported living with food allergies or hypersensitivities. A much higher percentage (39%) of respondents agreed that they were ‘concerned that the way allergens are labelled on food products is unclear.’ ‘Enforcing clearer labelling of food ingredients and allergens’ was also cited by 43% of respondents as a priority action area for regulators.
Key finding 7: People want it to be easier to access and choose healthy, nutritious food. This relates to choices available, food marketing, food labelling and information, guidance.
As above, price dominated within health and nutrition concerns, with many feeling ‘priced out’ of the food they thought was best for their health. Beyond price, the public also felt it was far harder than it should be to make healthy, nutritious choices; that the ‘system was stacked against them.’ However, guidance on healthy nutrition tended not to feature highly in ratings of priority actions.
70% agreed that they felt ‘confident I know what a healthy nutritious diet is for me’ — qualitatively, a healthy nutritious diet was typically associated with ‘fresh’, minimally processed food and wide variety. However, making healthy, nutritious choices felt difficult, if not impossible, to put into practice in daily life.
53% agreed that they felt priced out of healthy food and 31% endorsed ‘it is difficult to find fresh foods that fit my budget’. 25% agreed with ‘heavily processed foods are often the only option available to me’ and 50% reported worry about the long-term impact of their food choices on their health (significantly higher for those aged 18–44 (60%) or from BAME ethnicities (61%). A majority also felt confused or misled by industry information about ‘healthy food’. A range of issues were raised around interpreting and navigating health information (for example overwhelm, text size, portion confusion, ‘hidden’ sugars’). And when guidance was available it was often too simplistic, too confusing or too difficult to find trustworthy, practical resources.
Key findings 8: There were additional barriers for people with serious health issues/ disabilities/ allergies/ neuro-diversities but more urgency in these groups around eating well.
For people with chronic conditions, disabilities, or allergies in the household, eating well was often at the forefront of their mind, either because their condition significantly impacted what they could eat, or because they saw eating as a way to heal. Many also needed to take a more bespoke approach to ‘healthy eating’ to avoid unhelpful or harmful ingredients; accommodate nutritional or texture needs; fuel recovery or maximise functioning; and so on.
However, even as healthy eating was often experienced as more urgent or important in this group, for many it was also less financially feasible. For some, health problems significantly restricted income (for example, due to having to reduce or abandon work). For all, costs were higher, including things such as ergonomic utensils, preprepared items or specialty free-from foods.
Key finding 9: People care about wider environment and ethics issues but they don’t feel they can make a difference – so want help from those with power.
Climate and animal welfare concerns dominated. Qualitative research showed that interests and concerns in this space felt increasingly more immediate and more relevant to more people than we have seen in previous years. Climate worry was clearly experienced as an urgent concern for participants in their 20s through to people in their 80s. 60% of people worried about the environmental impact of our food systems. 58% cited the impact of climate change on food production as a major concern for the next 3 years.
Many participants expressed deep worry and anxiety about the increasing impact of climate emergency — and that we might act ‘too late’ in terms of changing our food systems and choices to avoid or mitigate harm. However, the public didn’t feel much agency in terms of their wider interests around food system ethics and environment. Their values in these spaces tended to be sacrificed for more immediate drivers, especially in response to financial pressure.
The public wanted the Government, food industry and the FSA/FSS to work together to guide fair, ethical, sustainable food systems and futures on their behalf. People wanted to see decision-makers maintain or strengthen ethical standards in the food chain, for example around animal rights — both for UK-made and imported food products.
Key finding 10: Waste is a flashpoint issue – both packaging waste and food waste.
Food waste and packaging waste were a common point of concern; these issues seemed to ‘push a lot of buttons’ at once. 78% reported finding it ‘unacceptable’ to throw food away at home. 67% agreed with ‘I try to reduce or avoid food products that create plastic waste’. 65% said they worry about packaging waste in the food chain in future. 64% cited food waste in the food chain as a major concern for the future.
Waste felt like an issue that individuals could have some individual impact on — but there was also eagerness for more systemic change. Many in the qualitative research were critical of the ways in which current food systems encouraged what they saw as ‘poor practice’ on waste such as feeling pressured by promotions that encouraged waste, food being wasted by retailers, and low waste options being more expensive and less convenient.
Key finding 11: High interest in supporting local food systems, British farming – and ‘high standard’ food systems that respect all involved.
When completing ‘future of food’ tasks and asked to describe the food futures they feared for the UK, some participants described fairly dystopian outcomes, in which profit motives and lack of public engagement had failed to mitigate climate disaster. Many also expressed concern about disproportionate impact on those already vulnerable, both in the UK and globally.
Qualitatively, there was a sense of ‘exposure due to Brexit’, with people worried that we would need to adopt ‘lower’ standards from other countries in future, or that local producers would come under increasing pressure in future. This was often linked to beliefs that ‘local’ food produced in the UK (or, for many devolved nations residents, within their ‘home’ nation) was likely higher quality than foods imported from abroad.
This was especially important for rural participants, who expressed strong feelings of connection to local ‘place’ and agriculture (especially high among those living in rural hamlets or isolated dwellings). They were eager to see farmers and agricultural workers considered and protected by decision-makers, and were particularly supportive of more localised UK food economies.
WANT TO LEARN MORE?
Findings and data tables have been fully available to anyone who would benefit from knowing more about the UK public's current context and key priorities for food decision makers:
15 minute key findings digest and 'Stories' from the public on our Medium page (or get in touch to request a pdf version)
Full report, technical report, accessible 'stories' and full data tables available from the FSA
Updated FSA Strategy for 2022-2027 available here
In part based on the findings of this research, the FSA has committed to playing its part in helping to make food healthier and more sustainable for everyone, and to considering the impact of inequalities and food security in everything they do. We are deeply grateful to the board for taking such an evidence based approach to its policy work, and to its deep listening to the lived experiences of the UK people.
**If you want a deeper understanding, get in touch any time. We promised our participants, who shared of themselves honestly and sometimes with great vulnerability, that we would share their views as far and wide as we can. Many of them deeply wanted to be heard, especially by people with the power to change things. We would love to talk.
