We Read the Label. But Do We Know What We’re Eating?
Australians are checking additives and questioning claims but the most important part of food production never appears on the packet.
Australians are reading food labels more carefully than ever.
They are looking for additives, artificial sweeteners, sugar, chemical-sounding ingredients and health claims. They want to know what is in the packet and whether the promises printed across the front can be trusted.
But a national survey has exposed an uncomfortable gap between confidence and understanding.
More than 80% of consumers said they felt confident using food labels to make informed choices. Yet when two products displayed different serving sizes, fewer than half correctly identified which contained more energy.
We are reading the labels. That does not necessarily mean we understand the food.
And even a perfectly understood label cannot tell us the full story of what happened before that food reached the supermarket shelf.
- What consumers check in ingredient lists.
- 80.4% confidence versus 49.3% correct understanding.
The gap between believing we know and actually knowing.
Food Standards AU, NZ. 2025 Consumer Insights Tracker Food Labelling
What the research is
- FSANZ’s 2025 Consumer Insights Tracker surveyed 2,232 adults: 1,307 Australians and 925 New Zealanders.
- It was an online survey designed to be nationally representative by age, gender and location.
- It examined trust, use and understanding of food labels, nutrition panels and Health Star Ratings.
The strongest statistics
- 73.7% trusted FSANZ-regulated food-labelling information.
- Trust increased between 2024 and 2025.
- Health Star Rating trust did not show the same increase.
- 77.5% trusted the Nutrition Information Panel.
- 75.8% considered the Nutrition Information Panel important when buying a product for the first time.
- 87.4% rated their own knowledge of the Nutrition Information Panel as moderate to high.
What shoppers look for
When consumers read the ingredients list, the most frequently selected items were:
- Food additives: 41.0%
- Key ingredients: 37.2%
- Artificial sweeteners: 33.6%
- Performance-enhancing ingredients: 15.3%
People also mentioned looking for E-numbers, chemical-sounding ingredients, thickeners, palm oil, corn syrup, sugar position and the source of protein.
The confidence-versus-understanding problem
Consumers were tested using Nutrition Information Panels.
- When serving sizes were different, only 49.3% correctly identified which product contained more energy.
- 38.4% selected the wrong product.
- When serving sizes were identical, 80.4% answered correctly.
- 77.2% correctly identified the product containing less salt when serving sizes were the same.
The important detail:
- People who answered correctly were more likely to use the per 100 gram column.
- People who answered incorrectly were more likely to rely on the per serve figures.
Why some consumers do not trust labels
Among the 438 respondents who lacked confidence:
- 42.9% were unsure they could trust the information.
- 40.9% said labels were too small or difficult to read.
- 39.0% did not understand what the information meant.
- 35.6% said they did not have enough time to read labels while shopping.
- 17.4% did not find the information useful or relevant.
- 10.3% could not find information reflecting their personal values.
Other complaints included:
- Scientific language.
- Confusing numbers.
- Inconsistent serving sizes.
- Outdated or oversimplified information.
- Lack of context about how much should be eaten.
- Difficulty understanding fats, sugars, sodium and percentage daily intake.
How labels are being used
- Almost half of Nutrition Information Panel users referred to it always or most of the time.
- Only 4.8% said they never used it.
- Sugar was the most commonly checked nutrient, followed by energy, servings per package, fat per serving and serving size.
- People used the Nutrition Information Panel mainly to:
- track nutrient intake;
- compare similar products;
- check whether health claims were justified.
- The Health Star Rating was more often treated as a quick summary rather than a detailed nutritional tool.
What consumers want
- 58.0% said they would use the Health Star Rating more if it appeared on most food and drink products.
- 57.6% said they would trust it more if it appeared more consistently.
The research shows that people are:
- checking food more carefully;
- worried about additives and artificial ingredients;
- looking behind marketing claims;
- increasingly interested in what food contains;
- confident that labels help them, but not always able to interpret them accurately;
- questioning whether the information can be trusted.
But the label still does not ordinarily tell them:
- how the crop was grown;
- what condition the soil was in;
- how dependent production was on fertilisers and pesticides;
- whether soil biology was functioning;
- whether the plant developed a strong root system;
- how far the ingredient travelled;
- how long it was stored;
- who handled or processed it;
- what was blended into it before packaging.
Consumers are studying the back of the packet, but the food story began long before there was a packet.
SOURCE:
- FSANZ 2025 Consumer Insights Tracker
- 2,232 Australian and New Zealand adults
WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE LABEL?
The label describes the product that reached the packet.
Earthfood asks what happened before there was a packet.
What was applied to the crop?
How long was it stored?
Was it treated to slow mould, control browning, survive transport or extend its retail life?
Was it picked ripe, or picked early because it had thousands of kilometres to travel?
Was it grown for mineral density and flavour—or for size, uniformity, shelf life and appearance?
Modern food has to survive a long chain. It may pass through cold rooms, controlled-atmosphere storage, washes, coatings, preservatives, acidity regulators, anti-mould treatments and processing before it reaches the shopper.
Sorbates are used because they suppress yeasts and moulds. Benzoates and sulphites preserve other foods. Acids and acidity regulators can alter flavour, stabilise a product and slow microbial growth. Glazing agents can coat fruit and vegetables to protect their appearance and extend shelf life. These uses are legal and assessed by FSANZ—but they also reveal how much work is required to keep food looking fresh long after it has left the farm.
Citric acid is a good example of where this discussion can go wrong.
Its name sounds natural because citric acid occurs in citrus fruit. It is also widely used as an acidity regulator and processing ingredient. Its presence does not automatically make a food harmful. But neither does the familiar name tell the buyer where it came from, why it was added or how heavily processed the finished product has become.
We should not claim that every additive is poison. That gives the food industry an easy escape.
The real concern is the accumulated food system.
A preservative here.
An anti-mould treatment there.
A coating to hold appearance.
An acid to control flavour and stability.
A processing aid that may not always appear by its specific name.
A legally permitted chemical residue below the maximum limit.
Each may satisfy a separate rule. The consumer still eats the finished combination, repeatedly, across an entire diet. Food regulation itself assesses exposure by considering the amount, frequency and duration of contact with food chemicals—not merely whether a substance appears once in one product.
FSANZ has previously found that most exposure to sorbates, sulphites and benzoates was below accepted safety limits. It also found that high regular consumption of sulphites and benzoates could exceed the acceptable daily intake for some population groups, while noting that its modelling was conservative and did not establish clinical harm. That is not proof that these preservatives are “slow killers.” It is proof that total dietary exposure matters.
And none of this tells us what was missing from the food before processing began.
A label cannot tell you whether the plant had access to the minerals it required.
It cannot tell you whether the soil contained functioning microbial communities.
It cannot tell you whether the roots were deep and strong or whether the crop was pushed rapidly with soluble fertiliser.
It cannot tell you whether the food was grown for nourishment or manufactured to survive the journey.
That is why Earthfood begins at the other end.
Before the preservative.
Before the cold room.
Before the coating.
Before the factory corrected the colour, flavour, texture or shelf life.
Earthfood works in the soil, where the plant first builds what will eventually become food.
Because the best answer to a complicated label is not another marketing claim.
It is growing food properly in the first place.
Bronwyn Holm, Founder, Earthfood® Farmers' Friend • Gardeners' Guide • Soil Advocate • Growers’ Voice
Bronwyn Holm works alongside farmers, gardeners, land stewards and balcony pot legends to restore living soil through biology, not chemistry.
Earthfood® was built to return microbial intelligence to the ground quietly, effectively, and without dependence on industrial inputs.
© Bronwyn Holm 2026 Earthfood® • Earthfood Pantry™ • Earthfood Conversations™
All trademarks and intellectual property protected. All Rights Reserved.
Shop living soil microbes at yourearthfood.com to feed your soil, let life do the work.
Earthfood® is 100% certified Organic: USDA Certified. I OMRI Listed I Southern Cross (AU) Certified. I Australia Organics Certified I Eco-Cert (EU) I Organic Trade Association Approved I Carbon8 and Regener8 Standards I International Vegan Association Approved. I International Harmony Code.