Forget the healthy eating debate. The Grocer's first consumer focus group, conducted by ID Magasin and Diagnostics Social and Market Research, revealed that mums doing the family shop are more interested in convenience, nice packaging and what their kids actually want and will only avoid a product if they have read a scare story about it.
Six mothers with children ranging in age from teenagers to under 10s were asked what influenced them when they bought food for their families; which products they thought were healthy, OK and unhealthy; and what they thought of manufacturers targeting their products specifically at kids.
The message was clear: given the choice between recently launched Wall's Balls and a grilled chicken salad, they will feed the kids the former, regardless of health implications. And while they claimed they were concerned about health, particularly levels of fat, salt and sugar, they tended to be swayed into buying unhealthy foods by budget, convenience and their kids' preference for junk over healthy food.
Disturbingly our group revealed very little understanding of the distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy". When asked for definitions, the group parroted the Sunny D and chicken nugget scandals and defined healthy food by the size of portions served, cooking method baked versus grilled, for instance and how often the product is eaten. There was no mention of nutritional values or content.
Pester power
Only two members said they scrutinise nutritional information for their own weight reasons rather than their kids' health and none regularly look at the ingredients. They also buy food for themselves like Weight Watchers ready meals that they feed the whole family.
By far the most important driver was pester power, both inside and outside the store. Their kids are influenced by advertising, their peers, cartoons, freebies and kids' style packaging. As a result, the mums tended to buy food that looks good, has novelty value, is convenient or comes in attractively sized portions. None of them claimed to actively select healthy foods or to religiously avoid unhealthy foods. And as for 5-a-Day campaigns to get people eating more fruit and veg, it was mentioned in passing but considered an admirable but unrealistic target. Asked to identify new products their kids were demanding they all name-checked Wall's Balls.
The most revealing part of the study came when the group was asked to map products according to whether they were healthy, OK or neutral. They were told to assess the products without looking at the nutritional contents. The first criterion for the healthy pile turned out to be whether it had pictures of fruit on it or a healthy' label like bio'.
Though members were sceptical of pack claims there was generic trust in certain products that are not always healthy, such as some dairy lines, and in certain brands such as Heinz and Sainsbury's Blue Parrot Café.
The group was not concerned about high levels of salt, sugar or fat as long as the food was in a healthy form a yogurt or a juice drink.
Labelling criticised
Products in the neutral group were deemed relatively healthy because base ingredients were healthy potato, fruit, fish or cereal or because they were frequently eaten. Biscuits and cereal snack bars were included despite high sugar content, as were ready sauces. The group noted Birds Eye fish fingers were "probably healthier" than an own label or value brand.
In the unhealthy group were the obviously processed or artificially coloured foods, foods considered treats though eaten fairly regularly on "junk food Saturdays" and foods considered intrinsically unhealthy such as crisps and pizza.
When the group scrutinised packs more closely, they were shocked by the nutritional values of products that purported to be healthy and were incredulous that a Blue Parrot Café cheese and tomato pizza had twice the fat content of a Pizza Express margherita pizza. They also felt labelling of relative content claims such as 25% less fat' was potentially misleading.
Several members of the group said they would like to see manufacturers behave more responsibly when targeting children and were strongly critical of the Kraft Dairylea Lunchables range, with its "packed lunch" processed meat and crackers, a sugary drink and sweets.
And although they liked clear "traffic light" labelling on packaging, it had to be convincing or it undermined the validity of the claims.
On the whole the mothers found labelling confusing and said they would like to see the government set standards for the food industry and guidelines for consumers such as recommended intakes for children.
However, given that most take healthy eating with a large pinch of salt (not to mention sugar and fat), it seems the healthy eating lobby has quite a job on its hands. Manufacturers need fear no consumer backlash. It's the media and the government they have to worry about.
{{ANALYSIS }}
Six mothers with children ranging in age from teenagers to under 10s were asked what influenced them when they bought food for their families; which products they thought were healthy, OK and unhealthy; and what they thought of manufacturers targeting their products specifically at kids.
The message was clear: given the choice between recently launched Wall's Balls and a grilled chicken salad, they will feed the kids the former, regardless of health implications. And while they claimed they were concerned about health, particularly levels of fat, salt and sugar, they tended to be swayed into buying unhealthy foods by budget, convenience and their kids' preference for junk over healthy food.
Disturbingly our group revealed very little understanding of the distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy". When asked for definitions, the group parroted the Sunny D and chicken nugget scandals and defined healthy food by the size of portions served, cooking method baked versus grilled, for instance and how often the product is eaten. There was no mention of nutritional values or content.
Pester power
Only two members said they scrutinise nutritional information for their own weight reasons rather than their kids' health and none regularly look at the ingredients. They also buy food for themselves like Weight Watchers ready meals that they feed the whole family.
By far the most important driver was pester power, both inside and outside the store. Their kids are influenced by advertising, their peers, cartoons, freebies and kids' style packaging. As a result, the mums tended to buy food that looks good, has novelty value, is convenient or comes in attractively sized portions. None of them claimed to actively select healthy foods or to religiously avoid unhealthy foods. And as for 5-a-Day campaigns to get people eating more fruit and veg, it was mentioned in passing but considered an admirable but unrealistic target. Asked to identify new products their kids were demanding they all name-checked Wall's Balls.
The most revealing part of the study came when the group was asked to map products according to whether they were healthy, OK or neutral. They were told to assess the products without looking at the nutritional contents. The first criterion for the healthy pile turned out to be whether it had pictures of fruit on it or a healthy' label like bio'.
Though members were sceptical of pack claims there was generic trust in certain products that are not always healthy, such as some dairy lines, and in certain brands such as Heinz and Sainsbury's Blue Parrot Café.
The group was not concerned about high levels of salt, sugar or fat as long as the food was in a healthy form a yogurt or a juice drink.
Labelling criticised
Products in the neutral group were deemed relatively healthy because base ingredients were healthy potato, fruit, fish or cereal or because they were frequently eaten. Biscuits and cereal snack bars were included despite high sugar content, as were ready sauces. The group noted Birds Eye fish fingers were "probably healthier" than an own label or value brand.
In the unhealthy group were the obviously processed or artificially coloured foods, foods considered treats though eaten fairly regularly on "junk food Saturdays" and foods considered intrinsically unhealthy such as crisps and pizza.
When the group scrutinised packs more closely, they were shocked by the nutritional values of products that purported to be healthy and were incredulous that a Blue Parrot Café cheese and tomato pizza had twice the fat content of a Pizza Express margherita pizza. They also felt labelling of relative content claims such as 25% less fat' was potentially misleading.
Several members of the group said they would like to see manufacturers behave more responsibly when targeting children and were strongly critical of the Kraft Dairylea Lunchables range, with its "packed lunch" processed meat and crackers, a sugary drink and sweets.
And although they liked clear "traffic light" labelling on packaging, it had to be convincing or it undermined the validity of the claims.
On the whole the mothers found labelling confusing and said they would like to see the government set standards for the food industry and guidelines for consumers such as recommended intakes for children.
However, given that most take healthy eating with a large pinch of salt (not to mention sugar and fat), it seems the healthy eating lobby has quite a job on its hands. Manufacturers need fear no consumer backlash. It's the media and the government they have to worry about.
{{ANALYSIS }}
No comments yet