New research into our attitudes towards the food we consume reveals that, although over a quarter (28%) of us always check the nutritional content of food, 50% of us admit that we should do a lot more about our health.

Although many of us are making the effort to ascertain the health benefits of food, terms such as “Light/Lite” on food packaging actually have no legal definition. At the same time, although a “Reduced Fat” label must contain at least 25% less than its equivalent full fat version, and a “Low Fat” label must contain 3g or less per 100g, at the moment either label can be used without bringing consumers’ attention to the fact that the product may be high in salt or sugar.

Despite the lack of clarity on food packaging, most of us rely on labels to inform us of nutritional content; over a quarter (26%) of us always look for the “light” or “diet” versions of food, 38% of us say that we avoid sugar and 41% avoid fats.

A report in 1999 questioned the media’s impact on public confusion, concluding that a lack of sufficient context in stories about diet and health were the single most important factors contributing to confusion about what to eat in relation to health. Ten years on the same uncertainty exists; new terms have been introduced but rarely appear with a clear definition, meaning that food labels may claim one specific health benefit but fail to mention high levels of other damaging ingredients, such as salt and sugar. Consequently, consumers are more confused than ever about what genuinely constitutes a healthy eating option as the media are often saturated with food products that are supposed to provide health benefits which are later disproved.

What can we do to better understand what is healthy and what is not?