4.3 Article

Barriers to and facilitators of ultra-processed food consumption: perceptions of Brazilian adults

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 68-76

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980017001665

Keywords

Ultra-processed food products; Nutrition; Food environment; Qualitative research; Brazil

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2009/17517-0]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [559517/2010-6, 476881/2010-2]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [09/17517-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To explore how individuals perceive the availability of ultra-processed foods in their neighbourhoods and the barriers to and facilitators of consumption of such foods. Design A qualitative design was chosen. In-depth, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted and a content analysis was performed. Setting SAo Paulo, Brazil. Subjects A purposeful sample of adults (n 48), stratified by sex and age group (20-39 years and 40-59 years). Results All participants perceived their neighbourhoods as favourable regarding the availability of ultra-processed foods. Three barriers were identified: health concerns, not appreciating the taste of these foods and not being used to eating them. Five facilitators, however, were identified: appreciating the taste of these foods, their children's preference, convenience, addiction and cost. Conclusions Participants perceived their neighbourhoods as favourable to the consumption of ultra-processed foods and reported more facilitators than barriers to their consumption. Reported barriers point to the need to include measures promoting a healthy food system and traditional eating practices. The facilitators reinforce the idea that these foods are habit-forming and that regulatory measures to offset the exposure to ultra-processed foods are necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available