Food: Consumers Prioritize Fresh Ingredients and Green Packaging Over Taste, Convenience
What do consumers want companies to concentrate on when they’re developing new food products? Taste? Convenience? Calories? The answer may surprise you. According to a new study conducted by Ipsos Marketing, Consumer Goods, the top three things consumers want from food manufacturers are: fresher ingredients, increased health benefits, and more environmentally friendly packaging.
The study consisted of an online survey of about 1,000 consumers from 18 different countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and the U.S.), and the results clearly show that when it comes to food, consumers today are more focused on health and the environment than convenience, novelty, and even taste.
“We are seeing a global consumer movement toward heightened consciousness of health, wellness and environmental factors in their food purchasing decisions,” says David Pring, Executive Vice President, Ipsos Marketing, Global Consumer Goods. “These are key developments in the food market, and not just in North America and Europe. We are also seeing that taste, convenience and product difference – aspects that were probably more characteristic of food product drivers towards the end of the last millennium – are taking a back seat in a world now more focused on making a positive impact on freshness and health as well as the sustainability of the planet.”
While it’s no great surprise that consumers prioritize food freshness and health benefits, I was particularly pleased to see that the survey respondents also placed a high value on green packaging. Corporations like Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, and Wal-Mart (which just last week announced plans to expand its Sustainable Packaging Scorecard in Mexico) seem to be out ahead of the curve on this, and it makes me wonder if Pike Research’s estimate about the growth of sustainable packaging over the next five years might actually be too low?









