Background: Ultra-processed food (UPF) is currently not included in most countries’ dietary guidance. However, there may be growing public interest and consumer avoidance of UPF due to media reporting of studies on the negative health outcomes associated with UPFs. Methods: We surveyed 2386 UK adults (M age = 45 years, 50% female) during February–April 2024. Participants completed measures on awareness of the term UPF, whether the UPF status of foods affects their dietary decision-making, and confidence in identifying UPFs. Participants categorised a list of 10 foods (5 UPFs and 5 non-UPFs) as UPF vs. not, before rating whether information about studies linking UPF to worse health impacts on their negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs. Results: Most participants (73%) were aware of the term UPF and 58% reported that their food choices are determined by whether they believe a food is ultra-processed or not. Participants with the highest income and education levels were most likely to report both being aware of, and, avoiding consuming UPFs. Most participants could not accurately categorise whether foods were UPFs. Some sociodemographic groups (e.g., higher education levels) were more likely to accurately categorise UPFs but were also more likely to incorrectly believe that non-UPFs were UPFs. Participants tended to report that UPF-health risk information increases negative affect and acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs. Conclusions: In this study, a large number of UK adults reported avoiding consuming UPFs. This was particularly pronounced among those with the highest education and income levels.

Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatized health conditions leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease model of addiction influence public stigma but result in equivocal findings-in line with the mixed-blessings model, Kelly et al. (2021) found that while the label "chronically relapsing brain disease" reduced blame attribution, it decreased prognostic optimism and increased perceived danger and need for continued care; however, Rundle et al. (2021) conclude absence of evidence. This study isolates the different factors used in these two studies to assess whether health condition (drug use vs. health concern), etiological label (brain disease vs. problem), and attributional judgment (low vs. high treatment stability) influence public stigma toward problematic substance use. Overall, 1,613 participants were assigned randomly to one of the eight vignette conditions that manipulated these factors. They completed self-report measures of discrete and general public stigma and an indirect measure of discrimination. Greater social distance, danger, and public stigma but lower blame were ascribed to drug use relative to a health concern. Greater (genetic) blame was reported when drug use was labeled as a "chronically relapsing brain disease" relative to a "problem." Findings for attributional judgment were either inconclusive or statistically equivalent. The labels used to describe problematic substance use appear to impact discrete elements of stigma. We suggest that addiction is a functional attribution, which may explain the mixed literature on the impact of etiological labels on stigma to date. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Food insecurity is linked with obesity and while the mechanisms behind this association are complex, lower levels of leisure-time physical activity in those with food insecurity may contribute to this. Individual-level factors (such as concerns of performing physical activity) may partly determine levels of physical activity within individuals with food insecurity, as such individuals may seek to minimise their levels of physical activity in order to preserve energy. Using the Food Insecurity Physical Activity Concerns Scale (FIPACS) (used to measure concerns of performing leisure-time physical activity, focusing on factors specific to food insecurity), the current study investigated whether the association between household food insecurity and body mass index (BMI) is explained by a mediation pathway of FIPACS scores and leisure-time physical activity. We also investigated whether the association between food insecurity and FIPACS scores is moderated by nutrition knowledge. Participants (N = 329, food insecure = 55) completed an online survey consisting of the FIPACS, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire long-form (IPAQ), the Diet, Disease, and Weight management sub-section of the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire, a measure of diet quality, and self-reported BMI. Findings revealed that FIPACS scores and leisure-time physical activity did not mediate the association between food insecurity and BMI (b < 0.01, SE = 0.01). Additionally, nutrition knowledge did not moderate the association between food insecurity and FIPACS scores (b = -0.09, SE = 0.08). Findings suggest that concerns of performing physical activity in the context of food insecurity are unrelated to leisure-time physical activity, and that these two factors do not explain the association between food insecurity and BMI. Future research should investigate other factors in the link between food insecurity, physical activity, and BMI.

Food insecurity - defined as having limited access to nutritious foods - is linked with obesity. Previous research has also shown that food insecurity is associated with lower levels of leisure-time physical activity (physical activity performed outside of essential activities). This association may occur in part due to concerns about preserving levels of energy during times of food shortage. Currently, no scale exists which measures this construct. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate such a scale - the food insecurity physical activity concerns scale (FIPACS). Participants (N = 603, individuals with food insecurity = 108) completed an online survey, consisting of the FIPACS, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ), the restraint subscale of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), the amotivation subscale of the Behaviour Regulation In Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2), and the Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Approach System Reactivity scale (BIS/BAS) to assess convergent and divergent validity. An exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor model of the FIPACS - namely 'Concerns relating to hunger', 'Concerns of replenishment and calories', 'Concerns of physiological effects of exercise' and 'Compensatory behaviours' which was verified through a confirmatory factor analysis. To assess test-retest reliability, 100 participants completed the FIPACS again two weeks later. The FIPACS had good internal, test-retest reliability and divergent validity. However, there was limited evidence of convergent validity. Future studies could incorporate this scale when investigating the association between food insecurity and physical activity.