The Dirty Secret of Clean Labels

You're standing in the supermarket aisle, comparing two nearly identical products. You flip them over to check the ingredients. One lists "preservative (202)." The other says "preservative (potassium sorbate)." Which one goes in your trolley?

If you're like many consumers, you chose the second one. It sounds more... natural, somehow. More like something you might actually know. Less like a laboratory experiment.

Here's the thing: they're exactly the same additive. 202 is potassium sorbate. Same chemical. Same function. Same safety profile. The only difference? The label.

And that difference is worth billions of dollars to food manufacturers.

Hmmmm, delicious!

The Numbers Game

For years, Australian food labels have included additive numbers alongside or instead of chemical names. It's a system inherited from Europe's E-number classification, designed to create a universal language for food additives across different languages and markets.

Walk through any supermarket and you'll see them: "colour (102)," "preservative (202)," "food acid (330)." These numbers are simply shorthand. 102 is tartrazine. 202 is potassium sorbate. 330 is citric acid (vitamin C).

But somewhere along the way, "the numbers" became sinister. Parents started saying "I don't want my kids eating numbers." Food bloggers warned about "chemical codes." The term "E-numbers" became synonymous with artificial, processed, unhealthy food—even though many E-numbers are perfectly natural substances like vitamin C (E300) or pectin from apples (E440).

Consumer research tells the story clearly. Studies show that consumers view numbered additives with suspicion and distrust, regardless of what those additives actually are. The number itself—that clinical, code-like appearance—triggers negative associations with chemistry, laboratories, and industrial food production.

Food manufacturers got the message.

Enter "Clean Label"

The "clean label" movement has swept through the food industry over the past decade. While there's no official definition, the concept is simple: products that appear more natural, with shorter ingredient lists, recognisable ingredients, and - critically - no artificial-sounding codes or numbers.

According to consumer research, 81% of shoppers say purchasing clean-label food products is important to them. The clean label ingredient market is projected to reach $80-90 billion globally by 2032. This isn't a niche trend. It's a fundamental shift in consumer psychology.

And manufacturers have responded not by fundamentally changing their products, but by changing how they label them.

I've personally seen "glucono delta-lactone" instead of "575" and "potassium sorbate" instead of "202". It's happening across supermarkets throughout Australia and globally. The additives haven't changed. The formulations haven't changed. The labels have changed.

Old El Paso, with a label that might deserve closer inspection if you're avoiding the numbers.

The Psychology Behind the Shift

Why does this work? Because perception matters more than reality when it comes to food choices.

Research into consumer behaviour reveals several cognitive biases at play:

The Familiarity Heuristic: Our brains use shortcuts to make quick decisions. Something that sounds familiar feels safer. "Potassium sorbate" contains the word "potassium"—we know what that is! It's in bananas! Meanwhile "202" could be anything.

The Natural = Healthy Fallacy: Consumers consistently rate ingredients with natural-sounding names as healthier and safer than the same ingredients with scientific-sounding names. Even when they're chemically identical.

Chemophobia: There's a growing fear of "chemicals" in food, even though literally everything is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Apples are full of chemicals. But the word "chemical" has become a marketing liability.

The Pronunciation Test: Food blogger Michael Pollan popularised the rule: "Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognise." This evolved into "don't eat ingredients you can't pronounce." Chemical names—even though they're the proper scientific terms—fail this test. Numbers fail even harder.

Food manufacturers realised they could exploit these biases with a simple strategy: keep the same formulations but make the labels sound more familiar and less "chemical."

The Marketing Playbook

Here's how the clean label makeover typically works:

• Step 1: Replace numbers with names

  202 becomes "potassium sorbate", 575 becomes "glucono delta-lactone", 330 becomes "citric acid"

  The additives remain unchanged. But suddenly, the product appears "cleaner."

• Step 2: Use alternate names for the same substances

  "Natural flavor" instead of listing specific flavor compounds"Vegetable extract" for what might previously have been listed as a preservative"Cultured corn syrup" instead of certain preservatives

  This is where things get murky. These aren't technically deceptive—they're accurate descriptions—but they obscure what's actually in the product.

• Step 3: Add marketing claims

  "No artificial preservatives" (because we switched to natural-sounding preservatives)

  "No artificial colours" (because we now use "vegetable extracts")

  "Simple ingredients you can recognise"

  These claims are often technically true while being fundamentally misleading about whether the product has actually become healthier.

The Dirty Secret of Clean Labels

Here's what consumer watchdog groups won't let manufacturers forget: a shorter ingredient list doesn't necessarily make food healthier, and a chemical isn't safer just because it sounds "natural."

Consider ascorbic acid versus caramel colouring. Ascorbic acid is simply vitamin C—safe and beneficial. But it sounds chemical, so consumers avoid it. Caramel colouring sounds natural and familiar, but some types contain cancer-causing compounds formed during manufacturing.

The name tells you nothing about safety.

Or take the case of companies replacing synthetic preservatives with "natural" alternatives like rosemary extract or vegetable juice concentrate. Sounds healthier, right? Except these natural alternatives often need to be used in higher quantities to achieve the same effect. They can change the flavour profile. And they're not necessarily safer—they're just less stigmatised.

The Ultra-Processed Problem

Ultra-processed foods—products that go through extensive industrial processing and contain ingredients not typically used in home cooking—are increasingly linked to health problems. Studies associate them with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other conditions.

But instead of actually reducing processing or improving formulations, many manufacturers are simply making the ingredient lists look friendlier. The ultra-processing continues. The long list of additives remains. They just sound less scary now but really it's just lipstick on a processed pig.

The Australian Context

In Australia, FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) requires that food additives be listed by their class name followed by either the name of the additive OR the additive number. Manufacturers have the choice.

For years, many chose numbers—they were simpler, took less space on labels, and were internationally standardised. But as consumer sentiment shifted against "numbers," manufacturers increasingly opted for chemical names instead.

Australian regulations haven't changed. The additives haven't changed. Consumer psychology changed, and manufacturers adapted their labelling strategies accordingly.

The additives are still the same ones approved by FSANZ. They're still safe at approved levels. But they appear different to consumers scanning supermarket shelves, and that appearance drives purchasing decisions worth billions.

When Clean Labels Actually Mean Something

To be fair, not all clean label initiatives are purely cosmetic. Some companies have genuinely reformulated products:

• Actually removing preservatives and accepting shorter shelf lives

• Replacing artificial colours with vegetable extracts (not just relabelling them)

• Simplifying formulations to use fewer ingredients

• Improving sourcing and production methods

The challenge? There's often no way to tell the difference from the label alone.

A product that eliminated five unnecessary additives looks the same on the shelf as one that just renamed them. Both can claim "clean label." Both can say "no artificial ingredients." One has fundamentally improved. The other has just improved its marketing.

What This Means for Brands

If you're a brand navigating these waters, the strategic implications are significant:

1. The Transparency Trap

   You might think being truly transparent—explaining what additives do and why they're there—would win consumer trust. But research suggests it often backfires. The more you explain, the more "chemical" and "processed" you sound. Silence or vague reassurances work better than detailed honesty.

   
   

   This creates a perverse incentive: brands that genuinely improve their products are punished by consumer perception, while brands that simply rename ingredients are rewarded.

   
   

2. The Regulatory Arbitrage

   Different markets have different rules and different consumer sensitivities. A product might be reformulated in the EU (where certain additives face stricter rules) but keep the same formulation in Australia, only changing the label presentation. Same product, different perception.

   
   

3. The Premium Positioning

   "Clean label" products typically command 15-30% price premiums. If you're charging more, consumers expect something genuinely different—but what they're really paying for is often just the perception of difference.

   
   

4. The Competitive Pressure

   Once your competitors go clean label, you face pressure to follow—whether or not you believe the changes are meaningful. It becomes an arms race of perceived purity.

   
   

The Bigger Question: Whose Responsibility?

This raises uncomfortable questions about marketing ethics and consumer protection.

Is it deceptive to change "202" to "potassium sorbate" when nothing else has changed? Technically, no—both are accurate ways to identify the same approved additive. But is it misleading? Many consumer advocates would say yes.

Who's responsible for correcting consumer misconceptions? Should manufacturers educate, or simply respond to preferences? Should regulators step in? Should media and health professionals do more to explain what additives actually are?

Does it matter if consumers are making choices based on flawed information, as long as they feel good about their purchases? Some argue that perceived control and satisfaction has its own value, even if based on misconceptions.

These aren't easy questions, and different stakeholders have different answers.

What You Can Do

As a consumer navigating this landscape, look beyond the front of pack and get heavier into the ingredients if this is important to you. Also, I rarely wear my glasses whilst shopping in the supermarket... which is actually how this whole subject came up - I can't read detailed ingredients but I can pick out if something is a number instead of a word. And I selected one brand of tortillas over another because I didn't see a number in the ingredient list. Only after I got home and pulled out my reading glasses did I even realise something was amok.

If you are a food manufacturer / marketer, FFS, do better and aim for transparency or genuine product improvements rather than trying to hoodwink an unsuspecting public.

Also, most numbers in foods won't kill you (at least immediately), so can we maybe just calm down on the hysteria a bit. If you are that concerned, just stay away from anything in a packet.

Final Thought

The shift from "preservative (202)" to "preservative (potassium sorbate)" represents a fascinating case study in how perception shapes markets. The same additive becomes more acceptable simply by being presented differently.

It's brilliant marketing that's sending it's authors straight to hell. It's responding to consumer preferences. And it's fundamentally about appearance rather than substance.

Whether that's ethical, helpful, or problematic depends on your perspective. What's undeniable is that it's happening throughout supermarkets right now, and many consumers don't realise they're seeing the same additives they've always eaten—just dressed up in friendlier language.

The clean label movement has genuine value when it drives actual product improvement. But when it's just linguistic window dressing on the same ultra-processed formulations, it's a game of perception management that makes food seem healthier without making it so.

And that's worth understanding, whether you're the one creating the labels or the one reading them.

What's your view on clean label marketing? Is it meeting consumer demand or exploiting consumer misconceptions? At The Honeycomb Effect, we help brands navigate complex questions like these—developing communication strategies that build genuine trust rather than just managing perception. Let's talk about how your brand can win on substance, not just appearance.